Trade, Tariffs, Globalization, Strategic Mercantilismm and Globalism itself

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/china/us-confirms-china-tariff-hikes-on-evs-chips-steel-5716557?utm_source=Goodevening&src_src=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-2024-09-14&src_cmp=gv-2024-09-14&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYvAqcwcVzc7PzLYPrHFRB710wA0AIj31kx5JTWZu9FddhEg4S8RP

[ccp]

"US Locks In China Tariff Hikes..."

Tariff hikes

Funny

Biden bureaucracy takes a page out of the Trump policies

and no MSM backlash!

I thought tariffs are BAD.   

Are we going to see outrage on CNBC?   WSJ might however.

The rest of the media - crickets or adulation.

But when Trump speaks of tariffs ===> BAD

[ccp]

Ok, now I get it:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/poll-tarifs-trump/2024/09/15/id/1180382/

[Crafty_Dog]

Heh heh.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=738064a695780dad95de00dbe1d86b3b_66fd4415_6d25b5f&selDate=20241002

Thinking through the Trump tariffs

Leveling the playing field to facilitate fair trade

By Peter Navarro

The Trump tariffs will make America and American manufacturing great again. Here’s what you need to know.

Every country cheats. When one country uses unfair trade practices to gain a mercantilist advantage over another, the mercantilist cheater gains factories, jobs, wage gains and growth in its gross domestic product at the expense of the other country.

We have lower tariffs and trade barriers than any of our major trading partners. Not coincidentally, we have the highest annual trade deficits.

Each of our trade partners cheats us out of jobs and factories in different ways.

For example, Japan uses a dizzying array of nontariff barriers to keep American automobiles and other highvalue- added production out of its markets.

Germany and other European Union nations gain an unfair advantage with a value-added tax that acts as a de facto tariff on the United States, which relies instead on an income tax.

Our second-largest trading partner, Mexico, is regularly breaking the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement replacement that former President Donald Trump negotiated but which the Biden-Harris administration does not enforce.

Our largest partner, China, breaks every rule in the World Trade Organization book with its “seven deadly mercantilist sins” — intellectual property theft, export subsidies, currency manipulation, dumping, state-owned enterprises, pollution havens and sweatshops.

The U.S. trade deficit has reached nearly $1 trillion a year. That’s larger than our defense budget, almost 4% of our GDP and about 15% compared with the federal budget.

Trade deficits destroy American jobs, shrink domestic manufacturing, threaten national security through the erosion of our defense industrial base and reduce annual GDP growth.

Over time, trade deficits transfer massive amounts of our wealth to foreign countries.

When foreigners buy farmland, factories or real estate, they gain control over American economic assets, and the U.S. becomes increasingly dependent on foreigners for food production, industrial capacity and even housing markets — China already owns far too much of our food supply chain and housing.

Consider, too, from a national security perspective that the U.S. trade deficit with China is significantly larger than China’s military budget.

In effect, American consumers are financing China’s construction of aircraft carriers, fifth-generation fighters, hypersonic jets, nuclear weapons and personnel that may one day kill Americans.

Reducing America’s massive trade deficits through the Trump tariffs is key to boosting sustainable GDP growth. It encourages domestic production, reduces reliance on foreign imports and ensures that more wealth stays within the U.S. economy to be reinvested in jobs and industries.

The faux inflation argument is a cudgel that globalist publications such as Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal like to beat Mr. Trump over the head with. In an election year, the Democrats are more than ready to pounce on this false argument.

Here’s the truth: The Trump tariffs did not cause inflation during his presidency. They will not cause inflation in Mr. Trump’s second term.

When America imposes tariffs on major trading partners such as China or Germany, the Trump tariffs force these trading partners to reduce the prices of their goods sold to us.

The American market is too important to their export-dependent economies for them to try to pass along the full tariffs to American consumers.

Over time, as the Trump tariffs bring our manufacturing and supply chains back on shore and American corporations invest more in American workers, real wages and employment rise, likewise moderating any possible inflationary effects.

Mr. Trump has proposed a 20% across-the-board tariff on American imports. With annual U.S. imports of nearly $4 trillion, such a baseline tariff would raise about $800 billion annually.

This is nearly equivalent to the U.S. defense budget for 2023. This incremental revenue would finance most or all of the annual federal deficit. At about 12% of total federal revenue, this tariff revenue could finance substantial tax cuts.

In the fog of this presidential campaign, do not be fooled by the facile arguments of the globalist elites who have told us for decades that tariffs are bad and free trade is the road to prosperity.

These globalist elites, financed by multinational corporations, feed us this free trade dogma as justification for sending our jobs and factories to Asia, Europe and Latin America. They always put their own profits above the American people.

Nowhere are the broken promises of the WTO, NAFTA and free trade better understood than in the battleground states of Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — ground zero for the carnage wrought by free rather than fair trade.

Michigan has lost much of its auto industry, North Carolina its furniture and textile industries and Pennsylvania its steel industry. Wisconsin said goodbye to thousands of industrial machinery, paper production and electronics jobs.

Come Nov. 5, voters in these battleground states will welcome the Trump tariffs with open arms — as should the rest of this country.

Peter Navarro served as Donald Trump’s trade and manufacturing czar. Read more about Mr. Trump’s policies in “The New MAGA Deal” and at www.substack.com/navarro

[ccp]

Good podcast with numerous interesting points but the discussion with Glenn
Beck and his new book starts around 23:50 minute mark:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/548-bill-oreillys-no-spin-news-28287326/episode/analyzing-the-enemies-within-our-country-231019093/

Perhaps we need a better thread for this?

[Crafty_Dog]

What would you have us call it?

We already have "Globalization" in the subject line here , , ,

[ccp]

Elites, UN, WHO WEF, Schwab control of the world?

[Crafty_Dog]

I just edited the subject line.   What do you think?

[ccp]

better 

[ccp]

from a very disappointed Bloomberg (anti Trump the economy will crash) news:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-trump-tariffs-coming-ceos-200001165.html

now election is over => no biggie

 

[Crafty_Dog]

"Remember when the theory of globalization was that intertwining our businesses, investments, and products with CCP would prevent war, confrontation, and instability?

"Instead CCP took advantage of this to destroy us."

