9 ms·

I really hate the new tariff. There is no need to be going into a trade war against not only traditionally our rivals but also our allies now too. The economy

I really hate the new tariff. There is no need to be going into a trade war against not only traditionally our rivals but also our allies now too. The economy is recovering and I believe it may now be heading toward a recession. Here's the quick data on job created in raw number without the quality of the job to show that it is recovering since the 2008 recession: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/14/comparing-the-trump-economy-to-the-obama-economy/?utm_term=.2eed815c4901 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/... So the question is why do we need this tradewar? It only introduce instability and fear in our market and we have never really recover from 2008 recession yet. The quality of job suck by the way. It's protectionism and it does not make our country competitive at all.

xienze 8y ago
> There is no need to be going into a trade war against not only traditionally our rivals but also our allies now too. And yet other countries never seem to entertain the idea of both sides getting rid of all their tariffs, which is something Trump suggested at that G7 summit. Everyone goes nuts when the US suggests implementing tariffs against countries that already have tariffs against us. You gotta admit, the message seems to be that other countries are allowed to protect their domestic industry via tariffs and the US is just supposed to deal with it, don’t wanna start a trade war!
- justin66 8y ago
  Hopefully you realize that eliminating all tariffs was never a US negotiating position, it was a random stupid thing the president said.
  - xienze 8y ago
    He wants reciprocity — you tariff me, I tariff you. It’s not just for grins. Get back to the original point: why is it acceptable for other countries to levy tariffs against the US but not the other way around?
    - sveme 8y ago
      But both sides already levy tariffs on the other side, just with different emphasises. Look at US truck tariffs as an example.
    - kasey_junk 8y ago
      The original point is that you are factually wrong. We already had tariffs on g7 countries. The country we have the least trade barriers in the world is Canada. He started a trade war with them. He ran on a platform of ending free trade agreements & protectionist policies. He’s enacting them. So it’s hard to take him serious when he suggests a free trade agreement with the g7 as a throwaway talking point.
    - s2g 8y ago
      > you tariff me, I tariff you Really, cause they described Trudeau as stabbing them in the back and said there is a special place in hell for people like him. He said Canada would respond with tariffs after Trump put in tariffs.
- tanilama 8y ago
  Can other countries trusy Trump administration at all at this point? It seems obvious, to deal with Trump, you have to prepare for the worst, since he is not predictable and tends to whatever he wants and whenever he desires.
  - xienze 8y ago
    Maybe get back to the original question and the reason Trump is interested in starting a trade war? Why is it OK for other countries to levy tariffs against us but not the other way around?
    - fentonc 8y ago
      We levy plenty of tariffs on goods from other countries to protect local industries - on average ours are very slightly lower than places like the EU, but it’s like ~2.5% vs 3%, not 0% vs 30%, which seems to be your claim.
      - zaroth 8y ago
        “America’s taxes on imports are much lower than those of almost every other country.” — The NY Times China’s weight average tariffs are 3x higher than the United States, approximately 10% vs 3.5%.
        morsch 8y ago
        ... when you nonsensically pretend that VAT is an import tax. "Once value-added taxes and sales taxes are included in an international comparison, America’s taxes on imports are much lower than those of almost every other country."[1] The point still stands when not considering VAT, but the difference is far less pronounced. Though I am hesitant to trust the authors' research given the above. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trade-china-protectionism.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trade-chin..., also https://tradediversion.net/2017/03/08/on-the-nyts-building-trade-walls/ https://tradediversion.net/2017/03/08/on-the-nyts-building-t...
        8y ago
- pjc50 8y ago
  The US has always argued for other countries to reduce their tariffs. Here's an article from 2002, for example: https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/obstacles-zero-tariffs https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/obstacles-zero-tariffs "The fact is that there is a strong feeling in the developing world that trade rules do not apply equally. Indeed, Washington lost the moral high ground earlier this year when it slapped steep tariffs on steel imports and locked in subsidies for its farmers. As well, the US has in place a sophisticated regime of non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping laws that exporters from developing countries have found difficult, if not downright impossible, to circumvent. " (The "non-tariff barriers" are important - all kinds of environmental and safety standards could be considered as these, and they can be far more difficult to deal with than simply paying an import duty. This is another thing a lot of Brexiteers haven't realised)
