Trump continues to back aluminum and steel tariffs despite Republican fears

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 11:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's no doubt this move will help a few select industries and workers that tend to be in Red areas, but the overall impact will be negative for the country.

In terms of playing to your base, it's a good move. In terms of guarding the economy, it's a poor move. 

Big news around here about a steel production facility re-opening. Going to hire 500 people too.

That IS good news for the region.

And it also means I was wrong that the steel mills wouldn't re-open.    (Mostly because they were torn down...lol)

But I agree that everything I have read said it's winning one battle while setting up to lose the war.

I guess we'll see.

[masterpanthera_t]

I've heard that 70% of US steel usage comes from the US. And most of the rest comes from Canada. I am not sure if I'm mixing up the numbers for aluminum with steel here. Also, that whichever it is (aluminum and/or steel), we hardly import any of it from China. So from what I've heard, these tariffs don't really address the problem they claim to address (China's protection of its industries). I've also heard that the deterioration of the steel industry (in the 70s, IIRC), happened way before China really started becoming a manufacturing hub, and that it was the cause of automation (I don't necessarily believe this one way or another, it's just what I've heard).

I've also heard opposing views that this will help US workers (and based on a couple of posts in this thread), maybe that is happening.

However, one of the main issues with these tariffs are that they will hurt countries who are US allies (Canada, Germany), and not impact China much, if at all. And there's some speculation that this will be very detrimental to the US economy as a whole (mostly affecting all of us consumers of steel and aluminum), even if it helps some workers.

Having said all that, it remains to be seen what the overall effects are in the next 6 months to a year, but there is some cause for concern if "experts" are correct. Gary Cohn's resignation isn't really reassuring at the moment, but I will hope against hope that this decision ends up working out.

[*Nately120*]

(03-08-2018, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: Big news around here about a steel production facility re-opening. Going to hire 500 people too.

That IS good news for the region.

And it also means I was wrong that the steel mills wouldn't re-open.    (Mostly because they were torn down...lol)

But I agree that everything I have read said it's winning one battle while setting up to lose the war.

I guess we'll see.

So you're saying this might be the economic equivalent of Hue Jackson trading a 1st and 2nd for Carson Palmer in order to win a few more regular season games now and not caring if the next guy in charge pays the long-term bill for Hue's short-term gains?  

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 12:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So you're saying this might be the economic equivalent of Hue Jackson trading a 1st and 2nd for Carson Palmer in order to win a few more regular season games now and not caring if the next guy in charge pays the long-term bill for Hue's short-term gains?  

Perhaps.  


But more that while the steel industry will see a bump (size TBD) other industries that rely on steel will be hurt (size TBD).

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 11:02 AM)Benton Wrote: Not sure where $100k comes into it, but as far as that community, the return of a couple hundred jobs making $15-$30 an hour will be huge. Same in my town where the ameri steel plant closed, laying off a couple hundred making in the same range. Most of those guys who stayed have ended up working as general labor for 10-$12 an hour or driving trucks.

If that means a toaster costs 32 cents more, I think it’s a good thing. Especially given that there’s more people who can — in theory — afford toasters.

I do wonder how trump supporters like him making a labor union happy.

Trumps base is the members of the labor unions. Which is why he is taking this position. He is solidifying the rust belt again ahead of the mid terms.

[CKwi88]

The more I read about this, the more I think it's lip service and PR.

In exempting Canada and Mexico, and allowing other countries to appeal or seek waivers, this could largely be all show and no substance.

So pretty much par for the course.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-08-2018, 06:50 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The more I read about this, the more I think it's lip service and PR.

In exempting Canada and Mexico, and allowing other countries to appeal or seek waivers, this could largely be all show and no substance.

So pretty much par for the course.

It’s exaclty that. Solidifying his rust belt base.

There is a reason why 5 Democrat senators are trailing in the polls now.

There will be some attempts but it’s going to be hard to bring back those jobs. This is just a move to put those rust belters in the GOP column moving forward since the Democrats are going full leftist.

