Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Paying For Trump's Wall
Date:	5/29/2018 5:45:16 PM (updated 5/29/2018 5:45:45 PM)

Last week holding off tariffs. Now, typical Trump a major change...."On Tuesday, the White House said the administration would proceed with its proposal to impose 25% tariffs on $50 billion worth of goods from China, and place new limits on Chinese investments in US high-tech industries."

25%x50 billion= $12.5 billion paid for by the citizens of the USA......which can be used to pay 8% of the $100 billion wall. Tariffs like this are a step toward  a downturn in the economy. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Hmmmmmm....
Date:	5/30/2018 8:22:31 AM

Interesting observation.  So you are saying that taking money out of the hands of Americans (in this case with tariffs) harms the economy.  Glad to have you on board with your support for lower taxes and burdensome regulations Goofy because it's exactly the same concept and has the same result.  Hence, I oppose high taxes, tariffs and regulations because they all accomplish the same thing, reduced economic output.  

Of course I would be remiss if I didn't point out the obvious difference.  If tariffs raise the price of some product you always have the choice not to buy it.  Not so with taxes or regulations where that money is taken from you at the point of a gun.  Another difference is that little thing called competition.  Higher prices is an invitation to competitors to step into a market which increases supply and drives down pricing, albeit with a lag in time before it becomes effective.  Not so with taxes or regulations.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Hmmmmmm....
Date:	5/30/2018 9:01:44 AM (updated 5/30/2018 9:05:07 AM)

True...you don't have to buy which is an interesting view for a Right Winger. Put on a tariff and destroy an industry.   And,  as sales disappear because of the higher prices it can destroy an entire market. What will happen to farmers if Chna retaliates with tariffs on farm exports? Tariffs are bad in this global age and Trump is leading us to a downturn before the 2020 election.

Suggesting that competition will can be a saving grace is  obvious except I would argue a 25% tariff is too much of a hurdle. 5 to 10% maybe....

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Hmmmmmm....
Date:	5/30/2018 11:19:35 AM (updated 5/30/2018 11:26:43 AM)

Why is not having to buy a product an interesting view of a conservative?  It is exactly the opposite.  We believe in free markets and freedom to choose and if tariffs or taxes or whatever make a product more expensive than people are willing to spend they will simply not buy it.

U.S. tariffs are not going to or at least intended to destroy U.S. industry.  The desired effect is just the opposite.  They are a misguided effort to prop up an industry and almost always fail because the affected country usually retaliates with a tariff of their own on whatever product we sell to them. And that isn't exactly a new thing as we saw with Smoot-Hawley in the 30's.  But as Trump has rightly pointed out, when you run such a huge trade deficit with a country like China they have way more to lose in a trade war than we do.  It's hard for them to do more than target specific industries that sell to China, which obviously pales in comparison to what we buy from them.  It is much easier for us to harm them more broadly.  In the end no one wins from a trade war but if Trump can leverage the threat of tariffs to level the playing field it will actually benefit the U.S. economy.

As for your view about a 25% versus 10% or 15% tariff I think you either misunderstand or I don't get your point.  The higher the tariff on other countries products the more it theoretically helps similar industries in our country.  Unfortunately because of retaliation it is usually not a net positive and the real loser is the American consumer.  Sure, put a 25% tariff on Chinese steel and it makes U.S. steel more competitive and helps that industry.  But at the same time it harms other industries that buy Chinese steel (like automakers) as well as those industries the Chinese target with tariffs of their own.  This is why I oppose tariffs but I am willing to see if this approach actually results in a net positive.  If it results in a prolonged trade war then both the U.S. and Chinese economies will suffer.  If the Chinese blink and agree to reduce their tariffs it will help our economy and at the same time help their consumers who will have access to U.S. goods at lower prices.  And they have already reduced tariffs on U.S. consumer products in response to threats of tariffs on their products.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Hmmmmmm....
Date:	5/30/2018 3:13:10 PM

I think we are pretty much in agreement on tariffs.

"If tariffs raise the price of some product you always have the choice not to buy it."  I just found that coming from the Right to be an interesting comment. It is exactly opposite from where the Right likes to preach. Sell more product.. Hire more Americans...Now, the Right implements a 25% tariff and one of the ramifications is sell less product cause the price is too high. Hardly a strong endoresement for the Right Wing POTUS and his henchman.

As to competition, my comment was basically a 5-10% tariff could possibly be absorbed. Whereas 25% cannot be absorbed by very many, if any, viable markets.

It all comes down to elasticity of demand for the product.....

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Hmmmmmm....
Date:	5/30/2018 4:57:58 PM

I agree we are on the same page but where I think you're mistaken is to place Trump on the right vis-a-vis tariffs.  That is clearly not a "conservative" viewpoint and is very much an area where I disagree with him if he actually gets us into a long-term trade war. 

But if he proposes to use tariffs or even the threat of them as a negotiating tool and China actually thinks he's crazy enough to engage in such a battle they may capitulate because they clearly have more to lose than us, way more in fact.  An empty threat isn't much good and maybe that's one side benefit of Trump's inconsistency is that other's are just not sure what he will do and that may actually result in a better deal for the U.S.  All I know is the traditional, mainstream political approach to these issues have done nothing of any value in the past so I'm willing to see how his approach works.  Time will tell.  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Hmmmmmm....
Date:	5/31/2018 11:37:56 AM (updated 5/31/2018 11:38:58 AM)

"The move triggered immediate retaliation by the E.U. against American products including Kentucky bourbon and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. European leaders also vowed to proceed with a complaint to the World Trade Organization."

Thanks Donald. Harley is closing their plant in Kansas and opening a plant in Thailand.  This is just the start to the war. Not good for the future of the economy. Brilliant move to retaliate with 2 iconic USA products.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Hmmmmmm....
Date:	5/31/2018 11:44:52 AM (updated 5/31/2018 11:47:36 AM)

Yep, this is exactly why I oppose tariffs.  Again, this is a negotiation and it isn't over.  Time will tell whether the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term pain.  As I said before, time will tell and I am not inclined as yet to get fixated on what one company is doing because Trump could just trot out some steel exec who will talk about all the new jobs they can create because of the tariffs.

On a final note, this isn't exactly a brilliant move by anyone.  It is exactly what you would expect them to do. Target a company or a product that will make headlines and put political pressure on the administration to back off.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Why Harley and Bourbon???
Date:	5/31/2018 2:23:56 PM

From March 2018

President Donald Trump declared Friday that "trade wars are good, and easy to win.”

But European Union officials are already planning retaliatory actions, targeting products from politically sensitive Republican-run states, including the imposition of tariffs on Harley-Davidsons made in Speaker Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin; duties on bourbon made in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky; and duties on orange juice from Florida, a critical swing state.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Why Harley and Bourbon???
Date:	5/31/2018 4:18:48 PM

I already told you this isn't exactly genius nor is it unexpected.  That's what happens when you engage in a trade war. What is your point?!?!?

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Why Harley and Bourbon???
Date:	5/31/2018 7:37:57 PM

What is your point?!?!? HMMMMMMMMM.....Thinking...........I thought the selection of Harley and bourbon was made today...just posting to show it was made in March. I missed it in March and you weren't man enough to post it back in March. You need to stay on top of important economic news and quit surfing the web for a favorable pool.