Targeted tariffs can make sense—as in your example of Japanese cars. China is now a bigger trading partner and some argue it will encourage domestic industry. It will take a while.
However the Canada has no trade rationale. No one manufactured something in Canada because of low wages. Most of our exports to the US are raw materials: oil, aluminum, hydropower, uranium come to mind.
Trump says we’re flooding the US with fentanyl and illegal migrants. There is some but the numbers are small. 19 kg of fentanyl last year. Migrants going to the US: 19K were intercepted last year, 26K were intercepted going from the US to Canada.
Canada just announced 25% tariff on billions of dollars of US goods.
The mood is angry in Canada. People at NYT were cancelling subscriptions and planning vacations elsewhere.
Not me however: NYT does not support Trump. WSJ is more conservative but completely against tariffs.
Right. The Conservatives were heading for a landslide until Trump intervened in Candian politics. He's got Trudeau booted as Liberal leader and now he's place 25 % tariffs on Canadian exports. Canada is up in arms. The American national anthem was booed at a recent hockey game.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think Trump might be trying to force Canada to drastically curtail legal immigration to Canada itself. I think he sees the international multicultural left as a threat both here and abroad.
I bet if Canada announced they were drastically slashing visas he'd rescind the tariffs immediately.
They’ve already slashed legal immigration in response to citizen anger over the housing crisis.
My guess is that the illegals intercepts in both directions are third-worlders not people born in the US or Canada. Import the third world, become the third world,
Wasn't China doing this in Mexico? I remember reading an article how China was getting the benefit of NAFTA treatment for "Mexican" goods and Mexico was playing along. I think this was in the before times (the article at least) - as in pre-pandemic/St. George riots.
targetted tariffs make sense, but are worse than the proper use of tariffs, and just pass the cost to consumers. Completely sealing in national wealth is pretty much required for the massive benefit of tariffs. I wrote about it, check it out if interested (shameless plug as tariffs get back in the news):
I came of age in the 1980s and was taught tariffs bad...bad...only bad and I accepted this. There was so much good math and so many great anecdotes and I still believe free trade is on the average better. That said, this Wikipedia article was an eye-opener. I have to admit, based on 1980s republicans, I was surprised which party had historically been the tariff fetishists. Interestingly, Britain was the big proponent of free trade when it was the global hegemon, except I guess WRT its own colonies?
I was indoctrinated, too, when no one thought China could ever be an economic colossus. The benefits are widely spread, but the costs are narrow and heavy.
Joseph Chamberlain, father of Neville, pushed for tariffs for countries outside the Empire and managed to split the two major parties, but lost.
I don't know enough to say the net effect but it does seem to me that we still have the worlds sweetest market and giving up manufacturing made no sense. It will put upward pressure on prices. As much as I have enjoyed the era, I think the average person can do with less choice in cheap crap from China.
A free flow in goods is different than a free flow in people. My foreign made car can’t vote against my interests, rape me or make my local schools dysfunctional.
Trump tweeted today the act that he claims gives him the authority to impose tariffs, once the bailiwick of Congress when they were the primary source of federal funds. The IEEPA of 1977 was designed to limit the President's power! W imposed steel tariffs in 2002 for a year and a half, so it isn't unprecedented. Congress is too spineless to reclaim their powers.
China bought Clinton via the Riadys of Indonesia and US fundraisers like Johnny Chung, and before 2000, their Most Favored Nation (low) tariffs had to be renewed annually. Wiki says that in 1991, they accounted for 1% of US imports. I remember a few Repubs tried to stop it after 1989 for human rights reasons, not economic, and to no avail.
Seems to me it's a lot easier to mix fentanyl in Mexico than Canada. I can't figure out what Trump's goal is. Ford is sure to sell fewer of those Ontario-built models. Is that good ?
The expansion of territory, centralized industrialization (re-industrialization in our case) and recognition of spheres of influence in my mind recalls the long 19th century. It created a really long peace. I wonder in the long run where the "nonsense in the Balkins" will come from.
"Tariffs and expansionism are not a good combination". Yes, both politically and economically.
Trump's policy towards that dangerous competitor Canada barely makes coherent sense. Would union with Canada overnight move Albertan oil from the debit to the credit side of his mercantilist ledger?
As for Greenland (or will it be renamed the Trump Purchase?) and Panama, doesn't he know that hegemony is best exercised indirectly, through maharajas, mandates, protectorates, trucial states and Anglo-Egyptian condominiums?