[Benton]

(03-08-2018, 11:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's no doubt this move will help a few select industries and workers that tend to be in Red areas, but the overall impact will be negative for the country.

In terms of playing to your base, it's a good move. In terms of guarding the economy, it's a poor move. 

I'd disagree.

Jobs requiring a high level of education are great. There's no knocking advanced learning. But there's always going to be a significant chunk of the population that is not there. They aren't going to be chemists and botanists and coders. But many of those people don't mind working hard, they just need somewhere to work. Some way to contribute to the economy. The last 40ish years, we've moved away from supporting those people. We made it cheaper to do labor in other countries and then acted amazed when there was no one here who wanted to do labor for below a living wage.

People want to work and this will go a long way to putting a lot of people back to work. Not just those in the plants, but the spin off industries, too.

In terms of improving the economy, this and re-doing NAFTA are strong moves. People with jobs — generally — make more and spend more than people without jobs. That's not playing to a base. It's simple math.

Will steel and aluminium cost more? Slightly. Will increased wages offset that? Provided that we keep producing and manufacturing domestically, most likely.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 06:50 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The more I read about this, the more I think it's lip service and PR.

In exempting Canada and Mexico, and allowing other countries to appeal or seek waivers, this could largely be all show and no substance.

So pretty much par for the course.

You mean to say Trump is *gasp* lying?!?!  Just to win political points??!?!

Who would be dumb enough to fall for that AGAIN after his "locker her up" campaign?

(03-08-2018, 07:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s exaclty that.   Solidifying his rust belt base.    

There is a reason why 5 Democrat senators are trailing in the polls now.  

There will be some attempts but it’s going to be hard to bring back those jobs.   This is just a move to put those rust belters in the GOP column moving forward since the Democrats are going full leftist.

Never mind.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 08:53 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd disagree.

Jobs requiring a high level of education are great. There's no knocking advanced learning. But there's always going to be a significant chunk of the population that is not there. They aren't going to be chemists and botanists and coders. But many of those people don't mind working hard, they just need somewhere to work. Some way to contribute to the economy. The last 40ish years, we've moved away from supporting those people. We made it cheaper to do labor in other countries and then acted amazed when there was no one here who wanted to do labor for below a living wage.

People want to work and this will go a long way to putting a lot of people back to work. Not just those in the plants, but the spin off industries, too.

In terms of improving the economy, this and re-doing NAFTA are strong moves. People with jobs — generally — make more and spend more than people without jobs. That's not playing to a base. It's simple math.

Will steel and aluminium cost more? Slightly. Will increased wages offset that? Provided that we keep producing and manufacturing domestically, most likely.

Here's a problem I see:  Are they going to be the union jobs that left 30 years ago?

Better wages? Health insurance? Pensions? 

My guess is no.

Sure, some will be.  But most will not.

So how much of a bump in wages we say may be small.

[hollodero]

(03-08-2018, 08:53 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd disagree.

Jobs requiring a high level of education are great. There's no knocking advanced learning. But there's always going to be a significant chunk of the population that is not there. They aren't going to be chemists and botanists and coders. But many of those people don't mind working hard, they just need somewhere to work. Some way to contribute to the economy. The last 40ish years, we've moved away from supporting those people. We made it cheaper to do labor in other countries and then acted amazed when there was no one here who wanted to do labor for below a living wage.

People want to work and this will go a long way to putting a lot of people back to work. Not just those in the plants, but the spin off industries, too.

In terms of improving the economy, this and re-doing NAFTA are strong moves. People with jobs — generally — make more and spend more than people without jobs. That's not playing to a base. It's simple math.

Will steel and aluminium cost more? Slightly. Will increased wages offset that? Provided that we keep producing and manufacturing domestically, most likely.

 
I sure don't intend to dismiss your whole point, but Trump's tariffs won't just affect steel and aluminum. There will be retaliations. You'd have to take that into account.

