Probably, but Trump aint the man for it.

An “easy” trade war is eminently doable, but without doing the homework or laying the groundwork, the result is a free-for-all of sanctions and countersanctions with should-be allies rapidly degrading into didn’t-have-to-be enemies.

Three specific problems come from this. First, Trump seems pathologically unwilling to even take baby steps in the forging of an international coalition as regards, well, anything. Even low-hanging fruit like Britain and Australia have often been not just ignored, but deliberately repudiated. This whole thing has the feel of a knee-jerk, internal political decision even though most of the outcomes will be felt on the field of global strategic alignments.

Second, because so many people think so little of the American president, when he does act very few take him seriously. Never before in modern history has the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage been thought of as so weak. In part it is because most feel the Americans would never seriously endanger the global order (which is a view as stupid and seeped in wishful thinking as it is widely held). In part it is because Trump never demonstrates follow-through (which is fairly accurate) so no one feels the need to plan for the worst. But all of that ignores the fact that Trump is the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage and if he chooses to use that leverage, however inexpertly, then look out!

Third, considering the global nature of most modern supply chains, any America-First-themed trade war is a trade war with the entire international system: rivals, but also allies, with every action rippling throughout the entire global order. A global recession is absolutely guaranteed and based on how fast and heavy Trump lowers the boom, this could well be the singular action that drops the world into the Disorder that I often speak and write about.

https://mailchi.mp/zeihan/here-we-go?e=f42093b61c

(03-05-2018 08:22 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Probably, but Trump aint the man for it.

An “easy” trade war is eminently doable, but without doing the homework or laying the groundwork, the result is a free-for-all of sanctions and countersanctions with should-be allies rapidly degrading into didn’t-have-to-be enemies.

Three specific problems come from this. First, Trump seems pathologically unwilling to even take baby steps in the forging of an international coalition as regards, well, anything. Even low-hanging fruit like Britain and Australia have often been not just ignored, but deliberately repudiated. This whole thing has the feel of a knee-jerk, internal political decision even though most of the outcomes will be felt on the field of global strategic alignments.

Second, because so many people think so little of the American president, when he does act very few take him seriously. Never before in modern history has the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage been thought of as so weak. In part it is because most feel the Americans would never seriously endanger the global order (which is a view as stupid and seeped in wishful thinking as it is widely held). In part it is because Trump never demonstrates follow-through (which is fairly accurate) so no one feels the need to plan for the worst. But all of that ignores the fact that Trump is the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage and if he chooses to use that leverage, however inexpertly, then look out!

Third, considering the global nature of most modern supply chains, any America-First-themed trade war is a trade war with the entire international system: rivals, but also allies, with every action rippling throughout the entire global order. A global recession is absolutely guaranteed and based on how fast and heavy Trump lowers the boom, this could well be the singular action that drops the world into the Disorder that I often speak and write about.

https://mailchi.mp/zeihan/here-we-go?e=f42093b61c

Your view shows you lack prospective and understanding. We literally run a trade deficit with every country in world. What kind of "coalition" are you going to build when the purpose is to reduce or reverse those trade deficits? Our "friends" are some of the nations who have the best trade deals that take advantage of us.

It is what it is. If the world cant survive a trade environment where the US gets a fair shake---then so be it. Lets be honest, the world enjoys a 800 billion dollar trade surplus with us every year. If we didnt sell so much as one sneaker overseas--but also didnt import so much as a sneaker, we'd effectively be 800 billion better off. So, if everyone wants go nuclear--then yeah---we'd win the trade war. Why? Because we are losing the current trade "peace".

Look---There isnt going be a trade war over a 3 billion dollar steel tarriff. You know why? Its really simple. The US can no longer produce enough steel and aluminum to meet our needs even if wanted to. So foreign steel sales will not be all that badly affected--as US manufactures will have to buy almost the same amount of foreign steel anyway if they want to maintain current production.

All the tarriff is going to do is give the US manufacturers enough of a break that they can get back on their feet enough to compete and hopefully survive.

(03-05-2018 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 08:22 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Probably, but Trump aint the man for it.

