America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by delta1. 69 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
U. S. Allies
skillett Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 05-14-2012
Posts: 156
Forget the G7 or 8, 9, 10.

As long as Israel is our ally, we will be fine. Mess on Canada, Britain, France, and Germany as our supporters




Edited: Added france.
Burner02 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,861
skillett wrote:
Forget the G7 or 8, 9, 10.

As long as Israel is our ally, we will be fine. Mess on Canada, Britain, and Germany as our supporters.



France, you forgot France.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Trump wouldn't bend over and take it up the butt like Daddy Bush, Clinton, Baby Bush and Obama, so Trudeau goes on TV and cries like a little baby. Of course the media and left are having a field day.

David (dpnewell)


Correction and chastisement from Victor in 5, 4, 3, 2...











Just mess'n with you, Victor. You know I luv ya man.
teedubbya Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I’m glad someone thinks this is rational and good.
MACS Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
teedubbya wrote:
I’m glad someone thinks this is rational and good.


Why, do you not think fair and equitable trade agreements are good? If I am correct, the EU gets us at 3%, Canada at 3.1% and we hit them with 2.4% tarriff. IF we're increasing ours to match theirs... what's the problem with that?

I'm gonna wait until the muddy water is a little more clear before I decide if it's good or bad. I am happy the president appears to be making decisions that favor US businesses for a change.
teedubbya Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I said nothing to suggest the like MACS. You jump to conclusions that are not there. If he had punched macron in the mouth and I said I wasn’t for that it wouldn’t mean I am against fair trade deals.

That’s the same dumb logic that made being against the Iraq war unpatriotic. There is no coorelation at all.

I find the schtick childish and unbecoming of the office. I’m embarrassed by it.

As for negotiating better deals knock yourself out I say but he is an embarrassment to the office how he conducts himself.

Being embarrassed by him isn’t synonymous with not being for the best deal. I just don’t think that’s how you go about it and no world leader should act like that.

At least he has Russia’s back. Poottie must be happy.
teedubbya Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
If personally insulting our allies is a good thing and not being on board with that ya somehow not being for fair trade then I want some of what you are smoking.

I can’t believe anyone is still eating this crap up.
MACS Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
All I read was some of our allies are pissed about Trump raising tariffs, and are threatening retaliation for it. I'm not in favor of him acting like a buffoon, either... but I am in favor of getting a handle on fair trade.

It seems you did some jumping to conclusions of your own. I never said I was okay with him acting like an ass. And I was asking a question... missed the comma after "why".
Buckwheat Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
I have to say that I just don't know enough of the details to make an informed comment about trade. Even staying in a Holiday Inn Express hasn't enlightened me to complex details of international trade and tariffs. Like all of these issues, I'm sure the solutions require more than bumper sticker solutions. fog
tailgater Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185


Trump puts tariffs on goods to (in theory) help protect American workers.
Canada (for instance) threatens tariffs on goods as a retaliation to Hurt America.

Headline: trump is mean.


Lemmings.




dstieger Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Buckwheat wrote:
I have to say that I just don't know enough of the details to make an informed comment about trade. fog



You and Trump have that in common
ZRX1200 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,473
He is so awesome.

I can't wait till 2020!
dstieger Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Buckwheat for President?
Buckwheat Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
dstieger wrote:
Buckwheat for President?


Ha! Who wants that no-win thankless job? fog
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Fair and equitable trade agreements are good.

But how does the idiot president think he's going to get them with that "dimplomatic" maneuver?

More importantly, does the idiot president even know if the current trade agreements are bad? We know he doesn't read more than a handful of bullet points. I can make an assumption that a multinational trade agreement requires more than a couple bullet points to explain.... So a safe assumption is that everything he says about the G7 or trade agreements is just him guessing...

You can see evidence of this by his claim that it's unfair because there is a trade defecit.... I don't believe this is a correct statement. A perfectly fair trade agreement can still result in a large trade defecit for one party....

