Trade Wars and Tariffs

#5,376
#5,376
bamawriter said:
Trump has < 2 more days to wrap up 90 deals. Should we assume that tomorrow will be a busy news day?
Click to expand...

The deals won’t be as favorable for those that don’t negotiate. But after they FA and FO they’ll be back to ask for relief. The US wouldn’t be in such a better position if they weren’t already being taken advantage of.
 
#5,378
#5,378
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The deals won’t be as favorable for those that don’t negotiate. But after they FA and FO they’ll be back to ask for relief. The US wouldn’t be in such a better position if they weren’t already being taken advantage of.
Click to expand...
So do you similarly advocate that our government should stop unfairly subsidizing our farmers? Or is it do as we say not as we do?



Do United States trade policies protect American farmers unfairly?

U.S. trade policies do provide significant protections for American farmers, which some argue are unfair to foreign competitors. The U.S. heavily subsidizes its agricultural sector—$25.7 billion in direct payments to farmers in 2022, per USDA data. Programs like crop insurance, price supports, and disaster relief reduce financial risks for U.S. farmers, giving them an edge over farmers in countries with less government support. For example, U.S. corn and soybean farmers benefit from subsidies that lower production costs, allowing them to export at competitive prices, which can undercut farmers in developing nations like Brazil or Argentina.

Tariffs and trade barriers also protect U.S. farmers. The U.S. imposes tariffs on certain agricultural imports (e.g., 350% on some dairy products under USMCA), limiting foreign competition. Critics, especially from the EU and Canada, argue these protections distort markets and favor U.S. producers disproportionately.

However, defenders of U.S. policies argue they’re necessary to counter other countries’ subsidies and tariffs. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, for instance, provided €54 billion in 2022, and China’s agricultural subsidies are estimated at $212 billion annually. Without U.S. protections, farmers could face volatile global markets and unfair competition from state-backed foreign producers.

The "unfairness" depends on perspective: U.S. policies shield domestic farmers but can harm foreign producers and global market efficiency. Yet other nations’ similar protections suggest the U.S. isn’t uniquely unfair—it’s part of a global pattern of agricultural protectionism.
 
#5,379
#5,379
MontyPython said:
So do you similarly advocate that our government should stop unfairly subsidizing our farmers? Or is it do as we say not as we do?



Do United States trade policies protect American farmers unfairly?

U.S. trade policies do provide significant protections for American farmers, which some argue are unfair to foreign competitors. The U.S. heavily subsidizes its agricultural sector—$25.7 billion in direct payments to farmers in 2022, per USDA data. Programs like crop insurance, price supports, and disaster relief reduce financial risks for U.S. farmers, giving them an edge over farmers in countries with less government support. For example, U.S. corn and soybean farmers benefit from subsidies that lower production costs, allowing them to export at competitive prices, which can undercut farmers in developing nations like Brazil or Argentina.

Tariffs and trade barriers also protect U.S. farmers. The U.S. imposes tariffs on certain agricultural imports (e.g., 350% on some dairy products under USMCA), limiting foreign competition. Critics, especially from the EU and Canada, argue these protections distort markets and favor U.S. producers disproportionately.

However, defenders of U.S. policies argue they’re necessary to counter other countries’ subsidies and tariffs. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, for instance, provided €54 billion in 2022, and China’s agricultural subsidies are estimated at $212 billion annually. Without U.S. protections, farmers could face volatile global markets and unfair competition from state-backed foreign producers.

The "unfairness" depends on perspective: U.S. policies shield domestic farmers but can harm foreign producers and global market efficiency. Yet other nations’ similar protections suggest the U.S. isn’t uniquely unfair—it’s part of a global pattern of agricultural protectionism.
Click to expand...

