3 ms·

Bush put tariffs on steel in 2002 : 200000 jobs lost [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wik

Bush put tariffs on steel in 2002 : 200000 jobs lost [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tarif...

SamReidHughes 8y ago
How many jobs were lost from tariffs on labor, i.e. income and payroll taxes, which make employing people in the USA way more expensive?
- Larrikin 8y ago
  How many?
IanDrake 8y ago
Those where meant to be protectionist. We are playing hardball on trade renegotiation. The recently announced tariffs are leverage to get a fair deal at the negotiating table. There’s a big difference between the two motives.
- endorphone 8y ago
  "The recently announced tariffs are leverage to get a fair deal at the negotiating table." The US has a trade surplus with Canada, has a higher average tariff, has been the bigger beneficiary of trade, yet Trump has announced tariffs on Canada, to an enormous backlash (and Canadians seriously rethinking their integration in the US economy). This isn't leverage, or masterful negotiating. It's a hamfisted moron bashing around with absolutely no clue what they're negotiating. Trump withdrew from TPP (you know -- one of those trade agreements that would remove most tariffs), and quickly thereafter announced that he would sure like to join TPP...only on the "US'" terms (which is hilarious because TPP was entirely at the US' terms). At this point I marvel that anyone seriously puts forth an argument that Trump and his crew of misfits are serious negotiators. They're clowns in a clown show. Trump's great business prowess is that he fucked over so many people -- "negotiating" by refusing to pay them after they did the agreed work -- that anyone of legitimacy refuses to have anything to do with him. It's why his personal lawyer was a real life Saul Goodman. What a farce.
  - IanDrake 8y ago
    Your TDS is altering your perception of the world around you. I’m no Trump fan, but at least I can be objective. Stop reading the headlines and start reading between the lines. It’s a skill that will serve you well in life. Last time I checked most people in the US were against the TPP including Clinton. A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages. I’m not worried about trade imbalances in absolute dollars, I’m concerned with trade imbalances with tariffs and subsidies that make US exports unable to compete. For Canada where did you get the higher average tariff from? What is that? A higher average of all tariffs on all goods? A higher amount of absolute dollars paid in tariffs? The number alone is meaningless without context.
    - endorphone 8y ago
      Your first two lines are indistinguishable from parody. "A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages." A Trump talking point, like every one of your posts. But you're surely no Trump fan... Yes, of course trade agreements are voluminous. Saying that it's suspicious because it's big is the sort of nonsensical claim that sells to idiots. TPP was very unpopular, humorously because of sections added by the United States. Corporate rights, right to sue sovereigns, etc, were all at the behest of the US of A. Sections on extending copyrights and IP rights -- US of A. TPP was viewed as some new world order with some superseding power, and all of that was the work of the US. >The number alone is meaningless without context. Just as trade imbalances are meaningless because [waves hand], until they're what you want to argue. When the US, with a large trade surplus, complains about a tariff in dairy, where the US has a large trade surplus, in an industry where the US has enormous subsidies ($22B USD per year in direct and indirect subsidies), the whole conversations turns to just farce. It is patter to sell to imbeciles.
      - IanDrake 8y ago
        You’re all over the place. You like the TPP, the TPP is crap because of the US (under Obama) added things you don’t like, Trump is an idiot for not signing it. Agreements that can’t be read and comprehended in one day aren’t good agreements. I stand by that, no matter what Trump says, no matter what you say. I’m not arguing about trade imbalances on a surplus/deficit amount. I don’t care about the amount. I care about access to markets and a level playing field. There is no hypocrisy there. The difference between you and I, is that I’m willing to admit where you are right. The US subsidizes farmers and other industries. I imagine those are up for negotiation too. I also admit Trump acts like a horses ass. I’m just willing to let that slide if he’s an effective horses ass. I also haven’t implied you’re stupid.

Bush put tariffs on steel in 2002 : 200000 jobs lost [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tarif...

SamReidHughes 8y ago

How many jobs were lost from tariffs on labor, i.e. income and payroll taxes, which make employing people in the USA way more expensive?

Larrikin 8y ago
How many?

IanDrake 8y ago

Those where meant to be protectionist. We are playing hardball on trade renegotiation. The recently announced tariffs are leverage to get a fair deal at the negotiating table. There’s a big difference between the two motives.

endorphone 8y ago
"The recently announced tariffs are leverage to get a fair deal at the negotiating table." The US has a trade surplus with Canada, has a higher average tariff, has been the bigger beneficiary of trade, yet Trump has announced tariffs on Canada, to an enormous backlash (and Canadians seriously rethinking their integration in the US economy). This isn't leverage, or masterful negotiating. It's a hamfisted moron bashing around with absolutely no clue what they're negotiating. Trump withdrew from TPP (you know -- one of those trade agreements that would remove most tariffs), and quickly thereafter announced that he would sure like to join TPP...only on the "US'" terms (which is hilarious because TPP was entirely at the US' terms). At this point I marvel that anyone seriously puts forth an argument that Trump and his crew of misfits are serious negotiators. They're clowns in a clown show. Trump's great business prowess is that he fucked over so many people -- "negotiating" by refusing to pay them after they did the agreed work -- that anyone of legitimacy refuses to have anything to do with him. It's why his personal lawyer was a real life Saul Goodman. What a farce.
- IanDrake 8y ago
  Your TDS is altering your perception of the world around you. I’m no Trump fan, but at least I can be objective. Stop reading the headlines and start reading between the lines. It’s a skill that will serve you well in life. Last time I checked most people in the US were against the TPP including Clinton. A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages. I’m not worried about trade imbalances in absolute dollars, I’m concerned with trade imbalances with tariffs and subsidies that make US exports unable to compete. For Canada where did you get the higher average tariff from? What is that? A higher average of all tariffs on all goods? A higher amount of absolute dollars paid in tariffs? The number alone is meaningless without context.
  - endorphone 8y ago
    Your first two lines are indistinguishable from parody. "A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages." A Trump talking point, like every one of your posts. But you're surely no Trump fan... Yes, of course trade agreements are voluminous. Saying that it's suspicious because it's big is the sort of nonsensical claim that sells to idiots. TPP was very unpopular, humorously because of sections added by the United States. Corporate rights, right to sue sovereigns, etc, were all at the behest of the US of A. Sections on extending copyrights and IP rights -- US of A. TPP was viewed as some new world order with some superseding power, and all of that was the work of the US. >The number alone is meaningless without context. Just as trade imbalances are meaningless because [waves hand], until they're what you want to argue. When the US, with a large trade surplus, complains about a tariff in dairy, where the US has a large trade surplus, in an industry where the US has enormous subsidies ($22B USD per year in direct and indirect subsidies), the whole conversations turns to just farce. It is patter to sell to imbeciles.
    - IanDrake 8y ago
      You’re all over the place. You like the TPP, the TPP is crap because of the US (under Obama) added things you don’t like, Trump is an idiot for not signing it. Agreements that can’t be read and comprehended in one day aren’t good agreements. I stand by that, no matter what Trump says, no matter what you say. I’m not arguing about trade imbalances on a surplus/deficit amount. I don’t care about the amount. I care about access to markets and a level playing field. There is no hypocrisy there. The difference between you and I, is that I’m willing to admit where you are right. The US subsidizes farmers and other industries. I imagine those are up for negotiation too. I also admit Trump acts like a horses ass. I’m just willing to let that slide if he’s an effective horses ass. I also haven’t implied you’re stupid.