The EU subsidized Airbus, which hurt the American company, Boeing. Therefore, all Americans have to pay 25% more for european wines, cheeses, and whiskey. How does this make any sense?
Not siding with the tariffs, but that's the idea, no?
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-s...
Hurting Scotch means a better chance for the Japanese whiskey market in the USA. Total random speculation on that. There are lots of other products without Japanese replacement. Especially since scotch is really one of the smallest mattering products in that list. Parmesan, I argue, is a far bigger deal and we'll see that effect more. At least for me.
But, to be fair, after looking into trade relations for a while, Trump isn't as insane as CNN and BBC makes him out to be. I don't understand why everyone makes it seem like he's throwing dice and making decisions in a bubble. I'm starting to think he's making short term pains for long term gains. Which, to be honest, is the thing we should always be doing. Losing in the short term for mid to long term gains is not insane, stupid or crazy. Just... you know, sucks for a while.
On top of that, everyone seems to be a trade-deal expert suddenly because they've obviously negotiated with foreign govs all the time. I'm not and don't claim to be like others on HN and reddit. I just see there's more going on than just China and things don't look as one sided as it's being made out to be. But then again, BBC and CNN, and social media agreed, thought China would dump $1+ trillion in US bonds for pennies on the dollar and lose out on the loan leveraging they get to "punish the US"...by bankrupting themselves? Which never happened anyways. Such great "economic experts" who can't figure out supply/demand market dynamics taught in macro econ 101 textbooks. Same folks are commenting on the trade war. So whatever...
There's plenty of hyperbole out there, but hyperbole doesn't negate reality. China is buying fewer treasury bonds, and this is one reason why the bottom fell out of the market for purchasing U.S. treasury bonds, requiring Federal Reserve intervention. It's one, small reason, but it will become increasingly more important as Chinese purchases drop while U.S. deficits continue their upward climb.
The reason you know Trump isn't crazy like a fox is because his policies are inconsistent and erratic. Demanding your investment managers to buy high, sell low doesn't make you Warren Buffett. Starting a trade war with the expectation that the other guy will flinch before you doesn't make you a cunning strategist; it just makes you dangerous.
If you're suggesting that the pain of losing Chinese money will force the U.S. to reduce its deficits, that has manifestly not been the case for decades. For treasuries, instead what will happen is exactly what we've seen happen the past few weeks--something or someone will fill the gap before the whole house of cards collapses, which will sustain the status quo but ultimately put us on a more perilous path.
You can't bluff and cajole your way to smarter fiscal and industrial policy. Republicans have tried that and failed because it turns out you can't avoid making hard, considered decisions; nor avoid compromise. There's no avoiding the fundamental dynamics at play, which are complex and merciless. Entitlements exist for a reason. Trade with China exists for a reason. You can't address those things without addressing the underlying reasons they exist. Doubling and tripling down on a failed strategy with the world's worst bluffer isn't going to work any better.
That and you put the cart before the horse. It's always been to cut spending first so rev wouldn't need to increase.
It’s more tangible than adding a tariff to some obscure machine part because it becomes a pride thing. Also politicians of every country are acutely sensitive to the needs of their farmers.
Many high quality single malts are $40-50. Expensive for a daily drink, but within reach as an indulgence. The new tariffs will raise the price of the bottle by $10. That's not terribly significant on it's own, but knowing that buying a bottle contributes $10 on a needless trade war to feed a maniac's ego is pretty irritating.
So both companies are claimed to have received substantial "illegal" subsidies.
This isn't Trump's making btw. This legal battle over subsidies started I think in about 2004, so Trump is the third president involved. But of course, he was eager to jump on it and announce those tariffs now, even before the WTO ruling was finalized.
[1] https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc...
Regarding the effective price increase, it would likely be shared between consumer and producer.
Truly, most of us will just switch from scotch to bourbon until this is cleared up (which is the purpose).
I'm gonna pass on that, bourbon is too sweet and tastes gross to me. I suspect if you like Scotch then Bourbon is probably a bad fit.
It just happens to be a very specific market where I would dare to say (and this is just my opinion) most consumers are willing to pay a little more for the real deal, that is, the imported goods instead of looking for "local substitutes"...
Both the taste preference and the "perceived value" are super important in the market for alcoholic beverages.
At the same time, if you like the burning hospital taste, there’s no substitute for Islay Scotch.
It involves a Trump golf course project.