[BmorePat87]

(03-08-2018, 08:53 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd disagree.

Jobs requiring a high level of education are great. There's no knocking advanced learning. But there's always going to be a significant chunk of the population that is not there. They aren't going to be chemists and botanists and coders. But many of those people don't mind working hard, they just need somewhere to work. Some way to contribute to the economy. The last 40ish years, we've moved away from supporting those people. We made it cheaper to do labor in other countries and then acted amazed when there was no one here who wanted to do labor for below a living wage.

People want to work and this will go a long way to putting a lot of people back to work. Not just those in the plants, but the spin off industries, too.

In terms of improving the economy, this and re-doing NAFTA are strong moves. People with jobs — generally — make more and spend more than people without jobs. That's not playing to a base. It's simple math.

Will steel and aluminium cost more? Slightly. Will increased wages offset that? Provided that we keep producing and manufacturing domestically, most likely.

I understand the need for embracing jobs that don't require college degrees, but some are predicting this move could cost a similar blue collar industry billions and tens of thousands of jobs. Ford and GM could both see a billion dollar price tag associated with this, which is why I ask if it truly outweighs the costs. 

This is a move will that will benefit one industry at the cost of dozens of other industries. 

[Dill]

(03-08-2018, 09:08 PM)hollodero Wrote:  
I sure don't intend to dismiss your whole point, but Trump's tariffs won't just affect steel and aluminum. There will be retaliations. You'd have to take that into account.

You EU guys over there are just waiting to get back at us, aren't you!

Well bring it on. We'll match your blue jeans and Harley tariffs and raise you musical instruments, footwear, and railway equipment!

[hollodero]

(03-09-2018, 03:28 AM)Dill Wrote: You EU guys over there are just waiting to get back at us, aren't you!

Well, we kind of have to, right. Imagine what others would think if we don't.

(03-09-2018, 03:28 AM)Dill Wrote: Well bring it on. We'll match your blue jeans and Harley tariffs and raise you musical instruments, footwear, and railway equipment!

Nooo... not railway equipment!
Nah, as long as you keep drinking Red Bull like madmen, my country will live. These are all peanuts really. By the way, peanut tariff's ahead.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2018, 05:34 AM)hollodero Wrote: Nooo... not railway equipment!
Nah, as long as you keep drinking Red Bull like madmen, my country will live. These are all peanuts really. By the way, peanut tariff's ahead.

I just learned a couple of weeks ago about Red Bull originating in Austria. I have had maybe one can in my life, many years ago, so I never cared. It was interesting to hear that history, though.

That being said, we need to slap a tariff on that shit!

[Benton]

(03-08-2018, 08:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Here's a problem I see:  Are they going to be the union jobs that left 30 years ago?

Better wages? Health insurance? Pensions? 

My guess is no.

Sure, some will be.  But most will not.

So how much of a bump in wages we say may be small.

For our area, these are jobs that went out in the last 10-12 years. What the workers are hearing is that the jobs will be returning at those pay rates.

(03-08-2018, 09:08 PM)hollodero Wrote:  
I sure don't intend to dismiss your whole point, but Trump's tariffs won't just affect steel and aluminum. There will be retaliations. You'd have to take that into account.

Awesome. Maybe if we have additional tariffs, other industries will start producing again here too. I hope the retaliations are broad. China and Russia can only keep flooding the world with cheap resources to a point. Eventually they will run out of resources.

(03-09-2018, 01:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I understand the need for embracing jobs that don't require college degrees, but some are predicting this move could cost a similar blue collar industry billions and tens of thousands of jobs. Ford and GM could both see a billion dollar price tag associated with this, which is why I ask if it truly outweighs the costs. 

This is a move will that will benefit one industry at the cost of dozens of other industries. 

My heart breaks for Ford and gm. They pushed for nafta to save money. The repercussions of that have by and large been the long slow shrinking economy of the last three decades. Why? Because used to they paid a living wage and that supported dozens of industries and thousands of businesses.