[Crafty_Dog]

December 4, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

The Global Economy Is Changing, and so Is Latin America’s
A lot of it comes down to the protection of the dollar.
By: Allison Fedirka

Of all the regions affected by the global economic restructuring currently underway, Eurasia has commanded the most attention. And rightly so – the enormous landmass bridges export-dependent China with energy suppliers and access routes to European markets. It’s also home to the emerging markets of Central and South Asia where major economies hope to grow influence. But no region will be spared from the changes, the first signs of which in Latin America are starting to take shape. In addition to near-shoring efforts in the Americas – the clearest manifestation of changes in the Western Hemisphere so far – there have been a series of developments that suggest a deeper shift is happening in other areas.

One of those areas is trade blocs. The U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement and Mercosur, the hemisphere’s two largest groupings, face an uncertain future. The USMCA is slated for renegotiation in the coming months, and those involved have until July 1, 2026, to reach a new agreement or, by default, they will trigger the trade agreement’s sunset clause. This puts at risk nearly $2 trillion worth of trade across North America, $623 billion of foreign direct investment in the United States and $569 billion of U.S. FDI in Canada and Mexico. Given the amount of money at stake and the sheer integration among the pact’s members, it’s hard to imagine walking away from the agreement.

Even so, some have already acknowledged the need for backup plans. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has already linked trade negotiations with border security and has threatened a 25 percent tariff on all goods from Canada and Mexico if they don’t implement stronger measures to stem the flow of drugs and migrants. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government has a "plan B" for any U.S. tariffs on oil exports and remains open to enacting retaliatory measures as needed. Meanwhile, many provincial premiers in Canada have called for the federal government to consider entering into a bilateral agreement with the U.S. rather than maintaining the current trilateral structure. Though some of this can be attributed to negotiation tactics, it also hints at the possibility of a major revamping in how North America conducts trade.

Farther south, the presidents of Mercosur member states convene on Dec. 5 in Montevideo to discuss the bloc’s future. The top two agenda items – a pending free trade agreement with the EU and liberalizing rules to allow for independent trade deals – exemplify the bloc’s weakness and decline. Finalizing the EU-Mercosur trade deal has been 24 years in the making, and yet hurdles remain. The inability to strike a deal with other economic blocs or countries calls into question the very utility of Mercosur. Meanwhile, Argentine President Javier Milei is leading the call to allow for independent trade agreements for Mercosur members. Uruguayan President-elect Yamandu Orsi and Brazil’s business community members support his view. The pressure for such a drastic change stems from the different needs of different member states, not to mention their respective governments’ search for solutions to economic problems. Essentially, the ability to negotiate FTAs outside the bloc would ultimately defeat the original purpose of having collective power in gaining trade agreements, which require unanimous approval.

Elsewhere, there are notable infrastructure projects under discussion that could affect the transit of various goods throughout the Americas. Maritime transport dominates international trade in the Western Hemisphere, with most Latin American countries being organized around major port cities and infrastructure that supports the conveyance of natural resources from the interior to the coast. Unsurprisingly, transit between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans plays a crucial role in regional trade dynamics.

Historically, the Panama Canal has been a centerpiece of interoceanic trade. However, an intense drought recently put the canal’s dominance into doubt and spurred the development of alternative routes. Panama is considering the construction of a dry canal parallel to the water canal as a backup mode of transit. Mexico is already in the process of building infrastructure along its own isthmus. Nicaragua recently announced the revival of an interoceanic canal, 12 years after the initial (unsuccessful) proposal. (The feasibility of this project is uncertain given the engineering demands and insufficient information on financing.) And Colombia has also started moving forward with a transoceanic train project that it says will complement Panama Canal traffic. The success of any one of these new projects would change the landscape of interoceanic trade.

Finally, there are indications that Latin America may be a target for tariffs under the incoming Trump administration, which has been vocal about its intention to use tariffs as part of its overall economic strategy. (GPF has previously noted that despite the rhetoric, the administration will be strategic and selective with its tariff policy.) Most recently, Trump representatives said the administration would put tariffs on all imports from BRICS countries, particularly Brazil, if they attempt to devise a single currency. This is a reminder of how eager Washington will be to engage in economic warfare to secure the value of the dollar.

Given the prominence of commodities in Latin American economies – commodities that are traded primarily in U.S. dollars – the future of the dollar and the suppression of other currencies in trade matters. The U.S. dollar still dominates markets and comes with a level of stability absent in other currencies. While the likelihood of abandoning it remains very low, several Latin American countries have dabbled in local currency trade and non-dollar currency swaps. The prospect of the U.S. economic incentives to secure the dollar puts many of the region’s economies in the potential crosshairs of anticipated U.S. trade wars.

[Crafty_Dog]

December 6, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

ASEAN: Beneficiaries of Global Trade's Realignment
More than a sixth of all foreign direct investment in 2023 flowed into the Southeast Asian bloc.
By: Geopolitical Futures

ASEAN | Recent FDI Trends

(click to enlarge)

Amid global uncertainties, companies diversifying supply chains away from China have driven a surge in foreign direct investment into the countries that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In 2023, FDI inflows to the region reached $236 billion, up sharply from the annual average of $190 billion from 2020 to 2022. ASEAN's share of global FDI rose to 17 percent in 2023, compared to an average of just 6 percent from 2006 to 2015.

Investment came primarily from the United States, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Europe and South Korea, spurred by geopolitical tensions and the bloc’s pro-investment policies. ASEAN has leveraged regional agreements and frameworks to attract capital, targeting sectors such as infrastructure, digital economy, finance, transportation and renewable energy. Investors are attracted to ASEAN's stability, competitive advantages and diverse opportunities. Singapore remains a hub for hardware, software and services, while Vietnam and Indonesia lead in manufacturing sectors, including electronics, chemicals, solar panels and shipping containers. To sustain this momentum, ASEAN could focus on expanding small businesses, fostering emerging industries, enhancing skills development and deepening regional integration through additional trade and investment deals.

[Crafty_Dog]

(5) U.S. AG VULNERABLE TO CHINA TRADE WAR: Dutch multinational bank Rabobank global sector strategist Steve Nicholson said the dynamics of a U.S.-China trade war have changed, and “this time they [China] are prepared” due to record stockpiles of agricultural products.
Citigroup Global Markets analysts said a resolution to a U.S.-China trade war could eventually emerge, but China will have a “lower appetite” for returning to previous import levels for U.S. ag products.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urged the incoming Trump administration to maintain communication channels with China, including the Economic Working Group and Financial Working Group. Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs Jay Shambaugh said the working groups were invaluable for preventing “unnecessary misunderstandings and escalations” between the U.S. and China.
Why It Matters: While the building trade war between the U.S. and China will likely hit U.S. agriculture exports, the primary fight is still likely to be over tech development and the U.S.-China AI race. The extension of the current Farm Bill, without cuts to financing mechanisms, will allow the Trump administration to mitigate the impact of Chinese ag import cuts as Trump did in his first term. Trump’s tariff threats are likely an opening move for trade negotiations with China, and Trump inviting China’s President Xi Jinping to the 20 January inauguration is likely a signal to China that the U.S. wants to maintain open communications. – R.C.

