U. S. Allies · Page 2 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#21

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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#22

I want free cheese damnit..!! 😠

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#23

victor809 wrote:

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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#24

Kentucky fried chikens... 😟

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#25

Kentucky fried chikens... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

they're domestic?

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#26

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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#27

you're taking a big risk with that bet, Victor.

Mrs. dpnewell
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#28

^^Dang, Drafter's left nut? That's cruel, dude.

David

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#29

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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#30

BTW, it's government paperwork. Why would you think it was written with any attempt at clarity?

dstieger
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#31

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

Edited by user 8 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#32

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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#33

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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#34

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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#35

they're domestic?

frankj1 wrote:

Only in nugget form. 🍺

RMAN4443
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#36

victor809 wrote:

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 😰

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#37

... 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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#38

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
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#39

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...

Edited by user 8 years ago | Reason: Not specified

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#40

delta1 wrote:

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.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: