US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Regginator3 wrote:

Dual wrote:What is wrong with what he has said about trade tarrifs?

Nothing

Garth wrote:

WSJ: Tariffs are Trump's biggest blunder
The Wall Street Journal has generally taken a more positive view of Donald Trump’s presidency than rival newspapers (to the anger of some staff). But not on this occasion.

Today, the WSJ editorial board have roasted the president’s move on tariffs, saying it will hurt the US economy and weaken his own efforts.

Donald Trump made the biggest policy blunder of his Presidency Thursday by announcing that next week he’ll impose tariffs of 25% on imported steel and 10% on aluminum.

This tax increase will punish American workers, invite retaliation that will harm U.S. exports, divide his political coalition at home, anger allies abroad, and undermine his tax and regulatory reforms.

twitter.com/SRuhle/status/969447502331219968

Electrolux puts $250m US investment on ice after tariffs
If a trade war is really breaking out, then kitchen equipment maker Electrolux has just fired another shot - by threatening to pull investment in America.

Sweden’s Electrolux, Europe’s largest home appliance maker, said on Friday it would put on hold a planned $250 million investment in the United States after President Donald Trump announced he would impose tariffs on imported aluminium and steel.

“We are putting it on hold. We believe that tariffs could cause a pretty significant increase in the price of steel on the U.S. market,” Electrolux spokesman Daniel Frykholm said.

An influential member of the European Parliament has warned that Europe must retaliate if the US imposes tariffs on steel and aluminium.

Manfred Weber, chairman of the EPP Group of centre-right MEPs, suggested that Europe would need to throw its forces into any trade war, saying:

“The US President is playing a very dangerous game. A trade dispute is to the detriment of everyone. But if Donald Trump increases tariffs on European goods for no reason, then Europe must react.

Priority must be given to protecting jobs in Europe. The EU has to show its strength.”

Markets suffer heavier losses after Trump tweet
Stock markets are falling deeper into the red, following Donald Trump’s declaration that America could easily win a trade war.

In London, the FTSE 100 is now down 73 points, or 1%, at 7101. That’s a new three-week low.

Mining companies are suffering from the prospect of protectionism - as demand for iron ore, coal, copper, oil and nickel would all weaken.

Germany’s DAX is still lurching around a six-month low.

Lukman Otunuga, research analyst at FXTM, says investors around the globe are worried:

A negative vibe lingered across financial markets on Friday, after Donald Trump’s vow to impose severe tariffs on imports of steel and aluminium sparked fears of a global trade war.

In a move that dealt a blow to global sentiment, Trump said on Thursday that the United States would set tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminium.

This bombshell development is likely to fuel concerns of retaliatory actions from major US trade partners consequently weighing on risk appetite. Investors are clearly jittery by the threat of a potential global trade war and its possible effect on stock markets.

Wall Street is also expected to suffer falls when it opens in three hours time.

The Dow Jones industrial average is being called down around 200 points, or 0.9%. That would add to yesterday’s 420-point tumble.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... arney-live

Imposing tough sanctions would fulfill the president’s promises but could tip off trade wars around the world as other countries seek to retaliate against the United States. Foreign governments, multinational companies and the Pentagon have continued to push against broad tariffs, arguing that the measures could disrupt economic and security ties.

Brazil, Canada, Germany, Mexico and South Korea were the largest suppliers of steel to the United States in 2017, while Canada, Russia and the United Arab Emirates shipped the largest share of aluminum imports in 2016.

On Thursday, Canada, the European Union and other countries said they might have no choice but to retaliate in response.

Regginator3 wrote:And?

Oh no, investors are losing money on their stocks. Poor hedge fund managers, how will they cope? Worth pointing out global trends are causing global markets to drop anyway, it's hardly just directly because of this.

Of course the Wall Street Journal is going to criticise him for this

Meanwhile, Chinese steel dumping is a very real threat to national steel manufacturers - both in the UK and the US. Politicians from both sides of the house in the UK agree with this. Who do we care about more? Even if Electrolux pulls investment, by itself that doesn't mean it's a bad decision in the long run. Neither does a stock market fall.

Tafdolphin wrote:Basically, because it is effectively levying a tax on all incoming steel, other countries affected by this (listed above) will start considering levying their own tariffs to make up the short-coming. This could mean US imports will be taxed more heavily or, like the Electrolux deal, companies will simply stop dealing with the US.

It's foolhardy, braggadocios and incredibly dangerous for American industry.

Photek wrote::fp:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Basically, because it is effectively levying a tax on all incoming steel, other countries affected by this (listed above) will start considering levying their own tariffs to make up the short-coming. This could mean US imports will be taxed more heavily or, like the Electrolux deal, companies will simply stop dealing with the US.

It's foolhardy, braggadocios and incredibly dangerous for American industry.

And why "of course" would the WSJ criticise him? They're a largely Pro-Trump paper...

Regginator3 wrote: I think steel manufacturing should be national to each country, cheapo imports are hurting local economies across the world - look at what happened recently in the UK as well

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote: I think steel manufacturing should be national to each country, cheapo imports are hurting local economies across the world - look at what happened recently in the UK as well

Would you mind expanding upon this as, as it is, this makes no sense. You're saying all steel producing countries should only use steel they themselves have produced? Despite the huge increase in production costs this would mean within industries that rely on steel? Because what, it's patriotic? How are cheap steel imports hurting local economies? Could I ask for an example, even a hypothetical?