  - berthe 8y ago
    > The "non-tariff barriers" are important - all kinds of environmental and safety standards could be considered as these, and they can be far more difficult to deal with than simply paying an import duty. I'm glad the US has environmental and safety standards and enforces those (to some degree) on imports. Those actually accomplish some good and have positive externalities. It's also worth noting that other countries have significant non tariff barriers as well, perhaps more significant than the US, and ones with less positive effects. Some Chinese examples are the Great Firewall (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/business/international/china-internet-controls-us.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/business/international/ch...) and fact that a large part of the Chinese economy is still state-owned (and could be politically directed to avoid importing American products without any need for a tariff).
- lostcolony 8y ago
  Interesting how despite a few other countries imposing tariffs on the US has still led to the US being the largest economy in the world. It's not a question of 'fairness', it's a question of what will actually improve our economy. Nothing out there suggests tariffs will do that; in fact, all data points to just the opposite. But you've basically ignored the OP in any case; do you have a response to the rather realistic and obvious projection that, given the nature of these, assembly jobs will move out of the US, since the fully assembled goods are not subject to tariffs, but the parts are?
- masklinn 8y ago
  > Everyone goes nuts when the US suggests implementing tariffs against countries that already have tariffs against us. You gotta admit, the message seems to be that other countries are allowed to protect their domestic industry via tariffs and the US is just supposed to deal with it, don’t wanna start a trade war! You do know the US is already heavily protectionist and many tariffs are protections against the US's price dumping due to its heavy subsidies, right? And that the US already has plenty of tariffs to boot?
  - echotango 8y ago
    Yup. Heavily protectionist. Thats exactly how an unbiased economist would characterize US trade policy. Stop watching msnbc dude. The USA became the world's largest evonomy with massive tariffs on basically all imports. Smoot Hawley Act anyone? Those were removed gradualy starting in the 1970's and lo and behold the trade deficit sky rocketted while the manufacturing economy plummeted.
    - n1231231231234 8y ago
      i cannot see how the US has no/fewer/lower tariffs than their trading partners. here are some numbers for US-EU trade: https://www.statista.com/statistics/547412/average-eu-and-us-import-tariffs-by-sector-2013/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/547412/average-eu-and-us... and here's an article arguing why there's no US-EU trade deficit, in German, though: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/handelsstreit-usa-eu-handelsueberschuss-1.4010706 http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/handelsstreit-usa-eu-h... what they argue for: sure, looking at goods, there's a deficit for the US. But once you take services and primary and secondary income into account, then the US actually cuts the better deal with the EU. imv, trump/the current US gov are twisting the numbers to get a better deal.
      - echotango 8y ago
        Could you explain what services, primary and secondary income mean in this context and why they matter? Im sorry I don't read German.
    - 8y ago
frockington 8y ago
So why not free trade? I hate the idea of tariffs, but when your "allies" have had non reciprocal tariffs something needs to be done. I think all of this would go away if all tariffs against US products were removed
- endorphone 8y ago
  Do you think the US plays by free trade? Intellectual property rights/copyright laws, both linchpins of US policy, are the very definition of government intervention. The US aerospace and manufacturing industry is overwhelmingly subsidized by the military complex, a lot of it done under the auspices of "national security". For the US to complain about Airbus or Bombardier is simply incredible. US agriculture is outrageously subsidized. I'll go into a specific example in a moment, but the notion that that the US is trying to play fair is simply incredible. The US loses at the US-created WTO time and time again (see: Canadian softwood) and simply ignores the rulings. "but when your "allies" have had non reciprocal tariffs" I don't know what example you're thinking of, but let's consider the case of Canada (a country that the US has a trade surplus with). Canada has supply management for dairy to ensure a supply that matches demand to ensure food security. To protect this, Canada applies a high tariff for imports above the quota. "So unfair to US farmers!" yells Trump. Only here's the problem with his ignorant, easily swayed vision. Canada exports less dairy to the US than vice versa. Like, 1/2 as much. The whole point of supply management is that it doesn't generate an excess, and for that small industry the exports and imports are generally only for very specialized things. US dairy, in contrast, is hugely subsidized. To the tune of 74% of US dairy income comes, directly