I will say that I like a lot of his actions at home, but so far I do not see his external policies ending well.
I think part of Trump's strategy is there is seemingly no strategy. It keeps others off-balance and I like it. For too long, the US was absolutely predictable. We would always do what's best for everyone and let us self-sacrifice for the greater good.
Look at the Panama Canal gambit. They are all angry about Trump's statements about the canal but look the other way when migrants pass through on their way to the US. They make money of illegals so they're happy to help them along on their way to the USA.
NAFTA has been terrible for American manufacturing. Tired of everyone getting access to our markets and our labor market and we get little in return. Americans can live without avocados. Stop whining.
Someone explain this to me. Tariff policy was central to the political disputes of the 1800s because Congress set tariff policy. Did Congress somehow relinquish tariff policy to the Executive Branch in the 21st Century?
I remember the WSJ screaming about Bush the 2nd imposing tariffs on Chinese steel twenty years ago, so certainly by that time it must have been within the powers of the president.
Congress does sweet f**k all these days. They’re happy to delegate their powers to the bureaucracy in the executive branch and the wizards in the judicial branch.
The last big things I can think of them doing are the homeland security crap after 9/11 and Obamacare.
See my comment and link above. It's an emergency power of the Prez now, but he has to renew it annually. Reagan got the Japanese to limit car imports, probably by threatening tariffs. I've wondered since W what authority he used, but no one seems to care. FDR confiscated Americans' gold before debasing the currency using emergency powers, and Congress finally realized it was still in effect in the 70s. That wouldn't do after Watergate.
Can’t say I understand the Canada tariffs but all the talk of catastrophe is pretty bizarre, I mean 25% tariff is pretty small compared to the 100% tariffs or outright bans which most “allies” put on anything Americans want to sell to them.
Targeted tariffs can make sense—as in your example of Japanese cars. China is now a bigger trading partner and some argue it will encourage domestic industry. It will take a while.
However the Canada has no trade rationale. No one manufactured something in Canada because of low wages. Most of our exports to the US are raw materials: oil, aluminum, hydropower, uranium come to mind.
Trump says we’re flooding the US with fentanyl and illegal migrants. There is some but the numbers are small. 19 kg of fentanyl last year. Migrants going to the US: 19K were intercepted last year, 26K were intercepted going from the US to Canada.
Canada just announced 25% tariff on billions of dollars of US goods.
The mood is angry in Canada. People at NYT were cancelling subscriptions and planning vacations elsewhere.
Not me however: NYT does not support Trump. WSJ is more conservative but completely against tariffs.
Trump may be trying to restrict Chinese imports that pass through Mexico and Canada. I just hope it doesn't help Trudeau and his friends.
Right. The Conservatives were heading for a landslide until Trump intervened in Candian politics. He's got Trudeau booted as Liberal leader and now he's place 25 % tariffs on Canadian exports. Canada is up in arms. The American national anthem was booed at a recent hockey game.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think Trump might be trying to force Canada to drastically curtail legal immigration to Canada itself. I think he sees the international multicultural left as a threat both here and abroad.
I bet if Canada announced they were drastically slashing visas he'd rescind the tariffs immediately.
They’ve already slashed legal immigration in response to citizen anger over the housing crisis.
My guess is that the illegals intercepts in both directions are third-worlders not people born in the US or Canada. Import the third world, become the third world,
Ah, I found another motivation for the tariffs:
https://techdinamics.com/blog-tech/navigating-trade-chinas-tariff-avoidance
Wasn't China doing this in Mexico? I remember reading an article how China was getting the benefit of NAFTA treatment for "Mexican" goods and Mexico was playing along. I think this was in the before times (the article at least) - as in pre-pandemic/St. George riots.
Yeah they've been doing it there too for years
I wonder if Trump helped re-elect the Liberals.
targetted tariffs make sense, but are worse than the proper use of tariffs, and just pass the cost to consumers. Completely sealing in national wealth is pretty much required for the massive benefit of tariffs. I wrote about it, check it out if interested (shameless plug as tariffs get back in the news):
https://freerandles.substack.com/p/the-logical-case-for-tariffs?r=1rdf2i
I came of age in the 1980s and was taught tariffs bad...bad...only bad and I accepted this. There was so much good math and so many great anecdotes and I still believe free trade is on the average better. That said, this Wikipedia article was an eye-opener. I have to admit, based on 1980s republicans, I was surprised which party had historically been the tariff fetishists. Interestingly, Britain was the big proponent of free trade when it was the global hegemon, except I guess WRT its own colonies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tariffs_in_the_United_States
I was indoctrinated, too, when no one thought China could ever be an economic colossus. The benefits are widely spread, but the costs are narrow and heavy.