Regginator3 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote: I think steel manufacturing should be national to each country, cheapo imports are hurting local economies across the world - look at what happened recently in the UK as well

Would you mind expanding upon this as, as it is, this makes no sense. You're saying all steel producing countries should only use steel they themselves have produced? Despite the huge increase in production costs this would mean within industries that rely on steel? Because what, it's patriotic? How are cheap steel imports hurting local economies? Could I ask for an example, even a hypothetical?

I'm generally pro-globalisation, but I think steel manufacturing is a very specific case, because of the amount of steel dumping that has happened in recent years, particularly from China. I'm not saying this should always be the case in the long run, though. Nothing to do with being patriotic, just not wanting to let local steel firms close down and have jobs and livelihoods lost just so multinationals can pay a bit less.

This was literally the exact reason that Tata Steel pulled out investment from Port Talbot in 2016

Regginator3 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote: I think steel manufacturing should be national to each country, cheapo imports are hurting local economies across the world - look at what happened recently in the UK as well

Would you mind expanding upon this as, as it is, this makes no sense. You're saying all steel producing countries should only use steel they themselves have produced? Despite the huge increase in production costs this would mean within industries that rely on steel? Because what, it's patriotic? How are cheap steel imports hurting local economies? Could I ask for an example, even a hypothetical?

I'm generally pro-globalisation, but I think steel manufacturing is a very specific case, because of the amount of steel dumping that has happened in recent years, particularly from China. I'm not saying this should always be the case in the long run, though. Nothing to do with being patriotic, just not wanting to let local steel firms close down and have jobs and livelihoods lost just so multinationals can pay a bit less.

This was literally the exact reason that Tata Steel pulled out investment from Port Talbot in 2016

lex-man wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote: I think steel manufacturing should be national to each country, cheapo imports are hurting local economies across the world - look at what happened recently in the UK as well

Would you mind expanding upon this as, as it is, this makes no sense. You're saying all steel producing countries should only use steel they themselves have produced? Despite the huge increase in production costs this would mean within industries that rely on steel? Because what, it's patriotic? How are cheap steel imports hurting local economies? Could I ask for an example, even a hypothetical?

I'm generally pro-globalisation, but I think steel manufacturing is a very specific case, because of the amount of steel dumping that has happened in recent years, particularly from China. I'm not saying this should always be the case in the long run, though. Nothing to do with being patriotic, just not wanting to let local steel firms close down and have jobs and livelihoods lost just so multinationals can pay a bit less.

This was literally the exact reason that Tata Steel pulled out investment from Port Talbot in 2016

The EU has actually been trying to put tariffs on steel for a while but the UK are always blocking.

Regginator3 wrote:

lex-man wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Regginator3 wrote: I think steel manufacturing should be national to each country, cheapo imports are hurting local economies across the world - look at what happened recently in the UK as well

Would you mind expanding upon this as, as it is, this makes no sense. You're saying all steel producing countries should only use steel they themselves have produced? Despite the huge increase in production costs this would mean within industries that rely on steel? Because what, it's patriotic? How are cheap steel imports hurting local economies? Could I ask for an example, even a hypothetical?

I'm generally pro-globalisation, but I think steel manufacturing is a very specific case, because of the amount of steel dumping that has happened in recent years, particularly from China. I'm not saying this should always be the case in the long run, though. Nothing to do with being patriotic, just not wanting to let local steel firms close down and have jobs and livelihoods lost just so multinationals can pay a bit less.

This was literally the exact reason that Tata Steel pulled out investment from Port Talbot in 2016

The EU has actually been trying to put tariffs on steel for a while but the UK are always blocking.

Yep. Another classic example of why mistrust in the EU is ill-placed

Tafdolphin wrote:Ok, I get that. But what's the alternative here?

I remember when Trump was taunting Apple during the election, saying he'd make them bring iPhone production back to the states. There was a study that showed each iPhone would average around $2000 or so if that happened.

Although it's bad for local steelworking economies like Port Talbot, these make up a percentage of a percentage of most Western countries' workforces. Like I said, the latest figure on the US steel working industry is that there are 140 000 workers left in the country. Risking a trade war that would affect tens of millions for the sake of 140 000 doesn't make sense.

The West long ago gave up their heavy production industries to the east. There's no going back from that now.

twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/969647489493090304

Trump was angry and ‘unglued’ when he started a trade war, officials say

With global markets shaken by President Donald Trump's surprise decision to impose strict tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the president went into battle mode on Friday: "Trade wars are good, and easy to win," he wrote on Twitter.

But the public show of confidence belies the fact that Trump's policy maneuver, which may ultimately harm U.S. companies and American consumers, was announced without any internal review by government lawyers or his own staff, according to a review of an internal White House document.

According to two officials, Trump's decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.

On Wednesday evening, the president became "unglued," in the words of one official familiar with the president's state of mind.

A trifecta of events had set him off in a way that two officials said they had not seen before: Hope Hicks' testimony to lawmakers investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election, conduct by his embattled attorney general and the treatment of his son-in-law by his chief of staff.

Trump, the two officials said, was angry and gunning for a fight, and he chose a trade war, spurred on by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the White House director for trade.

Ross had already invited steel and aluminum executives to the White House for an 11 a.m. meeting on Thursday. But Ross, according to a person with direct knowledge, hadn't told the White House who the executives were. As a result, White House officials were unable to conduct a background check on the executives to make sure they were appropriate for the president to meet with and they were not able to be cleared for entry by secret service. According to a person with direct knowledge, even White House chief of staff John Kelly was unaware of their names.

twitter.com/millercoors/status/969312711371886594

twitter.com/millercoors/status/969313202780688385

KK wrote:

twitter.com/millercoors/status/969312711371886594

twitter.com/millercoors/status/969313202780688385

twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/969629745192333312

twitter.com/emptywheel/status/969663044316999680