An “easy” trade war is eminently doable, but without doing the homework or laying the groundwork, the result is a free-for-all of sanctions and countersanctions with should-be allies rapidly degrading into didn’t-have-to-be enemies.

Three specific problems come from this. First, Trump seems pathologically unwilling to even take baby steps in the forging of an international coalition as regards, well, anything. Even low-hanging fruit like Britain and Australia have often been not just ignored, but deliberately repudiated. This whole thing has the feel of a knee-jerk, internal political decision even though most of the outcomes will be felt on the field of global strategic alignments.

Second, because so many people think so little of the American president, when he does act very few take him seriously. Never before in modern history has the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage been thought of as so weak. In part it is because most feel the Americans would never seriously endanger the global order (which is a view as stupid and seeped in wishful thinking as it is widely held). In part it is because Trump never demonstrates follow-through (which is fairly accurate) so no one feels the need to plan for the worst. But all of that ignores the fact that Trump is the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage and if he chooses to use that leverage, however inexpertly, then look out!

Third, considering the global nature of most modern supply chains, any America-First-themed trade war is a trade war with the entire international system: rivals, but also allies, with every action rippling throughout the entire global order. A global recession is absolutely guaranteed and based on how fast and heavy Trump lowers the boom, this could well be the singular action that drops the world into the Disorder that I often speak and write about.

https://mailchi.mp/zeihan/here-we-go?e=f42093b61c

Your view shows you lack prospective and understanding. We literally run a trade deficit with every country in world. What kind of "coalition" are you going to build when the purpose is to reduce or reverse those trade deficits? Our "friends" are some of the nations who have the best trade deals that take advantage of us.

It is what it is. If the world cant survive a trade environment where the US gets a fair shake---then so be it. Lets be honest, the world enjoys a 800 billion dollar trade surplus with us every year. If we didnt sell so much as one sneaker overseas--but also didnt import so much as a sneaker, we'd effectively be 800 billion better off.

Look---There isnt going be a trade war over a 3 billion dollar steel tarriff. You know why? Its really simple. The US can no longer produce enough steel and aluminum to meet our needs even if wanted to. So foreign steel sales will not be all that badly affected--because US manufactures will have to buy almost the same amount of foreign steel anyway if they want to maintain current production.

All the tarriff is going to do is give the US manufacturers enough of a break that they can get back on their feet enough to compete and hopefully survive.

The point of the article is that Trump simply doesn't have what it takes to pull it off, not whether it makes sense for the U.S.

What makes sense, and pretty much levels the field, is a consumption tax.

(03-05-2018 08:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 08:22 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Probably, but Trump aint the man for it.

An “easy” trade war is eminently doable, but without doing the homework or laying the groundwork, the result is a free-for-all of sanctions and countersanctions with should-be allies rapidly degrading into didn’t-have-to-be enemies.

Three specific problems come from this. First, Trump seems pathologically unwilling to even take baby steps in the forging of an international coalition as regards, well, anything. Even low-hanging fruit like Britain and Australia have often been not just ignored, but deliberately repudiated. This whole thing has the feel of a knee-jerk, internal political decision even though most of the outcomes will be felt on the field of global strategic alignments.

Second, because so many people think so little of the American president, when he does act very few take him seriously. Never before in modern history has the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage been thought of as so weak. In part it is because most feel the Americans would never seriously endanger the global order (which is a view as stupid and seeped in wishful thinking as it is widely held). In part it is because Trump never demonstrates follow-through (which is fairly accurate) so no one feels the need to plan for the worst. But all of that ignores the fact that Trump is the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage and if he chooses to use that leverage, however inexpertly, then look out!

Third, considering the global nature of most modern supply chains, any America-First-themed trade war is a trade war with the entire international system: rivals, but also allies, with every action rippling throughout the entire global order. A global recession is absolutely guaranteed and based on how fast and heavy Trump lowers the boom, this could well be the singular action that drops the world into the Disorder that I often speak and write about.

https://mailchi.mp/zeihan/here-we-go?e=f42093b61c

Your view shows you lack prospective and understanding. We literally run a trade deficit with every country in world. What kind of "coalition" are you going to build when the purpose is to reduce or reverse those trade deficits? Our "friends" are some of the nations who have the best trade deals that take advantage of us.

