| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| POTUS Favors 24% Increase In Steel, Aluminum Tariffs |
| 2018-02-25 |
| [Hot Air] It appears President Donald Trump hopes to do a massive increase in tariffs on steel and aluminum. Bloomberg reports the President is pondering three protectionist plans on his desk, and prefers the one he believes will boost American steel profits. It isn’t surprising the President is considering this, after all the alleged 5G sort of nationalization plan would require whoever constructs the infrastructure to use American products, instead of foreign materials. Trump sees this as a way to increase national security (somehow) something Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross swore was an issue via Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Ross’ report admitted there is no real definition of "national security" in Section 232, but the government still needed to prop up the steel economy (emphasis mine). |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #21 One item in followup: China has a twenty-five hundred year tradition of mercantilism on top of a recent experience of communist rule. They don't believe the western "liberal" sanitized account of communism, they know the state has to make a profit long-term. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2018-02-25 22:12 |
| #20 I think g(r)om hit the nail on the head. We're dealing with two separate prisoners' dilemmas now: the one with large rich foreign mercantilist nation states, and the one with the elites on the coasts who pretend to believe in the free market but don't believe anyone who actually builds anything physical should be able to make a living in this country. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2018-02-25 22:09 |
| #19 hey....what? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2018-02-25 17:09 |
| #18 |
| Posted by: Frank G 2018-02-25 17:09 |
| #17 I said it before and I'll say it every time the subject comes up: You damn well better do something about computers while you're at it. Computers are every bit as strategic as steel and right now they're all made in China. That is unacceptable. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2018-02-25 15:58 |
| #16 Tariffs on steel and aluminum will just move more manufacturing overseas. Saving a few hundred ironworkers jobs will cost several thousand manufacturing jobs. Will politicians ever learn? |
| Posted by: Creling Pelosi3622 2018-02-25 15:03 |
| #15 Tariffs aren't pretty, but if we want to win the Rust Belt states, they are necessary. Reagan won the allegiance of the Rust Belt states not by championing unions, but by unveiling protective measures. Tariffs are the price we pay to get the rest of our program enacted. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2018-02-25 14:01 |
| #14 Protectionism is a disaster waiting to happen "Prisoner's Dilemma" |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-02-25 13:56 |
| #13 This will play well in Peoria, but tariffs are rarely a good idea. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2018-02-25 11:58 |
| #12 A manufacturing company has three components of costs: 1. Direct material, 2. Labor, and 3. Overhead. To compete, you are going to have to affect these catagories. Usually labor costs in 3rd world countries are lower than in the U.S. Do we want to reduce the standard of living here by reducing what is paid to workers so that wages are on a par with 3rd world countries? I don't think so. Tariffs are a way of leveling the playing field. There are down sides such as product pricing wars. P2K raises a good point; that is, do you want you want China manufacturing critical materials that go into defense? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2018-02-25 10:31 |
| #11 Recall the infrastructure initiative TW. Any road or bridge building will require massive amounts of steel and concrete. This can bring a reboot of the US steel industry. Concrete will of course come from Mexico. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2018-02-25 10:26 |
| #10 Buy America clauses are tied to all steel/iron products for projects with Fed/State funds. As noted above, it makes sense to maintain a strategic portion of essential item production domestically, especially when foreign interests are dumping exports at a loss to cut competition |
| Posted by: Frank G 2018-02-25 09:15 |
| #9 NOT funny. Stop that nonsense. Remember that President Trump is transactional, European Conservative. This is his maximalist opening bid for something, though it may not be about tariffs at all. The question is whether he needs Congress to pass a bill on the subject, and what it is that he really wants — a DACA law, for example, or keeping the unions from supporting the Democratic party in November. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2018-02-25 09:07 |
| #8 Protectionism is a disaster waiting to happen So, just cut out the middle man and buy all our military equipment from China? Parts be parts. You better know where they come from and how they are assembled. In the end, you need certain strategic industries and the resources that feed them to be free of potential cut offs. Second, when they practice 'protectionism' by restricting markets both directly and through regulation (see - GMO and the Euros), you're a fool to talk 'open markets'. Quid pro quo is a phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favour for a favour". Phrases with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". They don't play it, then we don't play it. BTW, Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act gets a lot of damning for its supposed effect on the Great Depression. However, if you get beyond the usual cooked books and cooked unemployment numbers of the last 8 years, we were in a depression, without the benefit of blaming good old Smoot-Hawley for our economic ills. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-02-25 08:51 |
| #7 The result? Putting Americans to work. |
| Posted by: Woodrow 2018-02-25 08:07 |
| #6 I'm sure the Germans will reduce their car import tariffs from 10 to 2.5% (ignoring another 15% VAT). They wouldn't want to appear to be massive hypocrites. 2017 US-Germany merchandise trade deficit: $64 billion mostly cars. Last 5 years: $64-75 billion/year. |
| Posted by: Unick Darling of the Veal Cutlets8500 2018-02-25 04:24 |
| #5 Groovy |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-02-25 03:48 |
| #4 EU wants higher tariffs on bourbon. NOT funny. Stop that nonsense. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-02-25 03:26 |
| #3 The steel producers and unions are popping open the bubbly; the average consumer will be on a beer budget. Protectionism is a disaster waiting to happen. |
| Posted by: DooDahMan 2018-02-25 02:49 |
| #2 We can't be reliant on foreign sources of steel, particularly hostile governments. This is basic common sense. It provides jobs and builds our communities, and if it decreases GDP growth by 0.1%, then so be it. It's worth it. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 2018-02-25 02:41 |
| #1 An idea bound to give the Chinese pause and please some Pennsylvania voters. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-02-25 01:41 |