We should absolutely eliminate all agriculture subsidies and along with them the price controls. I’ve been saying that for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#5,381
#5,381
Thunder Good-Oil said:
The deals won’t be as favorable for those that don’t negotiate. But after they FA and FO they’ll be back to ask for relief. The US wouldn’t be in such a better position if they weren’t already being taken advantage of.
Click to expand...

Are we getting 90 deals or not? How does one reach deals with "those that don't negotiate"? We have less than 24 hours and not a single deal has been signed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#5,382
#5,382
MontyPython said:
So do you similarly advocate that our government should stop unfairly subsidizing our farmers? Or is it do as we say not as we do?



Do United States trade policies protect American farmers unfairly?

U.S. trade policies do provide significant protections for American farmers, which some argue are unfair to foreign competitors. The U.S. heavily subsidizes its agricultural sector—$25.7 billion in direct payments to farmers in 2022, per USDA data. Programs like crop insurance, price supports, and disaster relief reduce financial risks for U.S. farmers, giving them an edge over farmers in countries with less government support. For example, U.S. corn and soybean farmers benefit from subsidies that lower production costs, allowing them to export at competitive prices, which can undercut farmers in developing nations like Brazil or Argentina.

Tariffs and trade barriers also protect U.S. farmers. The U.S. imposes tariffs on certain agricultural imports (e.g., 350% on some dairy products under USMCA), limiting foreign competition. Critics, especially from the EU and Canada, argue these protections distort markets and favor U.S. producers disproportionately.

However, defenders of U.S. policies argue they’re necessary to counter other countries’ subsidies and tariffs. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, for instance, provided €54 billion in 2022, and China’s agricultural subsidies are estimated at $212 billion annually. Without U.S. protections, farmers could face volatile global markets and unfair competition from state-backed foreign producers.

The "unfairness" depends on perspective: U.S. policies shield domestic farmers but can harm foreign producers and global market efficiency. Yet other nations’ similar protections suggest the U.S. isn’t uniquely unfair—it’s part of a global pattern of agricultural protectionism.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot of them. Seed oil production and corn production hits the federal government multiple times. Once with the subsidies to produce and then again with higher Medicaid, Medicare, and even more Welfare spending for those too sick from a ****ty diet to support themselves.

Every government provides some sort of subsidy or support to its economy. Roads. Airports. Law enforcement. Defense. Education. Purchasing. All of those things stimulate the economy. But they’re investments. Not giveaways aimed at destroying specific foreign industries so that our’s can monopolize them with cheaper exports.

Farming is a bad example. It’s a critical industry. So is the energy sector. So is defense. Consumer discretionary isn’t something that must have subsidies. Production of consumer staples can be rebuilt here if it becomes a permanent problem. But if specific employers come under attack by foreign governments targeting any specific business then government help to defend them isn’t off base. Reagan saved Harley-Davidson from being forced out of business by lower cost Japanese producers. We decided to let go of electronics and textiles since they are easily replicated commodities. The biggest issue with dumping those consumer goods here is the erosion of US capital. Adding tariffs works to correct massive trade deficits. So does balancing the imports with more exports of US products.
 
#5,383
#5,383
bamawriter said:
Are we getting 90 deals or not? How does one reach deals with "those that don't negotiate"? We have less than 24 hours and not a single deal has been signed.
Click to expand...

First, the 90 day deadline is fluid.

Yes. If countries don’t negotiate an acceptable deal then we set the terms of their specific deals. Their options are to renegotiate, accept their higher tariffs, or stop selling in the US markets. There’s your deals. How many will choose the last one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol
#5,385
#5,385
Hope we weren't counting help from japan and s korea in a war with china, because it looks like that's about to go out the window.

So let's see it looks like weve alienated our allies to the east, west, north, and south. I guess that just leaves us to fight trumps crusade against iran.
 
#5,387
#5,387
jvol1 said:
Hope we weren't counting help from japan and s korea in a war with china, because it looks like that's about to go out the window.