[Crafty_Dog]

(1) TRUMP TELLS EXECS HE IS SERIOUS ON TARIFFS: According to people familiar with the matter, the Trump transition team told corporate lobbyists and consultants “there is no waving off” President-elect Trump’s plans to use tariffs when he takes office in January.
A lobbyist during the first Trump administration speaking anonymously said he is warning clients to take Trump’s tariff threats “at face value.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said President-elect Trump might be open to negotiations over tariffs with Mexico and Canada, but will take a harder line with China due to the economic and national security threat posed by China.
Why It Matters: According to Goldman Sachs, Trump’s plans for tariffs are likely to be fast in decision but slow in implementation, as the Trump administration runs into legal hurdles levying blanket tariffs. Trump’s cabinet nominations signal that Trump is attempting to balance market stability with tariff threats to achieve foreign policy objectives. Mexico and Canada have already signaled cooperation with the Trump administration. China appears to be preparing for a trade war with the U.S., however, and China’s response to tariffs will likely exceed past actions such as shifting agricultural purchases away from U.S. exports. China has already begun targeting U.S. companies with sanctions and investigations and will likely increase export restrictions of key industrial inputs. – R.C

========================

(5) CFIUS IS SPLIT ON NIPPON-U.S. STEEL DEAL: U.S. Treasury’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) has informed Nippon Steel that the panel reviewing its $14.9 billion purchase of U.S. Steel remains divided, citing national security concerns. CFIUS has until 22 December to submit its recommendation to the White House, though both President Biden and President-elect Trump have publicly stated that they intend to block the deal. (Oversight of the Nippon-U.S. Steel deal underscores the growing importance of Treasury and CFIUS to business transactions with national security implications, and it is likely that their scope will only expand under a Trump Administration. – M.N.)

[Crafty_Dog]

(6) BUILDERS SAY TARIFFS TO DISRUPT CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: Michigan-based consulting firm Ducker Carlisle managing principal Chris Fisher said the incoming Trump administration’s proposed broad tariffs could disrupt U.S. construction, and delay or cancel construction projects entirely. (Data center construction would likely take a significant hit from increased input prices, while already dealing with shortages of key electrical components that have slowed efforts to connect data centers to U.S. grids. – R.C.)

[Crafty_Dog]

He’s a Factory Owner and Friends With Trump. That Makes Tariffs Personal.
Casino billionaire Phil Ruffin also owns a small Kansas factory that relies on some parts from China

By Hannah Miao
Jan. 4, 2025 5:30 am ET

Tariffs could boost business for Harper Trucks, a small hand-truck manufacturer, or end up raising costs of parts the factory imports from China.

Harper Trucks is struggling to hire workers, like other American manufacturers. Tariffs raise the question of whether lower-wage manufacturing jobs are worth fighting for.

Harper’s owner, Phil Ruffin, is a Las Vegas casino billionaire who co-owns Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas with President-elect Donald Trump.

WICHITA, Kan.—Donald Trump’s exact plans to raise tariffs remain a mystery, even to Phil Ruffin, a close friend and business partner to the president-elect.

Increased tariffs could boost business for Harper Trucks, a small hand-truck manufacturer Ruffin has owned for more than four decades, or end up raising costs of parts the factory imports from China. (A hand truck, sometimes called a dolly or a hand trolley, is a small, wheeled cart used to move heavy objects.)

Tariff policy could be critical for American manufacturers like Harper, fighting to survive. Harper’s sales volumes have fallen in recent years, which Ruffin blames on cheap hand-truck imports, largely from Vietnam. Tariffs stand to make Harper’s made-in-America products more attractive by making foreign goods more expensive through a tax paid by importers.

“That’ll make us more competitive,” Ruffin said of tariffs. “But will that get us any more business? I don’t know, I’m not sure about that.”

Trump on the campaign trail proposed a 10% to 20% tariff on all imports and a tariff increase on China to at least 60%. More recently, he threatened to impose a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10% tariff on Chinese imports.

Tariffs, which are meant to help U.S. manufacturing, among other goals, also raise an even larger question for the American economy: Are lower-wage manufacturing jobs worth fighting for?

Harper, like many manufacturers, already struggles to hire workers. And the range of outcomes it faces shows the complex and often contradictory ripple effects of tariffs for American manufacturers enmeshed with global supply chains.

The hand-truck factory in Wichita, Kan., is an outlier in Ruffin’s empire of casinos and hotels. Ruffin, 89 years old, bought Harper, which has been around almost as long as he has been alive, in 1981—long before he became a billionaire. Ruffin owns Treasure Island on the Vegas Strip and co-owns the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas with the president-elect. Harper, he told the Wichita Eagle in 2019, is a “pimple on my butt.”

Harper is wholly owned by Ruffin. “I do all my stockholders meetings in bed,” he quipped.

He declined to share how much money he makes from the hand-truck factory, but put it this way: “If I depended on Harper for a living, I’d be in big trouble.”

Still, he feels an obligation to keep his factory running. Some of Harper’s employees have worked for him for decades. He has watched them buy houses and put their children through college.

“It’s kind of a personal thing,” said Ruffin, who grew up in Wichita and still visits every week or so.

Harper employs about 120 people. On a mid-December day, the roughly 400,000 square-foot factory is chilly. The breakroom is filled with holiday decorations, and the staff is looking forward to a Christmas lunch the next day catered by Stroud’s, a local restaurant known for its fried chicken.



Harper Trucks in Wichita, Kan.
Some workers arrive at the factory each day around 3 a.m., a schedule they adopted to deal with intense heat in the summertime. Signs throughout the factory are written in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Workers use machines to shape steel and aluminum into the components of the hand trucks. The pieces make their way through welding, painting and assembly, then are packaged for shipping. Products leave the factory with red, white and blue stickers saying “Made in the USA with pride.”

Domestic manufacturers remained the largest supplier of hand trucks to the U.S. through 2014, according to U.S. International Trade Commission reviews. But by 2019, imports from countries outside of China, primarily Vietnam and Taiwan, overtook domestic producers in market share.