It is what it is. If the world cant survive a trade environment where the US gets a fair shake---then so be it. Lets be honest, the world enjoys a 800 billion dollar trade surplus with us every year. If we didnt sell so much as one sneaker overseas--but also didnt import so much as a sneaker, we'd effectively be 800 billion better off.

Look---There isnt going be a trade war over a 3 billion dollar steel tarriff. You know why? Its really simple. The US can no longer produce enough steel and aluminum to meet our needs even if wanted to. So foreign steel sales will not be all that badly affected--because US manufactures will have to buy almost the same amount of foreign steel anyway if they want to maintain current production.

All the tarriff is going to do is give the US manufacturers enough of a break that they can get back on their feet enough to compete and hopefully survive.

The point of the article is that Trump simply doesn't have what it takes to pull it off, not whether it makes sense for the U.S.

He's a major real estate tycoon in high dollar Manhattan who started out in Brooklyn. I suspect he'll be better at this trade stuff than some think. Its worth noting he's the first president to even bother playing the game.

Given that the article actually points out, he's holding all the high cards--how good does he really have to be to manage to improve a horrible US trade position? We will be fine.

According to Peter Zeihan's books and standard speech, we gave our allies those trade deals at Bretton Woods in exchange for their agreeing to follow our lead in the Cold War. I haven't seen this discussed widely elsewhere, but it is clearly very believable and likely to be the case. The problem, according to Zeihan, is that nobody ever figured out what to do after the Cold War ended and we won. Europe and the other developed countries went to consumption taxes in the 70s and 80s to pay for their welfare states. That gives them even more built in trade protection.

(03-05-2018 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 08:22 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Probably, but Trump aint the man for it.

An “easy” trade war is eminently doable, but without doing the homework or laying the groundwork, the result is a free-for-all of sanctions and countersanctions with should-be allies rapidly degrading into didn’t-have-to-be enemies.

Three specific problems come from this. First, Trump seems pathologically unwilling to even take baby steps in the forging of an international coalition as regards, well, anything. Even low-hanging fruit like Britain and Australia have often been not just ignored, but deliberately repudiated. This whole thing has the feel of a knee-jerk, internal political decision even though most of the outcomes will be felt on the field of global strategic alignments.

Second, because so many people think so little of the American president, when he does act very few take him seriously. Never before in modern history has the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage been thought of as so weak. In part it is because most feel the Americans would never seriously endanger the global order (which is a view as stupid and seeped in wishful thinking as it is widely held). In part it is because Trump never demonstrates follow-through (which is fairly accurate) so no one feels the need to plan for the worst. But all of that ignores the fact that Trump is the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage and if he chooses to use that leverage, however inexpertly, then look out!

Third, considering the global nature of most modern supply chains, any America-First-themed trade war is a trade war with the entire international system: rivals, but also allies, with every action rippling throughout the entire global order. A global recession is absolutely guaranteed and based on how fast and heavy Trump lowers the boom, this could well be the singular action that drops the world into the Disorder that I often speak and write about.

https://mailchi.mp/zeihan/here-we-go?e=f42093b61c

Your view shows you lack prospective and understanding. We literally run a trade deficit with every country in world. What kind of "coalition" are you going to build when the purpose is to reduce or reverse those trade deficits? Our "friends" are some of the nations who have the best trade deals that take advantage of us.

It is what it is. If the world cant survive a trade environment where the US gets a fair shake---then so be it. Lets be honest, the world enjoys a 800 billion dollar trade surplus with us every year. If we didnt sell so much as one sneaker overseas--but also didnt import so much as a sneaker, we'd effectively be 800 billion better off. So, if everyone wants go nuclear--then yeah---we'd win the trade war. Why? Because we are losing the current trade "peace".

Look---There isnt going be a trade war over a 3 billion dollar steel tarriff. You know why? Its really simple. The US can no longer produce enough steel and aluminum to meet our needs even if wanted to. So foreign steel sales will not be all that badly affected--as US manufactures will have to buy almost the same amount of foreign steel anyway if they want to maintain current production.

