Bush put tariffs on steel in 2002 : 200000 jobs lost [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tarif...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tarif...
There’s a big difference between the two motives.
The US has a trade surplus with Canada, has a higher average tariff, has been the bigger beneficiary of trade, yet Trump has announced tariffs on Canada, to an enormous backlash (and Canadians seriously rethinking their integration in the US economy).
This isn't leverage, or masterful negotiating. It's a hamfisted moron bashing around with absolutely no clue what they're negotiating. Trump withdrew from TPP (you know -- one of those trade agreements that would remove most tariffs), and quickly thereafter announced that he would sure like to join TPP...only on the "US'" terms (which is hilarious because TPP was entirely at the US' terms).
At this point I marvel that anyone seriously puts forth an argument that Trump and his crew of misfits are serious negotiators. They're clowns in a clown show. Trump's great business prowess is that he fucked over so many people -- "negotiating" by refusing to pay them after they did the agreed work -- that anyone of legitimacy refuses to have anything to do with him. It's why his personal lawyer was a real life Saul Goodman. What a farce.
Stop reading the headlines and start reading between the lines. It’s a skill that will serve you well in life.
Last time I checked most people in the US were against the TPP including Clinton.
A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages.
I’m not worried about trade imbalances in absolute dollars, I’m concerned with trade imbalances with tariffs and subsidies that make US exports unable to compete.
For Canada where did you get the higher average tariff from? What is that? A higher average of all tariffs on all goods? A higher amount of absolute dollars paid in tariffs? The number alone is meaningless without context.
"A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages."
A Trump talking point, like every one of your posts. But you're surely no Trump fan...
Yes, of course trade agreements are voluminous. Saying that it's suspicious because it's big is the sort of nonsensical claim that sells to idiots.
TPP was very unpopular, humorously because of sections added by the United States. Corporate rights, right to sue sovereigns, etc, were all at the behest of the US of A. Sections on extending copyrights and IP rights -- US of A. TPP was viewed as some new world order with some superseding power, and all of that was the work of the US.
>The number alone is meaningless without context.
Just as trade imbalances are meaningless because [waves hand], until they're what you want to argue.
When the US, with a large trade surplus, complains about a tariff in dairy, where the US has a large trade surplus, in an industry where the US has enormous subsidies ($22B USD per year in direct and indirect subsidies), the whole conversations turns to just farce. It is patter to sell to imbeciles.
Agreements that can’t be read and comprehended in one day aren’t good agreements. I stand by that, no matter what Trump says, no matter what you say.
I’m not arguing about trade imbalances on a surplus/deficit amount. I don’t care about the amount. I care about access to markets and a level playing field. There is no hypocrisy there.
The difference between you and I, is that I’m willing to admit where you are right. The US subsidizes farmers and other industries. I imagine those are up for negotiation too.
I also admit Trump acts like a horses ass. I’m just willing to let that slide if he’s an effective horses ass.
I also haven’t implied you’re stupid.
Because he isn't arguing merits, or what's best for the US. He's pitching a grand show for his base.
Before you think of Trump as some kind of economics genius maybe you should think about how much bile the Wall Street Journal had to swallow when they had to endorse Hillary Clinton for the presidency.
Trump is a legitimately great conman but nothing more.