Re: We Who Do Not Learn ...
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:21 am
Under Obama the Civil Forfeiture laws were suspended and Sessions has revived them to “fight crime”. Several police depts were abusing this law to their gain.
Tech and Community Help For Air-Cooled VWs
http://www.itinerant-air-cooled.com/
http://www.itinerant-air-cooled.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13563
Sure, anyone who took Econ 101 knows about comparative advantage and the inefficiencies and market distortions caused by tariffs. But we've been taking it up the...err.. on the chin for so long, that something has to be done to shake things up.JLT wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:14 pmWell, the steelworkers have a right to be happy about the tariffs. The unions that aren't so happy are the ones that work with the steel or aluminum once it's here, notably the ones that represent the labor forces for heavy manufacturing like automobiles, airplanes, trucks, construction, and so on. They're concerned that a sharp rise in the price of steel and aluminum will make their products higher in price as well, making foreign competition more attractive and ultimately resulting in layoffs in the companies that employ them.
As an example, a company that makes barbecue grills was on NPR explaining that it's already getting stiff competition from Chinese manufacturers. If it raises its prices and the importers don't, it'll have to close that aspect of the business. And this scenario will be repeated over and over again. I've heard estimates that for every steelworker and aluminum worker job that's saved, there may be as many as two other manufacturing jobs lost.
But those benefits mean a lot to a potentially laid-off auto worker.hippiewannabe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:39 pm
Economists talk about aggregate statistics, but the aggregate societal benefits of trade don't mean much to a laid off steelworker.
The across-the-board tariffs are certainly a blunt instrument. Being surgical would be great, but steel is fungible, and by the time you stop it coming in by one path, it finds another. China produced about the same amount of steel as the US in the year 2000. Now they produce 10 times what we do, half the worlds capacity. They refuse to shut uneconomic plants, preferring to keep their workers busy and dumping the unneeded product on the world. Even if it doesn't directly come here, it floods the market and forces other steel to come here.JLT wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:27 pmBut those benefits mean a lot to a potentially laid-off auto worker.hippiewannabe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:39 pm
Economists talk about aggregate statistics, but the aggregate societal benefits of trade don't mean much to a laid off steelworker.
I do agree with you that countries like China, which are dumping steel on our economy, need to be reined in. Even Paul Ryan says that the sanctions should be "surgical" in protecting countries that play by the rules and punishing countries that don't. Trump's proposed tariffs are anything but surgical, though. He'd use a missile rather than a sniper's rifle, and say that the collateral damage was unavoidable, as long as the bad guy got wasted. That's why I'm concerned. He's also said that a trade war was "easy to win," but I can't think of any trade war that didn't end up with losers on both sides, and recessions that took years to recover from. Even conservative economists wouldn't disagree with that analysis (I talked to one just the other day, a friend of my father's who, after working in the State Department and AID, made a second career as an analyst for the Hoover Institution, not generally known as a hotbed of liberalism).
A mealymouthed paragraph worthy of a politician. If China's the problem target china. If anyone imports it as a proxy for china, target them.hippiewannabe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:27 pm
The across-the-board tariffs are certainly a blunt instrument. Being surgical would be great, but steel is fungible, and by the time you stop it coming in by one path, it finds another. China produced about the same amount of steel as the US in the year 2000. Now they produce 10 times what we do, half the worlds capacity. They refuse to shut uneconomic plants, preferring to keep their workers busy and dumping the unneeded product on the world. Even if it doesn't directly come here, it floods the market and forces other steel to come here.
The US is what it is what it is today because of the free trade it foisted on the world for the last 70 years. The notion that the richest and most powerful nation in the world is a victim to those mean foreign countries is risible.The US has always given the concessions to support free trade.
Just because you don't understand doesn't make it mealymouthed. We've tried playing this whack-a-mole before, it can take months or years to chase down each proxy, by which time it has moved on to the next. Apply the blanket tariff first, and then lift it for individual countries when they can provide assurances they aren't a conduit for economically and environmentally disastrous Chinese metals.tommu wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:56 pmA mealymouthed paragraph worthy of a politician. If China's the problem target china. If anyone imports it as a proxy for china, target them.hippiewannabe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:27 pm
The across-the-board tariffs are certainly a blunt instrument. Being surgical would be great, but steel is fungible, and by the time you stop it coming in by one path, it finds another. China produced about the same amount of steel as the US in the year 2000. Now they produce 10 times what we do, half the worlds capacity. They refuse to shut uneconomic plants, preferring to keep their workers busy and dumping the unneeded product on the world. Even if it doesn't directly come here, it floods the market and forces other steel to come here.
"You people"Spezialist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:39 pmKinda thought you people would stop comparing presidents by now. I guess if all you get to do in your democracy is complain about one president vs another have at it.
Just don't include everyone with your big paint brush, mmkay.
If you intend to educate me then give me the evidence. What ‘whack-a-mole’ happened before? I have no idea what you’re referring to. We’re not talking sanctions against North Korea here. Then tell me how this time trade tariffs will work better this time than in 1930.hippiewannabe wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:29 pmJust because you don't understand doesn't make it mealymouthed. We've tried playing this whack-a-mole before, it can take months or years to chase down each proxy, by which time it has moved on to the next. Apply the blanket tariff first, and then lift it for individual countries when they can provide assurances they aren't a conduit for economically and environmentally disastrous Chinese metals.tommu wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:56 pmA mealymouthed paragraph worthy of a politician. If China's the problem target china. If anyone imports it as a proxy for china, target them.hippiewannabe wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:27 pm
The across-the-board tariffs are certainly a blunt instrument. Being surgical would be great, but steel is fungible, and by the time you stop it coming in by one path, it finds another. China produced about the same amount of steel as the US in the year 2000. Now they produce 10 times what we do, half the worlds capacity. They refuse to shut uneconomic plants, preferring to keep their workers busy and dumping the unneeded product on the world. Even if it doesn't directly come here, it floods the market and forces other steel to come here.
tommu wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:04 amIf you intend to educate me then give me the evidence. What ‘whack-a-mole’ happened before? I have no idea what you’re referring to. We’re not talking sanctions against North Korea here. Then tell me how this time trade tariffs will work better this time than in 1930.