All the tarriff is going to do is give the US manufacturers enough of a break that they can get back on their feet enough to compete and hopefully survive.

We already have trade deals with Canada, UK, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia and other western European countries since before we became a country.Our industry have been interwoven with the industries of these countries since before 1776. We had no issues trading with them until we started with a trade deal with China in 1900s long before China became Communists. We were all equals on that part until we started trading with Asian, African, Central/South American countries. The countries from Central/South America, Africa and Asia have been undeveloped for the industry except for a few like Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Israel, India and some south central Asia countries that have been colonized by the UK and other European countries. The other countries are trying to catch up. China, was once a UK colony before the Commies took over, got sped up. It is China that that is causing the major trade disasters that we all, not just the US need to stop trading with them. Japan corrected themselves after the 1980s to trade better with us. South Korea needs the help and support to be better than North Korea which is why our trade deal is off kilter.

(03-05-2018 08:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What makes sense, and pretty much levels the field, is a consumption tax.

All for it.

(03-05-2018 08:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 08:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 08:22 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Probably, but Trump aint the man for it.

An “easy” trade war is eminently doable, but without doing the homework or laying the groundwork, the result is a free-for-all of sanctions and countersanctions with should-be allies rapidly degrading into didn’t-have-to-be enemies.

Three specific problems come from this. First, Trump seems pathologically unwilling to even take baby steps in the forging of an international coalition as regards, well, anything. Even low-hanging fruit like Britain and Australia have often been not just ignored, but deliberately repudiated. This whole thing has the feel of a knee-jerk, internal political decision even though most of the outcomes will be felt on the field of global strategic alignments.

Second, because so many people think so little of the American president, when he does act very few take him seriously. Never before in modern history has the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage been thought of as so weak. In part it is because most feel the Americans would never seriously endanger the global order (which is a view as stupid and seeped in wishful thinking as it is widely held). In part it is because Trump never demonstrates follow-through (which is fairly accurate) so no one feels the need to plan for the worst. But all of that ignores the fact that Trump is the most powerful man of the most powerful country with the most global economic and military leverage and if he chooses to use that leverage, however inexpertly, then look out!

Third, considering the global nature of most modern supply chains, any America-First-themed trade war is a trade war with the entire international system: rivals, but also allies, with every action rippling throughout the entire global order. A global recession is absolutely guaranteed and based on how fast and heavy Trump lowers the boom, this could well be the singular action that drops the world into the Disorder that I often speak and write about.

https://mailchi.mp/zeihan/here-we-go?e=f42093b61c

Your view shows you lack prospective and understanding. We literally run a trade deficit with every country in world. What kind of "coalition" are you going to build when the purpose is to reduce or reverse those trade deficits? Our "friends" are some of the nations who have the best trade deals that take advantage of us.

It is what it is. If the world cant survive a trade environment where the US gets a fair shake---then so be it. Lets be honest, the world enjoys a 800 billion dollar trade surplus with us every year. If we didnt sell so much as one sneaker overseas--but also didnt import so much as a sneaker, we'd effectively be 800 billion better off.

Look---There isnt going be a trade war over a 3 billion dollar steel tarriff. You know why? Its really simple. The US can no longer produce enough steel and aluminum to meet our needs even if wanted to. So foreign steel sales will not be all that badly affected--because US manufactures will have to buy almost the same amount of foreign steel anyway if they want to maintain current production.

All the tarriff is going to do is give the US manufacturers enough of a break that they can get back on their feet enough to compete and hopefully survive.

The point of the article is that Trump simply doesn't have what it takes to pull it off, not whether it makes sense for the U.S.

No the point of the article is that the author has TDS. He's so obviously stricken, its hard to read past the 3rd paragraph. Its his anti-Trump virtue signaling.

(03-05-2018 08:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What makes sense, and pretty much levels the field, is a consumption tax.

This.

I did hear a clever idea though. Require any company that sells products into the US to adhere to the same environmental and safety standards applied here and have to be certified by a US government bureaucrat. The right would like it because it would not involve tariffs and bolster US manufacturing and Left would like it because it pushed their environmental agenda. They also would love adding more bureaucrats to administer the program.