I’d be in favor of tariffs on ford and gm plants in Canada and Mexico too.

And, no, you can make cars here and still make a profit. Several foreign car makers do it. Many of them using us steel. Foreign companies have figured it or. Maybe us companies should follow suit instead of just looking for handouts.

[masterpanthera_t]

I am debating whether to file this under "even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while" or a "very intelligent move" category. Based on the chaos in this administration, it could be the former category. However, considering that with this move, Trump essentially built his image up with potential undecided voters in the blue collar regions of the country that can potentially make him seem both tough, and protective of US workers, while possibly not having as much of a real impact (I think so because Canada and Mexico are exempt from this, and depending on the situation he can exempt any other country he wants, thereby avoiding retaliatory tariffs from countries/regions which themselves won't be affected due to exemptions). This can make him look tough against China, while at the same time not really affect China in this case (I could be wrong, but I don't believe hardly significant amounts of Chinese steel are imported by us), and help gather some voters in the midwest or nearby.

On a related note I've heard Brazil is irritated with the tariffs at the moment as they use US coal to fuel their steel industry which they then turn around and sell to the US, but again, Trump can simply exempt Brazil and likely do so quietly without much fanfare, and he can craft this law as he sees fit. In the coming months we will see his plan unfolding and if he has crafted it well by strong planning, then I guess I will put this in the "intelligent move" category, but if it's poorly executed, then I suppose it was just an impulsive thing he did without proper planning, and this will fit the "blind squirrel ...." category.

[BmorePat87]

(03-09-2018, 10:13 AM)Benton Wrote: My heart breaks for Ford and gm. They pushed for nafta to save money. The repercussions of that have by and large been the long slow shrinking economy of the last three decades. Why? Because used to they paid a living wage and that supported dozens of industries and thousands of businesses.

I’d be in favor of tariffs on ford and gm plants in Canada and Mexico too.

And, no, you can make cars here and still make a profit. Several foreign car makers do it. Many of them using us steel. Foreign companies have figured it or. Maybe us companies should follow suit instead of just looking for handouts.

Is free trade really best characterized as a hand out? I thought part of this was trying to impose tariffs to counter the fact that other countries are literally giving out  handouts in the form of subsidies?

[Benton]

(03-09-2018, 07:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Is free trade really best characterized as a hand out? I thought part of this was trying to impose tariffs to counter the fact that other countries are literally giving out  handouts in the form of subsidies?

That’s part of the issue.

Other countries over produce material to keep employment and production high. Since it’s the government running it, they do it to keep people working and happier. Their excess product isn’t needed, so they dump it into other markets. Not a huge amount ends up here, but enough does to lower the value.

Us companies complain about the cost when we have high tariffs like under bush, but it hasn’t ever effected the end price of goods. Why? Because the end price of goods goes up on most of those items anyway. It’s not like Chevy lowered prices on the Tahoe when they were getting cheaper steel.

[Dill]

(03-09-2018, 07:51 PM)Benton Wrote: That’s part of the issue.

Other countries over produce material to keep employment and production high. Since it’s the government running it, they do it to keep people working and happier. Their excess product isn’t needed, so they dump it into other markets. Not a huge amount ends up here, but enough does to lower the value.

Us companies complain about the cost when we have high tariffs like under bush, but it hasn’t ever effected the end price of goods. Why? Because the end price of goods goes up on most of those items anyway. It’s not like Chevy lowered prices on the Tahoe when they were getting cheaper steel.

In a free market, shouldn't one of these car makers at least look for a competitive edge by lowering prices just that much?

Or is it that they just can't let go of the higher price no matter what, like one of those coconut monkey traps with peanuts inside. Monkey can slip his hand in the hole, but cant pull it out with a fistful of peanuts. And won't let go of the peanuts, even if it means he's monkey soup.



Or is the a gentleman's agreement between competitors not to do that?