and indirectly, from the US government (0% in Canada comes from the government). Hence US farmers grossly overproduce and then look to dump it elsewhere, destroying production elsewhere. Just as US corn production is essentially a government enterprise, flooding the world with corn by-products and HFCSs. Who is the villain here? Trump can rattle off some scary number to his clueless fans (I'd steer clear of the pejoratives, but given that Trump is a lifetime grifter and con man, whose virtually every statement is an outrageous lie, it is incredible that someone can be called his fan), but Canada has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with those poor American farmers. It certainly isn't Canadian milk on American shelves causing their ills, because Canadian milk isn't on their shelves. Nor did China cause the US poor to live in such dire straights. This is just the latest example of the US becoming more and more polarized, while convincing the poorest that it's always some external reason why they live in destitution in the richest nation on Earth.
sumeonenew 8y ago
Counterpoints to the article: > Some of the most compelling jobs to bring back to the US are the so-called “last screw” system integration operations. Somewhat. The system integration operations are tedious and human-labor intensive. Those operations could still move to other cheaper labored countries such as Vietnam, India, etc. And if the operations can be automated, these operations will be reshored. The point of the tariffs exercise is to encourage manufacturing to move out of China and into other countries or reshored, to punish China for stealing IP and unfair business practices. > I’ve examined the tariff lists (List 1 and List 2), and it taxes the import of basic components, tools and sub-assemblies, while giving fully assembled goods a free pass. Trump just announced he is starting an additional $200 billion tariff on Chinese goods. That will definitely cover some fully assembled goods since the trade deficit is only around $330 billion, and there is already tariffs on $50 billion https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-escalates-china-trade-war-announces-plan-for-tariffs-on-200-billion-in-products/2018/06/18/ac683f80-7355-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-escala... > While stiff tariffs on the import of microchips drove investment in local chip companies, trade barriers meant the local companies didn’t have to be as competitive. True in some ways. However, there will always be competition pressures and anti-monopoly pressures. It really depends on the shape of the market. And in technology, there are always the threat of obsolete/disruptive innovations to keep companies on their toes. > New Tariffs Hurt Educators and Makers If educators and makers really wanted cheap standalone components to play with, and there is a market, there will be a market sooner or later born in US for them. the $250 billion tariffs (and any subsequent ones) will make sure of that. If manufacturing can be reshored to China in 15 years, it can be reshored back to US in less time than that, with US economy booming 4% this quarter, massive capital inflow, and robotics technology growing.
- king_phil 8y ago
  I don't see how there is going to be a market built (we are talking about a five or ten year timespan here to build a semiconductor factory) around a trade barrier created by a tariff where nobody knows how long it will be in effect. Would you bet dozens of millions of dollars to create a production of already existing, cheaper produced products to supply a market created by tariffs? How easy would it for the next administration (or the current) to drop these tariffs? What about your investment then? Which sane person would make such an investment?
anon23423532 8y ago
They tariffed our "allies" because our "allies" allow China to setup shell corporations in their countries so China can abuse trade agreements to get around direct tariffs. In return they make billions for being willing to stab the US in the back. We need to do this because China steals 300 billion dollars in IP from American corporations every year, in addition to illegally subsidizing their companies to steal global market share
- linuxps2 8y ago
  China also gives us goods far below what we could produce them for which lowers our cost of living. Complaining about China stealing $300b (I'll use your number because it doesn't really matter) in IP is like complaining about high school kids stealing Adobe CC - it's a theoretical loss, they weren't going to be a customer regardless. Tariffs don't even do anything to prevent IP theft
  - anon23423532 8y ago
    It gives Chinese companies a competitive advantage because instead of spending billions on R&D they just steal it. The point is that the tariffs will be removed IF China stops stealing IP
    - linuxps2 8y ago
      That's the dumbest way to enforce IP law. Just take the companies to court in the US if they sell in the US or international court if selling to other countries where Chinese companies compete with American manuf. - tariffs just aren't a good way to do this as it royally fucks American consumers
- raesene9 8y ago
  You got a Citation for Canada and the EU allowing Chinese steel shell companies (the recent tariffs against canada and the EU targeted steel)? I'd not heard that argument at all so far.
  - 8y ago