In recent years, Vietnam emerged as a major winner in Trump’s first trade war, becoming a magnet for Chinese manufacturers looking to get around tariffs. That explains why the bosses at Harper are cautiously optimistic about Trump’s proposal to add tariffs on all imports.

“I would take a tariff on Vietnam if it made the playing field equal,” said Harper’s senior vice president and general manager, Chris Squires. A mug in his office reads, “Don’t blame me I voted for Trump.”

A worker at Harper Trucks prepares a hand-truck component.
A worker at Harper Trucks prepares a hand-truck component.
He doesn’t think a 10% tax on imports from Vietnam is likely to move the needle. But a 20% tariff might make Harper more appealing to the retailers that buy hand trucks.

Harper recently lost a contract with Lowe’s, which Ruffin attributed to a shift toward cheaper models imported from Vietnam. Lowe’s didn’t respond to a request for comment. Overall in 2024, Harper sold about 290,000 units, down from around 410,000 units in 2023 and about 560,000 the year before.

Advocates of tariffs say duties can help bolster U.S. industries, respond to other countries’ trade practices and bring in revenue for the government. They say tariffs can help make the U.S. economy less reliant on other countries.

A U.S. International Trade Commission report found that Trump’s 2018 tariffs on steel and aluminum reduced imports, increased U.S. production of those products and were followed by the announcement of new domestic investments by steel and aluminum companies.

The same report found that production fell for downstream manufacturers that use steel and aluminum. Some studies found that higher costs for parts and retaliatory tariffs hurt domestic producers, outweighing the benefits of tariffs to other parts of the manufacturing industry.

“I worry about the unintended consequences,” said Mike Rose, Harper’s controller.

Phil Ruffin in his office at Harper Trucks.
Phil Ruffin in his office at Harper Trucks.
Harper imports wheels and casters from China and buys other pieces of small hardware sourced abroad, so it anticipates those costs to go up if tariffs increase. It is in the process of switching some of its wheel purchases to a U.S. maker, but doesn’t expect to be able to source all of its parts domestically.

It also bought a Chinese manufacturer called WelCom Products in 2013 that produces lower-end folding carts, which make up a smaller portion of the company’s sales. Squires, the general manager, expects that higher tariffs on China would significantly curb that line of business for Harper.

Harper raised prices when tariffs from Trump’s first term increased costs, and is prepared to do so again to meet its target profit margin if Trump lifts tariffs further. One model that can carry 600 pounds sells for around $80 at Home Depot. Another model that can be converted into a four-wheel cart goes for about $130 at Walmart.

Some economists say increased trade with the world has helped lower costs for American consumers and has allowed U.S. businesses to offload lower-skilled production overseas, while focusing on research, innovation, design and marketing domestically.

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked nationally in 1979 at nearly 20 million workers, representing 22% of nonfarm employment, according to Labor Department data. As of November, roughly 13 million people were employed in manufacturing, about 8% of nonfarm workers.

“Do we want to be using resources to redirect workers and capital towards a job that can be done equally well by a low-skilled worker in Vietnam?” said Teresa Fort, a professor at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business. “We have to ask, how much more expensive are we willing for our goods to be in order to have those jobs back?”




Hand-truck components await assembly on the factory floor at Harper Trucks in Wichita, Kan.
Even if tariffs bring more jobs, U.S. manufacturers will likely have a hard time filling them. About 60% of respondents to the National Association of Manufacturers’ third-quarter outlook survey said attracting and retaining a quality workforce was a primary business challenge.

Harper has struggled to fill its ranks, with the unemployment rate in Wichita hovering around 3% for much of the past few years. At times, Harper has turned to temporary staffing agencies and having employees work overtime. “Just finding good employees has been very challenging,” said Rose, the controller.

Most employees make between $16 and $22 an hour, according to Rose. Other costs, including for medical insurance and electricity for the factory, keep climbing.

In some ways, Harper has been slow to adapt to technological changes. It only recently hired a sales manager focused on e-commerce and is just starting to experiment with using social media to market its products. The company didn’t switch its record-keeping from paper to digital until about six years ago.

Chris Squires on Harper Trucks’ factory floor.
Chris Squires on Harper Trucks’ factory floor.
But Harper is also trying to patent novel designs to stand out and drum up business. The company’s vice president, engineering manager and assistant plant manager, Jose Mendoza, designed a five-in-one hand truck that switches positions with a press of a button, which Harper is rolling out and hoping could be a new bestseller.

“We try to innovate. That’s one of the ways that we are competing,” said Mendoza, who immigrated to Wichita from Honduras when he was 16 and started working on Harper’s factory floor after high school more than two decades ago. “But it’s getting harder and harder.”

Ruffin said he talks to Trump often, but doesn’t weigh in on policy issues. In addition to being a business partner, Trump was Ruffin’s best man at his 2008 wedding to former Miss Ukraine Oleksandra Nikolayenko. Ruffin has been a steadfast supporter and donor to the president-elect and said he was with Trump on election night.

“He’s a very brilliant businessman,” Ruffin said of Trump. “I’m really, really excited to see what he’s going to do.”

[ccp]

https://www.thefp.com/p/how-biden-screwed-the-steelworkers-nippon-steel-japan?utm_campaign=email-post&r=2ydk9a&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[Crafty_Dog]

An error IMHO.  An error when Trump says the same thing too.

[DougMacG]

An error IMHO.  An error when Trump says the same thing too.

Doesn't seem like they would spend $15B buying it just to close it, nor invest 2.7B more to modernize it just to close or move it. US owned is a good idea, but not working out very well.  Japan is a strategic ally.  The dumping argument doesn't make sense, selling below cost in the long run.  95% of union members supporting the sale says something.

Moving to Arkansas for non-union labor is interesting.  Which Great Lake are they on?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_freighter

[DougMacG]

Mexican Peso and Canadian Dollar in free fall after Trump's tariff announcement.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/MXN-USD

https://www.google.com/search?q=Canadian+dollar+US+dollar

[ccp]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/02/davos-isnt-as-smug-or-as-cool-as-it-used-to-be/

Before = Trump Now =Trump

Before = Melei Now Melei

Before = Schwab  Now Schwab

Me = Fantastic !  What say you Clooney DeCaprio Deniro Perrry Roberts and the other "beautiful" virtue signalers.?

[DougMacG]

International Monetary Fund estimate that a 1% increase in trade openness leads to/or is associated with a 2-5% increase in GDP.

https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/reviec/v29y2021i4p703-731.html

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2025/02/03/trump_should_give_canada_trade_a_closer_look_1088676.html
------------

(Doug)
Trade deficit is a misnomer.
Trade deficit means Imports are greater than exports.
But all trades are mutually beneficial by definition.
Therefore you should add Imports to exports, not subtract them.