Joseph Chamberlain, father of Neville, pushed for tariffs for countries outside the Empire and managed to split the two major parties, but lost.
I don't know enough to say the net effect but it does seem to me that we still have the worlds sweetest market and giving up manufacturing made no sense. It will put upward pressure on prices. As much as I have enjoyed the era, I think the average person can do with less choice in cheap crap from China.
Churchill left the Conservative Party over the tariff issue.
A free flow in goods is different than a free flow in people. My foreign made car can’t vote against my interests, rape me or make my local schools dysfunctional.
Trump tweeted today the act that he claims gives him the authority to impose tariffs, once the bailiwick of Congress when they were the primary source of federal funds. The IEEPA of 1977 was designed to limit the President's power! W imposed steel tariffs in 2002 for a year and a half, so it isn't unprecedented. Congress is too spineless to reclaim their powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
China bought Clinton via the Riadys of Indonesia and US fundraisers like Johnny Chung, and before 2000, their Most Favored Nation (low) tariffs had to be renewed annually. Wiki says that in 1991, they accounted for 1% of US imports. I remember a few Repubs tried to stop it after 1989 for human rights reasons, not economic, and to no avail.
I’d like to see Congress reclaim its power to make war first.
Seems to me it's a lot easier to mix fentanyl in Mexico than Canada. I can't figure out what Trump's goal is. Ford is sure to sell fewer of those Ontario-built models. Is that good ?
Ford makes a whole lot of vehicles in Mexico as well. And they price them like they’re made in the USA.
The expansion of territory, centralized industrialization (re-industrialization in our case) and recognition of spheres of influence in my mind recalls the long 19th century. It created a really long peace. I wonder in the long run where the "nonsense in the Balkins" will come from.
"Tariffs and expansionism are not a good combination". Yes, both politically and economically.
Trump's policy towards that dangerous competitor Canada barely makes coherent sense. Would union with Canada overnight move Albertan oil from the debit to the credit side of his mercantilist ledger?
As for Greenland (or will it be renamed the Trump Purchase?) and Panama, doesn't he know that hegemony is best exercised indirectly, through maharajas, mandates, protectorates, trucial states and Anglo-Egyptian condominiums?
I will say that I like a lot of his actions at home, but so far I do not see his external policies ending well.
I think what Steve is saying in a roundabout way is that trade openness and migration openness go hand in hand.
I think part of Trump's strategy is there is seemingly no strategy. It keeps others off-balance and I like it. For too long, the US was absolutely predictable. We would always do what's best for everyone and let us self-sacrifice for the greater good.
Look at the Panama Canal gambit. They are all angry about Trump's statements about the canal but look the other way when migrants pass through on their way to the US. They make money of illegals so they're happy to help them along on their way to the USA.
NAFTA has been terrible for American manufacturing. Tired of everyone getting access to our markets and our labor market and we get little in return. Americans can live without avocados. Stop whining.
Someone explain this to me. Tariff policy was central to the political disputes of the 1800s because Congress set tariff policy. Did Congress somehow relinquish tariff policy to the Executive Branch in the 21st Century?
I remember the WSJ screaming about Bush the 2nd imposing tariffs on Chinese steel twenty years ago, so certainly by that time it must have been within the powers of the president.
Congress does sweet f**k all these days. They’re happy to delegate their powers to the bureaucracy in the executive branch and the wizards in the judicial branch.
The last big things I can think of them doing are the homeland security crap after 9/11 and Obamacare.
Congress has abdicated much of its authority.
See my comment and link above. It's an emergency power of the Prez now, but he has to renew it annually. Reagan got the Japanese to limit car imports, probably by threatening tariffs. I've wondered since W what authority he used, but no one seems to care. FDR confiscated Americans' gold before debasing the currency using emergency powers, and Congress finally realized it was still in effect in the 70s. That wouldn't do after Watergate.
Can’t say I understand the Canada tariffs but all the talk of catastrophe is pretty bizarre, I mean 25% tariff is pretty small compared to the 100% tariffs or outright bans which most “allies” put on anything Americans want to sell to them.
Reagan also put tariffs on large displacement Japanese motorcycles. That move arguably gave Harley four decades they wouldn’t have otherwise had.
Of course, they hired a woke German CEO who looks likely to kill it off pretty soon.