xienze 8y ago

> There is no need to be going into a trade war against not only traditionally our rivals but also our allies now too. And yet other countries never seem to entertain the idea of both sides getting rid of all their tariffs, which is something Trump suggested at that G7 summit. Everyone goes nuts when the US suggests implementing tariffs against countries that already have tariffs against us. You gotta admit, the message seems to be that other countries are allowed to protect their domestic industry via tariffs and the US is just supposed to deal with it, don’t wanna start a trade war!

justin66 8y ago
Hopefully you realize that eliminating all tariffs was never a US negotiating position, it was a random stupid thing the president said.
- xienze 8y ago
  He wants reciprocity — you tariff me, I tariff you. It’s not just for grins. Get back to the original point: why is it acceptable for other countries to levy tariffs against the US but not the other way around?
  - sveme 8y ago
    But both sides already levy tariffs on the other side, just with different emphasises. Look at US truck tariffs as an example.
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    The original point is that you are factually wrong. We already had tariffs on g7 countries. The country we have the least trade barriers in the world is Canada. He started a trade war with them. He ran on a platform of ending free trade agreements & protectionist policies. He’s enacting them. So it’s hard to take him serious when he suggests a free trade agreement with the g7 as a throwaway talking point.
  - s2g 8y ago
    > you tariff me, I tariff you Really, cause they described Trudeau as stabbing them in the back and said there is a special place in hell for people like him. He said Canada would respond with tariffs after Trump put in tariffs.
tanilama 8y ago
Can other countries trusy Trump administration at all at this point? It seems obvious, to deal with Trump, you have to prepare for the worst, since he is not predictable and tends to whatever he wants and whenever he desires.
- xienze 8y ago
  Maybe get back to the original question and the reason Trump is interested in starting a trade war? Why is it OK for other countries to levy tariffs against us but not the other way around?
  - fentonc 8y ago
    We levy plenty of tariffs on goods from other countries to protect local industries - on average ours are very slightly lower than places like the EU, but it’s like ~2.5% vs 3%, not 0% vs 30%, which seems to be your claim.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      “America’s taxes on imports are much lower than those of almost every other country.” — The NY Times China’s weight average tariffs are 3x higher than the United States, approximately 10% vs 3.5%.
      - morsch 8y ago
        ... when you nonsensically pretend that VAT is an import tax. "Once value-added taxes and sales taxes are included in an international comparison, America’s taxes on imports are much lower than those of almost every other country."[1] The point still stands when not considering VAT, but the difference is far less pronounced. Though I am hesitant to trust the authors' research given the above. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trade-china-protectionism.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/business/trade-chin..., also https://tradediversion.net/2017/03/08/on-the-nyts-building-trade-walls/ https://tradediversion.net/2017/03/08/on-the-nyts-building-t...
      - 8y ago
pjc50 8y ago
The US has always argued for other countries to reduce their tariffs. Here's an article from 2002, for example: https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/obstacles-zero-tariffs https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/obstacles-zero-tariffs "The fact is that there is a strong feeling in the developing world that trade rules do not apply equally. Indeed, Washington lost the moral high ground earlier this year when it slapped steep tariffs on steel imports and locked in subsidies for its farmers. As well, the US has in place a sophisticated regime of non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping laws that exporters from developing countries have found difficult, if not downright impossible, to circumvent. " (The "non-tariff barriers" are important - all kinds of environmental and safety standards could be considered as these, and they can be far more difficult to deal with than simply paying an import duty. This is another thing a lot of Brexiteers haven't realised)
- berthe 8y ago
  > The "non-tariff barriers" are important - all kinds of environmental and safety standards could be considered as these, and they can be far more difficult to deal with than simply paying an import duty. I'm glad the US has environmental and safety standards and enforces those (to some degree) on imports. Those actually accomplish some good and have positive externalities. It's also worth noting that other countries have significant non tariff barriers as well, perhaps more significant than the US, and ones with less positive effects. Some Chinese examples are the Great Firewall (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/business/international/china-internet-controls-us.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/business/international/ch...) and fact that a large part of the Chinese economy is still state-owned (and could be politically directed to avoid importing American products without any need for a tariff).
lostcolony 8y ago
Interesting how despite a few other countries imposing tariffs on the US has still led to the US being the largest economy in the world. It's not a question of 'fairness', it's a question of what will actually improve our economy. Nothing out there suggests tariffs will do that; in fact, all data points to just the opposite. But you've basically ignored the OP in any case; do you have a response to the rather realistic and obvious projection that, given the nature of these, assembly jobs will move out of the US, since the fully assembled goods are not subject to tariffs, but the parts are?
masklinn 8y ago
> Everyone goes nuts when the US suggests implementing tariffs against countries that already have tariffs against us. You gotta admit, the message seems to be that other countries are allowed to protect their domestic industry via tariffs and the US is just supposed to deal with it, don’t wanna start a trade war! You do know the US is already heavily protectionist and many tariffs are protections against the US's price dumping due to its heavy subsidies, right? And that the US already has plenty of tariffs to boot?
- echotango 8y ago
  Yup. Heavily protectionist. Thats exactly how an unbiased economist would characterize US trade policy. Stop watching msnbc dude. The USA became the world's largest evonomy with massive tariffs on basically all imports. Smoot Hawley Act anyone? Those were removed gradualy starting in the 1970's and lo and behold the trade deficit sky rocketted while the manufacturing economy plummeted.
  - n1231231231234 8y ago
    i cannot see how the US has no/fewer/lower tariffs than their trading partners. here are some numbers for US-EU trade: https://www.statista.com/statistics/547412/average-eu-and-us-import-tariffs-by-sector-2013/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/547412/average-eu-and-us... and here's an article arguing why there's no US-EU trade deficit, in German, though: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/handelsstreit-usa-eu-handelsueberschuss-1.4010706 http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/handelsstreit-usa-eu-h... what they argue for: sure, looking at goods, there's a deficit for the US. But once you take services and primary and secondary income into account, then the US actually cuts the better deal with the EU. imv, trump/the current US gov are twisting the numbers to get a better deal.
    - echotango 8y ago
      Could you explain what services, primary and secondary income mean in this context and why they matter? Im sorry I don't read German.
  - 8y ago