[Crafty_Dog]

I think Trump makes valid distinctions:

Tariffs for National Security
Tariffs for Supply Chain Security
Tariffs as part of move to minimizing/ending taxation on domestic eonomic activity.

[Crafty_Dog]

(9) TARIFFS ACCELERATING RESHORING, NEARSHORING: Taiwan’s government pledged additional support to hundreds of companies they have operating in Mexico and Canada. They also pledged to assist any companies planning to relocate to the United States with location and regulation information.

Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs added that it is looking for American state and local support to move Taiwanese companies into America.

Why It Matters: Trump’s broad use of tariffs is accelerating reshoring and nearshoring efforts and generally placing critical supply chains into America’s hemisphere, where the U.S. military can more easily secure them in the event of a war. Taiwan is taking these efforts because it faces a 100% tariff from America while Mexico and Canada have suspended 25% tariffs. - J.V.

[DougMacG]

They aren't really tariffs unless our neighbors refuse to cooperate on the basic needs of neighborly cooperation.

As usual Victor Hanson explains it best.

These Trump actions are not in conflict with the ideal of free trade. If anything, they are the path to it.

Free trade is a two way street (or it's not free trade).

https://amgreatness.com/2025/02/06/are-trumps-tariffs-really-tariffs/

[Crafty_Dog]

February 7, 2025
View On Website
Open as PDF

Aluminum Prices and US Tariffs
Duties on Mexican and Canadian goods could disrupt the global aluminum market.
By: Geopolitical Futures

Effect of Trump's Tariffs on Aluminum
(click to enlarge)

U.S. tariffs on Canada and Mexico, if implemented, will likely disrupt the global aluminum market. A similar pattern emerged during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term, when tariffs triggered price swings, particularly in the U.S., which as of 2023 relied on Canada for 74.25 percent of its raw, unalloyed aluminum imports.

Aluminum prices track global economic trends, given the metal’s critical role in automotive, aerospace, construction and packaging industries. The Russia-Ukraine war and the pandemic have already shaken the market. Any trade policy adjustment that tightens supply chains could drive up costs for businesses and consumers. If tariffs hurt U.S. manufacturers instead of helping them, as the administration intends, the Trump administration might reverse course – just as it did during his first term.

[ccp]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-wants-a-sovereign-wealth-fund-heres-how-other-nations-run-theirs-5804192

It could only last till the Democrats get back power then they would raid the fund to pay for everything they dream of.

[Crafty_Dog]

The Truth About Trump’s Steel Tariffs
His first-term levies hurt consumers and U.S. manufacturers.
By The Editorial Board
Updated Feb. 10, 2025 6:43 pm ET

President Trump gave the economy another jolt of uncertainty on Monday when he signed executive orders imposing 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports. His advisers say these tariffs are economically “strategic” rather than a bargaining chip for some other goal. Is the strategy to harm U.S. manufacturers and workers?

That’s what his first-term tariffs did, and it’s worth revisiting the damage of that blunder as he threatens to repeat it. In March 2018, Mr. Trump announced 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum under the pretext of protecting national security. Then, as now, most U.S. metal imports came from allies including Canada, Mexico, Europe, South Korea and Japan.

Mr. Trump said tariffs were needed to boost domestic steel and aluminum production. But U.S. production was already increasing amid a surge in capital investment unleashed by his deregulation and 2017 tax reform. U.S. steel capacity utilization climbed to 78.5% in March 2018 from 72.4% in December 2016.

The real goal of U.S. steel and aluminum companies that wanted the tariffs was to boost their bottom lines. Raising prices on foreign imports allowed them to charge more. The price was paid by U.S. secondary metal producers and downstream manufacturers.

Consider Mid-Continent Steel and Wire, which produced roughly half of the nails made in the U.S. After the steel tariffs took effect, its sales plunged by more than half, causing it to lay off 80 workers. Another 120 quit because they worried its Missouri factory might close. After this damage, the Commerce Department granted the company a tariff exemption.

Auto makers were another casualty. Ford Motor said tariffs subtracted $750 million from its bottom line in 2018, which reduced profit-sharing bonuses for each of its workers by $750. GM said the tariffs dented its profits by some $1 billion, equal to the pay of more than 10,000 employees.

The tariffs also made U.S. manufacturers less globally competitive and prompted retaliation that hurt American businesses. Canada imposed tariffs on $12.8 billion in U.S. products, including 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum. Harley-Davidson shifted some production to Thailand to avoid Europe’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. motorbikes.

Retaliation caused Mr. Trump to exempt Canada and Mexico as part of the renegotiated Nafta deal. His Administration also struck deals with some countries that exempted a certain amount of their steel and aluminum exports.

Even so, the tariffs created uncertainty for U.S. manufacturers and boomeranged on steel and aluminum companies. Employment in durable goods manufacturing began to decline in early 2019, which reduced demand for steel and aluminum. Employment in fabricated metals manufacturing that used steel and aluminum plunged and is still some 35,000 lower than when the tariffs took effect.

2015
'16
'17
'18
'19
'20
'21
'22
'23
'24
'25
1,325
1,350
1,375
1,400
1,425
1,450
1,475
1,500
1,525
Employees
U.S. steel and aluminum firms enjoyed a surge in post-pandemic investment and consumer spending, and profits rolled in. But demand for the metals fell again as U.S. manufacturing struggled amid President Biden’s regulatory onslaught and higher interest rates. Domestic steel-making capacity utilization has fallen back to 70%, about the same as in 2016.

Which is why U.S. steel and aluminum producers now want tariffs with no exemptions. They blame imports for reducing prices. But steel prices are about 50% higher than pre-pandemic levels and aluminum prices a third higher. Cleveland-Cliffs shares rose 17.9% Monday, and other steel makers by 5% or so in expectation of windfall tariff profits.

This is political rent-seeking at its most brazen, and it benefits the few at the expense of the many. None of this matters to Mr. Trump, whose dogmatic views on tariffs can’t be turned by evidence. But we thought our readers would like to know the rest of the story.