So... He blusters in... Doesn't seem to want to negotiate... After he leaves and there is no opportunity to talk about changes, he States he will not sign a document....

...he's an idiot, and not acting in a manner that will lead to good trade agreements.
delta1 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
Most of our deals with our allies have been made after WWII, with the idea that we, along with all our allies, can gain strength in numbers and benefit each other. When you look at the results, the US has prospered, even more than our allies, since those trade agreements began. Look at the comparisons of GNP since the 50's....Trump says they're bad...without offering compelling substantiation.

Seventy years of alliance building being trashed...and these were our friends and allies...nations that had our back after 9/11...

But the President thinks we'll be better off making nice with Russia...he wants to let them back into the G-7/G-8...what if Russia had annexed Palin's house on the western border of Alaska...sorta like he did in our partner's backyard in Crimea...

Guess he doesn't know why our partners kicked Putin out of the club...and his clueless economic advisor, Kudzu, said Trump had to behave the way he did, trashing Trudeau and the agreement he signed so that he could look strong going into the NK Summit...can't make this crap up...
jjanecka Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Freaking Canadian azzhat. How many products from the US does Canada already screw us with on amazingly high tarriffs and then they tell us we're bullies because they want to screw their own people.
victor809 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I don't know... How many?

That's sort of the question isn't it jj?... Was the trade fair before? Was it fair after trump added the steel and aluminum tariffs?

No one has stated what was so unfair about how things were 1 year ago. And no, a trade defecit isn't proof.
victor809 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Just to reiterate...
I did a little digging.... Now, I don't have any expertise in trade agreements... But just reading a couple articles I've probably now read more than trump.

NAFTA was intended to get rid of all tariffs over 15 years... Since it's been in place since the 90s I'm guessing that there are no tarrifs between our countries.

But then I find that the US has been taxing 27% on Canadian lumber... Because we assert their lumber industry is state supported.... Possible...but a contention.
I see no other indication of tarrifs between our countries (in my Google searching... I could be wrong). So trump claims that's an unfair deal... And starts taxing Canadian steel and aluminum for "security" reasons.

To just parrot that we have unfair deals with these countries seems... Incorrect.
DrafterX Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
270% on cheese... Those Bassards..!! Mad
victor809 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Not really. That's only on dairy that exceeds a specific quota.

It's there... But it's apparently a measure to avoid market gluts.

Within the quota the tariff is apparently 7.5% which irritates me because I can't figure out why there is a tariff.

Apparently this particular industry isn't covered by NAFTA, which makes understanding this much more complex, because it implies there are other industries (on all sides) which I would need to know about.

Which brings us to... Is this really an issue that we want someone who only understands bullet points negotiating?
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
I want free cheese damnit..!! Mad
frankj1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
victor809 wrote:
Not really. That's only on dairy that exceeds a specific quota.

It's there... But it's apparently a measure to avoid market gluts.

Within the quota the tariff is apparently 7.5% which irritates me because I can't figure out why there is a tariff.

Apparently this particular industry isn't covered by NAFTA, which makes understanding this much more complex, because it implies there are other industries (on all sides) which I would need to know about.

Which brings us to... Is this really an issue that we want someone who only understands bullet points negotiating?

might be wrong, this is not my long suit, but the Canadian Gov sort of sets the market for (most?) dairy products they produce and part of that is import quotas. Under quota is not subject to added "penalties" but everything after that might be as protection of the massive Canadian Dairy industry, a semi government agency I guess...

China wants to protect their rice producers so they make it monetarily unattractive to import rice.