frockington 8y ago

So why not free trade? I hate the idea of tariffs, but when your "allies" have had non reciprocal tariffs something needs to be done. I think all of this would go away if all tariffs against US products were removed

endorphone 8y ago
Do you think the US plays by free trade? Intellectual property rights/copyright laws, both linchpins of US policy, are the very definition of government intervention. The US aerospace and manufacturing industry is overwhelmingly subsidized by the military complex, a lot of it done under the auspices of "national security". For the US to complain about Airbus or Bombardier is simply incredible. US agriculture is outrageously subsidized. I'll go into a specific example in a moment, but the notion that that the US is trying to play fair is simply incredible. The US loses at the US-created WTO time and time again (see: Canadian softwood) and simply ignores the rulings. "but when your "allies" have had non reciprocal tariffs" I don't know what example you're thinking of, but let's consider the case of Canada (a country that the US has a trade surplus with). Canada has supply management for dairy to ensure a supply that matches demand to ensure food security. To protect this, Canada applies a high tariff for imports above the quota. "So unfair to US farmers!" yells Trump. Only here's the problem with his ignorant, easily swayed vision. Canada exports less dairy to the US than vice versa. Like, 1/2 as much. The whole point of supply management is that it doesn't generate an excess, and for that small industry the exports and imports are generally only for very specialized things. US dairy, in contrast, is hugely subsidized. To the tune of 74% of US dairy income comes, directly and indirectly, from the US government (0% in Canada comes from the government). Hence US farmers grossly overproduce and then look to dump it elsewhere, destroying production elsewhere. Just as US corn production is essentially a government enterprise, flooding the world with corn by-products and HFCSs. Who is the villain here? Trump can rattle off some scary number to his clueless fans (I'd steer clear of the pejoratives, but given that Trump is a lifetime grifter and con man, whose virtually every statement is an outrageous lie, it is incredible that someone can be called his fan), but Canada has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with those poor American farmers. It certainly isn't Canadian milk on American shelves causing their ills, because Canadian milk isn't on their shelves. Nor did China cause the US poor to live in such dire straights. This is just the latest example of the US becoming more and more polarized, while convincing the poorest that it's always some external reason why they live in destitution in the richest nation on Earth.