[Crafty_Dog]

Some graphs will not appear here:
=========================

February 12, 2025
View On Website
Open as PDF

Russia’s Place in the US-China Trade War
Moscow won’t be able to sit this one out.
By: Ekaterina Zolotova

Last week, Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said Russia did not intend to get involved in the U.S. trade conflicts with Canada, Mexico and China, leaving the resolution of these issues to the participants themselves. But for Moscow, this is easier said than done. Despite all the international sanctions against it, Russia is still very much involved in global trade, and one of its key partners – China – will have no choice but to participate in the trade war.

To be sure, the previous trade war between the U.S. and China during the first Trump administration hurt the Russian economy. Certain restrictions such as aluminum tariffs hit Russia directly. But the conflict also had its benefits. At the time, the Russian economy was oriented primarily toward Europe, which accounted for more than 40 percent of Russian trade. The United States still openly traded with Russia, albeit at a much smaller rate (3.6 percent of Russia's total trade turnover). Moscow thus saw the trade war as an opportunity to diversify exports to the Asia-Pacific countries that were directly affected by the conflict and to make up for trade lost from sanctions imposed in 2014, when it annexed Crimea. In this way, Russia believed it could strengthen ties with China and wean itself off its dependency on Europe. There was, after all, a hole to fill after China increased duties to 25 percent on several U.S. goods. This was the moment that China’s and Russia’s interests on the matter aligned.

Agricultural products are a good example of the dynamics at play. In 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the trade war between Beijing and Washington was an opportunity for Russia to supply food products to China. Soon thereafter, Moscow and Beijing agreed that Russia would supply poultry meat and other goods to China. In the first 10 months of 2019, supplies of agricultural products to China increased by 25.1 percent year over year to $2.6 billion. Russia soon became one of China’s largest food suppliers. This cooperation dispelled Chinese companies' reservations over investing in the heavily sanctioned country. In 2019, for example, China’s Joyvio Beidahuang Agricultural Holdings pledged to invest almost 10 billion rubles ($106 million) in Russian agriculture. Though the pandemic and the tightening of sanctions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused a dip, China’s share of total Russian agricultural exports in 2023 alone climbed to just over 23 percent.

Flow of Russian Food Exports to China
(click to enlarge)

China's desire to diversify supplies allowed Russia to finally gain a foothold in the Asia-Pacific market – not just as a supplier of cheap energy resources but as a legitimate trade partner. In 2018, trade turnover with China increased by 25 percent (44 percent in exports but just 8 percent in imports), amounting to $108 billion, and Russia achieved a positive trade balance. This led then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to announce a goal to increase mutual trade to $200 billion.

Share of China Trade in Russia
(click to enlarge)

But Russia’s circumstances are fundamentally different in the current trade war. For one thing, the United States’ and China’s respective goals are different today than they were in 2018. Back then, the U.S. wanted to reduce the deficit in mutual trade. Now, there is a broader strategic objective of weakening China, which, despite internal problems, is still a competitor to developed countries in the high-tech sector, artificial intelligence and logistics. More important, Russia is much more weakened and isolated today than it was six years ago. The sanctions from the annexation of Crimea were far less severe than the sanctions of today, which have already had a major impact on Russian trade flows and foreign exchange earnings. And since Russia is more closely tied to China now than it was previously, it is more vulnerable to shocks in the Chinese economy. Over the past three years, not only has Russia been the largest supplier of oil and gas to China, but China has been a major buyer of Russian metals, agricultural products and manufactured goods. If the trade war hurts the Chinese economy by, say, curbing domestic demand, then it will adversely affect Russian exports, which, in turn, will deprive Moscow of much-needed foreign currency. Decreased demand in China, moreover, would likely lower the price of oil, which will devalue the ruble and accelerate Russian inflation.

In addition to the risk surrounding Chinese demand, Russia faces a new threat that didn’t really matter the first time around: the exchange rate of the yuan. Though the exchange rate against the dollar has been stable lately, the value of the yuan could spiral amid a weakening economy. Because of sanctions, Russia has reduced the use of the dollar and the euro as means of payment and storage, and the yuan plays a key role in the formation of reserve assets for the Bank of Russia. The decline of the yuan, then, could threaten Russian savings.

Crucially, Russia lacks the kind of opportunities for diversification it had in 2018. That year, it could afford to diversify trade partners – that is, pivot to East Asia – because it still had a relatively healthy trade relationship with the West. Take the example of aluminum. Sanctions against Russian aluminum company Rusal caused supply to drop by a massive 64 percent. Much of this had been going to the United States. But later, Russia was able to redirect supplies of the same aluminum to East Asia, including South Korea. Russia is now in a situation in which trade flows are already entirely redirected to the east. But if demand there falls, Russia cannot simply go back to the U.S. or the West. The same applies to Russian oil and gas. Beijing has long been committed to a policy of diversifying energy sources, and Russian supplies already occupy a significant share of the Chinese oil and coal market.

Russia’s economy is on the brink of a slowdown, and the coming trade war between China and the U.S. will only make things more uncertain. Thanks to sanctions, Russia is no longer able to quickly replace shortfalls in exports that could arise from anti-China and anti-U.S. tariffs. Given U.S. President Donald Trump’s more protectionist economic policies – and given that the U.S. is still a major trade partner for China – the prospect of a China-Russia economic “coalition” to combat Washington is unlikely. Instead, China will prefer to maintain neutrality on issues that stoke tensions between Russia and the U.S., even if it keeps trade with Russia open. It’s a bad position for Russia to be in.

[Crafty_Dog]

( FORD CEO: TARIFFS WILL BLOW A HOLE IN AUTO INDUSTRY: Ford Motor CEO Jim Farley said 25% blanket tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada will “blow a hole” in the U.S. auto industry never before seen. Farley said the tariffs will give foreign automakers that import finished vehicles into the U.S. an advantage over American car makers.

[Crafty_Dog]

(1) TRUMP ORDERS RECIPROCAL TARIFFS TO START IN APRIL: President Donald Trump directed the U.S. Trade Representative and Commerce Secretary to propose new tariffs on a country-by-country basis to rebalance trade relations with foreign trade partners.
Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick said all studies for the reciprocal tariffs will be finished by 1 April, and Trump could act on tariffs immediately afterward.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration is also “looking at currency manipulation” ahead of the April deadline.
Why It Matters: The United States is moving back to a mercantilist system where economic power is used like military power. Americans don’t typically think of using economic power to defend the homeland, but that’s exactly what this is. The problem is that these trade deficits have become a national security risk because we’ve exported key production, key technologies, and geostrategic power to foreign countries. Trump is not only trying to bring back key manufacturing industries, but also solve this problem of foreign countries having leverage over the United States. As I’ve been explaining since November last year, this shift will impose some challenges. Inflation had started to tick up even before Trump entered the White House, and we’re seeing additional concern over tariff-related inflation now. But this is part of the process: when the dollar is weaker, imports become more expensive, so on-shoring or near-shoring production becomes more economically viable. This is the strategy, and there will be some economic, financial, and monetary pain – but the alternative is that we continue exporting jobs, key production, and leverage to foreign countries. A great synopsis of this analysis is available here:

https://members.earlywarningnetwork.com/posts/trumps-mercantilist-approach-is-a-matter-of-national-economic-survival. - M.S.

[Crafty_Dog]

(6) TRUMP: AUTO TARIFFS COMING ON 2 APRIL: President Donald Trump said he will unveil new tariffs on automobiles imported into the U.S. on 2 April.
Why It Matters: U.S. automakers warned that impending blanket tariffs on Canada and Mexico would “blow a hole” in the auto industry, as about 80% of parts used in U.S. made vehicles are imported from the two countries. The Trump administration likely intends for these auto tariffs to remove the advantage Ford Motor CEO Jim Farley warned foreign automakers would have if the blanket tariffs go into effect. - R.C.

[Crafty_Dog]

HT BBG


Tariffs, China, Tungsten, & Minerals Economics
Posted on 19 February 2025 by E.M.Smith
Trump puts Tariffs On China, Who Cut Off Tungsten! Panic!! Or not…

Once Again we get to go around the “resource, reserves, production, etc.” maypole.

Trump put Tariffs on China, Mexico, Canada; and China has responded by “cutting off” exports of Tungsten to the USA. They have 90-ish-% of Total Production!!! Oh Noes!!!! NOBODY else has any, PANIC!

But that “story” comes from people who have need of more clue about “Resources”, “Reserves”, and “Production”. Also how minerals exploration works. So let’s break out the Clue Stick and supply some clue with it.

First off, is China dominating world production because they have all the Tungsten? Did the USA Stop mining Tungsten because we ran out? No, and No. China has most of the production because they are the low cost producer since their workers make pennies compared to US workers making $40+ dollars for the same work. “We” stopped mining and refining Tungsten because China was a cheap source. We still have lots of Tungsten deposits. (We likely don’t have the miners and refiners anymore having fired them a decade or two ago).

Here’s a map of where Tungsten deposits are located:

Global Tungsten Map
Global Tungsten Map

From:

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/11/7/701

There’s tungsten deposits all over the globe. They come in different qualities, different sizes, and different costs to extract; but they are there. Including in the USA.

But BUT BUT!!! CHINA has most of the “Reserves”!

Yes, that’s what they holler in the news. But what are “Reserves”? Or more properly “Economically Recoverable Reserves”? As the long form makes clear, it depends on the PRICE compared to some other supplier. If, say, China, with weak environmental requirements and slave labor (or near slave labor costs), produces a mineral and refines it at a PRICE that is 1/2 of your cost to make and produce it and well below the PRICE you need to stay in business and make a little profit: YOU HAVE NO “RESERVES” even if you are sitting on a DEPOSIT 100 times the size of the one in China. It is not “Economic” to “recover” it so is not a “reserve”.

FWIW, there’s about a half dozen levels in this naming system and I’m not going to name them all. There have also been a couple of definitions used over the years, just to confuse things. Like “Ultimately recoverable” meaning you can get it out, but prices will need to rise before it is “economically recoverable”…

A “resource” means it is there, and you can recover and use it. Just maybe not at a price you like.

Now another word about “resources”: Does a company pay $Thousands or $Millions to have teams out combing the land for some mineral that it doesn’t mine or refine? Nope. IF they have an identified “resource” but there’s another lower cost producer so they can not economically produce from it: Do they go searching for more “resource” that they can’t make money from either? Nope. Companies only go looking for more “resource” when their “reserves” are getting low AND they are making money.

So take oil: I have a book from about 1919 stating oil “reserves” were only 50 years and they would run out by 1959. In 1970-ish we were told we only had 50 years of “reserves”. Peak oil was any day now. Anyone want to guess what the current “oil reserves” might be? Yup; 50 years. Why? Because nobody looks for more oil when they already have 50 years worth of work lined up. It’s beyond their retirement date…

Same thing happens with other mineral “resources”. And it happens for improved refining methods. Why spend $Millions on scientists and engineers to use a crappier ore if you already have enough good ore for many decades at current prices? As things get scarcer, and prices rise, the amount of “resources” and “reserves” BOTH rise. Just the way it is.

The Tariff does what to “reserves”?

So say you would like to mine and refine your own Tungsten so that you are not dependent on others for your Tungsten, but you are in a market economy? Further, what if “the other guy” is practicing a variety of Merchantilist practices. Things like artificially cheapening their currency, subsidizing their industry, forbidding your product to be imported, and more.

Well, to “level the field” you can put a tariff on their products, and encourage your domestic industry to produce, but now at higher prices that make it economical for them to operate. Suddenly, a giant pool of “resource” turns into “economic reserves”!! Magic! POOF! Millions of tons of “reserves” pop into existence….

Yes, the price for it domestically will be higher than prior to the tariff, but you are no longer dependent on the other guy, and your money is no longer flooding out of your country and into theirs.

Yes, too, it takes time to go from zero production to full supply production. Sometimes many years. So expect some supply shocks at the initial announcement of tariffs and expect some short term dislocations. Just part of the game.

Is that good or bad?

Could be either. Depends on what you choose to value. Is self reliance “worth it”? Is domestic employment “worth it”? Is getting a predatory pricing adversary out of your markets “worth it”?

So we’ll see how this all shakes out over time. It might be that there is some other producer of tungsten (like Australia) at somewhat higher prices, that can provide our needs and we can just swap contracts to them. Then grow our own production over time. Folks who expect certainty ought not think about “markets”. Markets are inherently a bit chaotic and perplexing to the folks who for emotional reasons “must be in CONTROL”… but markets do just work.

But the biggest thing to always keep in mind is that how much production or “resources” a given country has just does not mean other folks don’t have any, and the other folks may have a LOT of “it”.

So “Don’t Panic!”. Not about Tungsten. Not about Oil. Not about Lithium, or Uranium or any other mineral “resource” folks like to panic about. Simply because the higher the price, the more “reserves” you get…

One other note: Over time, technology lets us extract minerals from ever more dilute and difficult “resource” deposits. As this happens, and the cost to get something out of “worse dirt” increases and so prices rise too; both resources and reserves can increase at an exponential rate. Why? Because there isn’t much Native Copper (copper chunks) in the dirt, but there’s lots more Copper Sulphate Rocks, and even more “dirt with 100 ppm of copper” in it. Every price rise lets you use ever more expensive and more effective “upgrading” technology, and that lets you use ever more dilute “source material” which typically has many times larger deposits… Turning “worthless dirt” into “usable resource” and eventually “reserves” that can be turned into “production”.