So let's see it looks like weve alienated our allies to the east, west, north, and south. I guess that just leaves us to fight trumps crusade against iran.
Click to expand...
You're right, we should continue our trade deficit just to make everyone happy, while our manufacturing continues to go south.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol, whodeycin85, Thunder Good-Oil and 1 other person
#5,390
#5,390
dalton_vol said:
You're right, we should continue our trade deficit just to make everyone happy, while our manufacturing continues to go south.
Click to expand...
Ally != happy. You just discounted strategy to some sort of feel good item. Do we have allies to make us happy?
 
#5,393
#5,393
NorthDallas40 said:
Me waiting on all the water carrying posts on why 50% tariffs are a good thing on a metal that permeates pretty much all products in all industries

View attachment 753800
Click to expand...

Because it’s a critical industrial input and in just 10 years domestically produced copper has fallen from 70% to 50%. We can’t afford to be reliant on imports accounting for half of our needs. We should have been increasing that 70% to 80% or 90%. Feeling giddy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol
#5,394
#5,394
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Because it’s a critical industrial input and in just 10 years domestically produced copper has fallen from 70% to 50%. We can’t afford to be reliant on imports accounting for half of our needs. We should have been increasing that 70% to 80% or 90%. Feeling giddy?
Click to expand...
Welcome to Groundhog Day.

1752005362613.png

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell
history.state.gov history.state.gov

Republicans attempt this every 100 years or so.
www.britannica.com

Tariff of 1828 | Definition, Summary, & Nullification | Britannica

Tariff of `1828,restrictive tariff that triggered the Nullification Crisis in the United States in the early 19th century.
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
 
#5,396
#5,396
BeardedVol said:
Welcome to Groundhog Day.

View attachment 753826

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell
history.state.gov history.state.gov

Republicans attempt this every 100 years or so.
www.britannica.com

Tariff of 1828 | Definition, Summary, & Nullification | Britannica

Tariff of `1828,restrictive tariff that triggered the Nullification Crisis in the United States in the early 19th century.
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
Click to expand...

I believe that you’ve got the retaliatory tariffs reversed, but nice try.
 
#5,398
#5,398
Competition is the invisible force in all markets ...

From the article:

In essence, there is little to no end result in price increases in the final price of consumer goods (Consumer Price Index). In fact, there is a slight deflationary aspect on CPI data from imported durable goods. The lower price of arriving imported durable goods is effectively putting downward pressure on US consumer prices. This is identical to the Term-1 result. A pattern is repeating. [PCE personal consumption expenditure / CPI consumer price index]

It sounds counterintuitive, but tariffs do not impact the final price of goods to USA consumers; there are just too many factors, too many elements within the Total Cost of Goods (TCG) within supply chain. Global energy prices, domestic energy prices, currency evaluations and fluctuations, state/govt subsidies to manufacturers, labor negotiations and production profit offsets are only a few of the components.

theconservativetreehouse.com

Pattern Repeats - Imported Durable Goods Creating Deflation on U.S Consumer Prices - The Last Refuge

The Term-1 effect of deflation created by tariff policy is resurfacing in Term-2 even with larger tariff impacts across the network of global manufacturing exports. [DATA SOURCE] In essence, there is little to no end result in price increases in the final price of consumer goods (Consumer Price...
theconservativetreehouse.com theconservativetreehouse.com
 
#5,400
#5,400
Market share is important ...

From the article:

Japan’s automakers slashed the price of products exported to the United States at record pace, in a sign that companies are sacrificing profits to remain competitive as President Donald Trump’s tariffs hit cars.

The data adds to signs that Japanese automakers are trying to avoid a major price increase to remain competitive in the US, even after Mr Trump began to impose 25 per cent auto tariffs in early April.

www.straitstimes.com

Japan’s carmakers slash price of exports to US to offset tariff hit

Export price index for vehicles shipped to North America plunged 19.4% from a year earlier in June. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.
www.straitstimes.com www.straitstimes.com
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top