sumeonenew 8y ago

Counterpoints to the article: > Some of the most compelling jobs to bring back to the US are the so-called “last screw” system integration operations. Somewhat. The system integration operations are tedious and human-labor intensive. Those operations could still move to other cheaper labored countries such as Vietnam, India, etc. And if the operations can be automated, these operations will be reshored. The point of the tariffs exercise is to encourage manufacturing to move out of China and into other countries or reshored, to punish China for stealing IP and unfair business practices. > I’ve examined the tariff lists (List 1 and List 2), and it taxes the import of basic components, tools and sub-assemblies, while giving fully assembled goods a free pass. Trump just announced he is starting an additional $200 billion tariff on Chinese goods. That will definitely cover some fully assembled goods since the trade deficit is only around $330 billion, and there is already tariffs on $50 billion https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-escalates-china-trade-war-announces-plan-for-tariffs-on-200-billion-in-products/2018/06/18/ac683f80-7355-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-escala... > While stiff tariffs on the import of microchips drove investment in local chip companies, trade barriers meant the local companies didn’t have to be as competitive. True in some ways. However, there will always be competition pressures and anti-monopoly pressures. It really depends on the shape of the market. And in technology, there are always the threat of obsolete/disruptive innovations to keep companies on their toes. > New Tariffs Hurt Educators and Makers If educators and makers really wanted cheap standalone components to play with, and there is a market, there will be a market sooner or later born in US for them. the $250 billion tariffs (and any subsequent ones) will make sure of that. If manufacturing can be reshored to China in 15 years, it can be reshored back to US in less time than that, with US economy booming 4% this quarter, massive capital inflow, and robotics technology growing.

king_phil 8y ago
I don't see how there is going to be a market built (we are talking about a five or ten year timespan here to build a semiconductor factory) around a trade barrier created by a tariff where nobody knows how long it will be in effect. Would you bet dozens of millions of dollars to create a production of already existing, cheaper produced products to supply a market created by tariffs? How easy would it for the next administration (or the current) to drop these tariffs? What about your investment then? Which sane person would make such an investment?

anon23423532 8y ago

They tariffed our "allies" because our "allies" allow China to setup shell corporations in their countries so China can abuse trade agreements to get around direct tariffs. In return they make billions for being willing to stab the US in the back. We need to do this because China steals 300 billion dollars in IP from American corporations every year, in addition to illegally subsidizing their companies to steal global market share

linuxps2 8y ago
China also gives us goods far below what we could produce them for which lowers our cost of living. Complaining about China stealing $300b (I'll use your number because it doesn't really matter) in IP is like complaining about high school kids stealing Adobe CC - it's a theoretical loss, they weren't going to be a customer regardless. Tariffs don't even do anything to prevent IP theft
- anon23423532 8y ago
  It gives Chinese companies a competitive advantage because instead of spending billions on R&D they just steal it. The point is that the tariffs will be removed IF China stops stealing IP
  - linuxps2 8y ago
    That's the dumbest way to enforce IP law. Just take the companies to court in the US if they sell in the US or international court if selling to other countries where Chinese companies compete with American manuf. - tariffs just aren't a good way to do this as it royally fucks American consumers
raesene9 8y ago
You got a Citation for Canada and the EU allowing Chinese steel shell companies (the recent tariffs against canada and the EU targeted steel)? I'd not heard that argument at all so far.
- 8y ago