I am probably close but off in some way

Not sure what the US might do that would be akin to those two examples.
DrafterX Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
Kentucky fried chikens... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
DrafterX wrote:
Kentucky fried chikens... Mellow

they're domestic?
victor809 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Looking through the US International Trade Commission, we have tariffs on some items... Which don't seem to be NAFTA exempt...a cotton came up...
Ok... F-it.my brain is broken.
I literally just spent the past hour filtering through tcc.export.gov and I can't make heads or tails of it. Even within NAFTA there appears to be agreements between countries on exemptions for industries.
There will be some winners. And some losers. But I'm willing to bet drafter's left nut that I've just read more about it than the idiot trump.
frankj1 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
you're taking a big risk with that bet, Victor.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
^^Dang, Drafter's left nut? That's cruel, dude.

David
Speyside Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Well, you did say you read for an hour. But president Trump takes NAFTA seriously. So my guess is you spent about 59 minutes more reading about it than he did.
Speyside Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
BTW, it's government paperwork. Why would you think it was written with any attempt at clarity?
dstieger Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Truth is that nearly all existing tariffs are extraordinarily complicated - over/under quotas, surplus conditionals, micro exceptions, targeted exporter exceptions, etc. Not a subject that lends itself to understanding by reading Twitter feeds and sound bites....the exception is the big, loud pronouncements that get attention, but rarely last long, if they get enacted at all ...like "We're going to impose tariffs on all foreign steel and aluminum!"

BTW, why do Europeans call it aluminium? Probably not incorrect, but it makes me cringe like when Jimmy Carter used to say 'Nucular'....the guy was a nuclear engineer, for cryste's sake


Might be easier to find a nation that DOESN'T protect its ag products


Victor, focus on tobacco, clothing, shoes....you may find something there
victor809 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Yeah... I read in some articles that we still have tariffs on tobacco. But when I started digging thru the schedules to identify any NAFTA exemptions, I couldn't find the specific tobacco identifier, just machinery for tobacco production.

It is not a very user friendly system.

So... Since I can't dig any info out myself I can't say for certain what the actual situation is. But I can say with certainty that no one else here knows either... So we're all talking out of our azzes (as likely is trump. I would literally give any other president the benefit of the doubt that they would have read a report from someone with the skills to get the information out. But he has shown no interest in information, so he likely didn't read the report)
tailgater Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
But the outrage isn't over a tariff or lack thereof.
It's about the media/public outcry when President Donald Trump places a tariff, versus the placid agreement when Canada follows suit.
Trump bad.
Leftist Trudeau good.

Somehow people think they know if something is good/bad simply by the person implementing it.

But don't worry.
I read here that there is no double standard in the media.

victor809 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
You're pretending there wasn't some initial action.

Trade was relatively stable. One could assume reasonably fair between the two countries. People (like trump) claim it wasn't fair, but didn't really have any evidence. If there were evidence that the trade was unfair, smarter people than trump would have negotiated a different deal by now.

Trump destabilized what was there by adding tariffs. The media will chastize him for that. Canada responded. That's an expected response , why would he be chastised for that?
Buckwheat Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
frankj1 wrote:
they're domestic?


Only in nugget form. Beer
RMAN4443 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
victor809 wrote:
You're pretending there wasn't some initial action.

Trade was relatively stable. One could assume reasonably fair between the two countries. People (like trump) claim it wasn't fair, but didn't really have any evidence. If there were evidence that the trade was unfair, smarter people than trump would have negotiated a different deal by now.

Trump destabilized what was there by adding tariffs. The media will chastize him for that. Canada responded. That's an expected response , why would he be chastised for that?

Wasn't the NAFTA deal implemented by people "smarter' than Trump? It really seemed to be a bad deal for the US from the outset.....at least in the manufacturing world, which is where I live my life Anxious
victor809 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
... were there any tariffs in your line of work which Canada or Mexico had implemented?

I should have been more precise. I would not call equilateral open trade bad, even if it hurts one industry over another. If you have knowledge of protectionism on the part of Mexico or Canada which impacted your industry I'd be interested in knowing about that....