In Conclusion

So does this mean it’s OK to drop surprise tariffs on folks all over the place? Probably not. It would be better to think things through, and first contract with other suppliers or contract for a company to make a mine and upgrading facilities before you shock an entire manufacturing sector with supply disruptions.

OTOH: IF you only have limited time (like 2 years until the mid-term elections) and if you need to get a merchantilist leach out of your economy before they suck all the life out of it; maybe it’s a good idea to threaten tariffs to get compliance; and maybe even put them in place to assure freedom from said leaches…

It all depends on what you value and what your goals are for the next few years…

IF you really want to get more of your people working on products you presently import, and really want to have less dependence on some other countries (especially those practicing predatory trade practices) it might be the right path to get started down as fast as possible.

In any case “We’ll See” is about all we can say at the moment. Oh, and “Don’t Panic”

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2025/02/19/tariffs-china-tungsten-minerals-economics/

[Crafty_Dog]

(5) TRUMP ORDERS COMMERCE TO PROBE COPPER TARIFFS: President Donald Trump directed the Commerce Department to investigate possible copper tariffs. Senior Trump officials said copper tariffs are necessary to address dumping and overcapacity in global markets that have negatively impacted domestic copper production, and left defense and other critical production reliant on imports. The investigation will include raw mined copper, refined copper, alloys, and derivative products.

[ccp]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_copper_production

[Crafty_Dog]

(1) TRUMP SIGNALS MAJOR REBALANCE OF U.S. TRADE, ECONOMY: During his address to Congress last night, President Donald Trump said America may go through “a little disturbance” as tariffs take effect, and emphasized that the Trump administration will respond to tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration is going to “rebalance the economy” toward main street instead of Wall Street, and there will be a transition period as tariffs go into effect.

President Trump announced the creation of the White House Office of Shipbuilding, which will focus on accelerating U.S. shipbuilding and offer tax incentives to the shipbuilding industry.

President Trump also said Japan and Korea will invest “trillions of dollars each” in an Alaska natural gas pipeline in partnership with the United States.

Why It Matters: Trump and Bessent are signaling a fundamental shift in the U.S. economy and trade, away from a liberal free trade system that dominated most of the 20th century toward a mercantilist system focused on protecting domestic industry. China has gained market dominance over global logistics and shipbuilding. The Trump administration is attempting to leverage the U.S. economy to break Chinese dominance through port entry fees for Chinese-made cargo ships, boosting U.S. shipbuilders, and growing foreign direct investment in a key energy hub to expand U.S. influence in the Pacific. - R.C.

[ccp]

"Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration is going to “rebalance the economy” toward main street instead of Wall Street, and there will be a transition period as tariffs go into effect."

what Dem would not like this idea 

sounds good to me   

takes away from their screaching "tax cuts for his rich friends" though of course they will say it anyway because that is all they have.

[Crafty_Dog]

"Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration is going to “rebalance the economy” toward main street instead of Wall Street, and there will be a transition period as tariffs go into effect."

Bullet point pithy.  Good!

"takes away from their screaching "tax cuts for his rich friends""

Another pithy bullet point!

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/china-slaps-tariffs-on-canada-for-leverage-against-us/ar-AA1AxoX2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=32b76aa62aa04816f9a469b1586d5466&ei=10

[DougMacG]

I have made the point that China is something like 6 times more dependent on their exports than we are to theirs. For Canada the advantage is likely greater.

What I missed in this analysis is the possibility of having all these fights at once, then the US loses the disproportionality advantage.

Trump should have picked these fights one at a time, not all at once.

Next steps:

Sign a free trade agreement with Argentina Milei. Invite every leader from Latin America to the signing and ask who wants to be next. Sign four or five more on the spot.

Sign a free trade agreement with Britain/UK. Invite every leader from Europe and ask who wants to be next.

Sign of free trade agreement with vietnam, Singapore or japan. Invite every leader from Asia and ask who wants to be next.

And so on.

[DougMacG]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/we_re_not_living_in_a_smoot_hawley_world_and_smart_tariffs_will_benefit_america.html

[Crafty_Dog]

Reading that made me think of the DIME analyses I posted at

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=1032.1450

Reply #1473

[DougMacG]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/03/we_re_not_living_in_a_smoot_hawley_world_and_smart_tariffs_will_benefit_america.html

Adding my comment to this article:

We are far more dependent on international trade today than during Smoot Hawley tariffs,1930. And no, those didn’t end well.

The current push for tariffs is hopefully a tactic that ends in free trade agreements. If it keeps escalating with no end in sight, it is going to bring down all involved.

Tariffs alone didn’t bring down the world economy of the 1930s. And tariffs are not the only problem the world economy today faces either.

Trade War described in the economic books this author brags of not reading:

‘You shoot a hole in the bottom of your boat. I retaliate by shooting a hole in the bottom of my boat.’ And so on.

[DougMacG]

Reading that made me think of the DIME analyses I posted at

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=1032.1450

Reply #1473

Yes, part of a larger policy mix and strategy.

[Crafty_Dog]

"Tariffs alone didn’t bring down the world economy of the 1930s. And tariffs are not the only problem the world economy today faces either."

Jude Wanniski saw the Great Dpression being a combo Smoot Hawley tariffs and their reciprocals, competive devaluations, and higher taxes combining to yield a fragmentation of the world economy.

Seeing all this a matter of fragmentation of the world economy makes sense to me.

The theoretical challenge here is to balance economic efficiency and maximization with supply chain and other strategic protections.

[DougMacG]

Diplomatic tools.  ('dime')

https://x.com/DailySignal/status/1887636286351069325?t=DWRz7gAgDQi1Z5N8aCZxqg&s=19

[DougMacG]

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-eyes-tariff-cut-23-bln-us-imports-shield-66-bln-exports-sources-say-2025-03-25/

World's two largest democracies in a new trade deal.

Can't figure out what prompted this..

[DougMacG]

Vietnam to cut tariffs on US products including cars and gas to avoid President Trump's reciprocal tariffs.

https://x.com/watcherguru/status/1904985807426908288

It should be a good week for trade deals.