Without additional information, I think it's rational to assume that the trade experts on all sides negotiated a deal which has some level of parity. That doesn't mean there won't be damage to an industry, or major shifts in where goods are produced. It means the trade is equal. If you want to protect local manufacturing, you may need to set up unequal trade (ie implement tariffs on imported goods). But that's the antithesis to free trade.
dstieger Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Seems that tariffs and protectionism are more about attitude, pronouncements, punishment, image and message than they are actually about anything remotely related to fairness or balance.

Many in the Trump core may have intense dislike for 'globalism', but it is pretty tough to deny that we exist in a very 'global economy'. I don't believe that Trump's pronouncements about steel tariffs were even remotely related to national security.
I get how he could justify the argument --
-we gotta be able to make ships and tanks on a moment's notice without getting screwed by another country ....good message...and,
-protecting US steel is great for US workers...another solid sound bite...

but how does it square with the reality of taxing imported steel? What about products made with imported steel? Might it now be cheaper for American manufacturers to actually make their stuff overseas with non-tariffed steel and bring back un-tariffed products to sell here? How does that help the almighty trade imbalance? What about all the small manufacturers here in the US that make stuff with that super high-grade European or Japanese steel that isn't even produced here? Why are they going to be punished? As I said above, trade protections and tariffs are complicated business - simply throwing bricks at the 'global economy' doesn't go a long ways towards making America great -- in many cases, the bricks are getting thrown straight up
delta1 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,753
Let's get this straight...Trump signed an agreement with the G-7, calling it "free, fair and mutually beneficial" and then left early...then later, Trump said he was backing out of the deal because Canada was charging tariffs (which have been in place for years before the agreement)...

Trudeau said he felt insulted and would not let Canadians get pushed around...

so who's the "back stabber that deserves a special place in hell"?


Trump wants to revive the 19th century negotiating and treaty making playbook that the Feds used when signing deals with the Native Americans...
tailgater Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
Let's get this straight...Trump signed an agreement with the G-7, calling it "free, fair and mutually beneficial" and then left early...then later, Trump said he was backing out of the deal because Canada was charging tariffs (which have been in place for years before the agreement)...

Trudeau said he felt insulted and would not let Canadians get pushed around...

so who's the "back stabber that deserves a special place in hell"?

.


Serious question?
OK.
Trudeau is.

Trump can say what he wants and schmooz at the summit and kiss wives.
It's all about the show. It may as well be an election promise.

Actions speak louder than words.
In this instance, America has been butt hurt by tariffs for decades.
Trump corrects it.
Trudeau doesn't wait for the ink to dry before retaliating. Which is his right. But the ONLY reason you see Trump (OUR President, by the way) as the backstabber is because of the anti-Trump media brigade.

I don't think you have the TDR.
But watch out.
It's contagious.
tailgater Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I spelled contagious wrong and had to correct it.

During which, I recalled a joke:

During a spelling bee, the teacher asked little Johnny to spell "contagious" and use it in a sentence.

Much to her surprise, Johnny spelled it correctly.
Then he said:
"My girlfriend is so stupid that when I tell a joke it will take the contagious to get it."




frankj1 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
I spelled contagious wrong and had to correct it.

During which, I recalled a joke:

During a spelling bee, the teacher asked little Johnny to spell "contagious" and use it in a sentence.

Much to her surprise, Johnny spelled it correctly.
Then he said:
"My girlfriend is so stupid that when I tell a joke it will take the contagious to get it."





you do know I can never tell that joke, right?
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tail... You have not proven that trump "corrected" something which needed correcting. If you haven't proven that yet, then there's no way to prove it wasn't trump making a fair trade deal unfair for Canada.

Can't base your argument on an unfounded assumption like that.
tailgater Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Tail... You have not proven that trump "corrected" something which needed correcting. If you haven't proven that yet, then there's no way to prove it wasn't trump making a fair trade deal unfair for Canada.

Can't base your argument on an unfounded assumption like that.


That wasn't my intent.
I'd have to know a lot more about the intricacies of trades/tariffs, etc to make that claim.

But it's folly to assume the opposite.

Furthermore, the headlines don't care about the effects.
They care about labeling a bully.
And despite the very obvious retaliatory actions by Trudeau, it seems that Trump gets labeled the bully.
And we know why. And it has zero to do with the long term net effect.

This article came across my email this morning.
Thomas.net is a manufacturing-centric marketing organization, yet they are able to do what CNN, the NYT et al were unable: To report what took place, why it happened, and how some predict the impact.

https://news.thomasnet.com/featured/how-retaliatory-tariffs-could-impact-the-united-states-global-response-to-the-new-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs?channel=newsletter&campaign_type=PNA&campaign_name=0618&utm_campaign=0618&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=PNA&tinid=221764277&ni=1&cs=PNA

Is it good? Is it bad?
I guess the reader would have to draw their own conclusion (Gasp!).

No wonder the liberal rags don't report like this.

victor809 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Trump made the first change.
Without proof that the status quo was bad, then making a unilateral change to it, without negotiating with your trade partners, does make you belligerent.

If you and I had a deal... You claimed it was a bad deal, I claimed it was a fair deal, but neither of us knew whether we were correct... And you just decided to not honor the deal, then you would be the one in the wrong.

To make it funnier... Imagine we have a deal, you claim it's a bad deal I claim its fair. We both have been given sufficient information to assess whether it's fair or not, but I'm the only one who read that information. Then you decide to not honor it.... Without reading it, without identifying why it's bad....

If the idiot wanted a better deal he could have negotiated for it. Negotiating involves stating why your stance is correct and the other is incorrect however... And we know that's too complex for him. So he chose a belligerent (bullying) method of negotiating... By just refusing to honor the current deal. He may get a better deal, but only by throwing his weight around, not by actually pointing out what's fair.
RMAN4443 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
If I go to buy a car, the salesperson takes their stance and I take my stance. After a little pushing and pulling from both sides, a deal is worked out. If I decide I don't like the deal for whatever reason....not fair,etc….I walk away....or the dealer decides they don't like the deal I want, they will say no and walk away.

Isn't that the way a deal is made? I don't have to take the deal because others think it's a good deal.....if it's not a good deal for me, I'm not buying
RMAN4443 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
If I go to buy a car, the salesperson takes their stance and I take my stance. After a little pushing and pulling from both sides, a deal is worked out. If I decide I don't like the deal for whatever reason....not fair,etc….I walk away....or the dealer decides they don't like the deal I want, they will say no and walk away.

Isn't that the way a deal is made? I don't have to take the deal because others think it's a good deal.....if it's not a good deal for me, I'm not buying
victor809 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
The deal was made years ago.
Trump added steel and aluminum tarrifs without reopening any negotiations.

To use your analogy, if you bought a car 2 years ago and the dealer came and told you the car was 200$ more and just took the money from your account.

RMAN4443 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Weren't these meetings all about the deals and renegotiating them? Trump decided the deal was bad for YOU and me, and decided he didn't want to be part of it anymore, on our behalf.

https://www.internationalrelationsedu.org/what-is-the-g7-its-purpose-and-history-of-influence/

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_purpose_of_the_g8

The original group was intended to provide major industrial powers of the non-communist world a venue in which to address economic concerns, which at the time included inflation and the recession sparked by the oil crisis of the 1970s. Cold War politics also invariably entered the group's agenda soon after its founding.
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
G7 is different than NATO.

Yes... Also trade... But Trump's beef (at least the one I'm talking about) has been with Canada, which is in both. NATO agreements have been in place for a while. To the best of my understanding, nothing had changed until trump changed things.

While this was at a G7 meeting (which I believe was about climate?) That trump refused to sign an agreement for. But that doesnt have anything to do with us/Canada trade (I don't think).
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>