Some U.S. steel and aluminum makers are restarting idle mills and boosting capacity to make up for imports that face being priced out of the market if President Donald Trump's proposed import tariffs take hold.
You don't even have to go back 20 years ago to figure out why it's a bad idea:
"I don't think it was smart policy to do it, to be honest," said Andrew H. "Andy" Card Jr., Bush's chief of staff from 2001 to 2006. "The results were not what we anticipated in terms of its impact on the economy or jobs."
Card is the latest high-ranking Bush administration official to warn Trump of just how bad it could get economically and politically if he proceeds. Josh Bolten, Bush's deputy chief of staff for policy in 2002, slammed Trump's tariffs.
The result of Bush's tariffs was a $30 million hit to the economy, according to a lengthy government report from the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2003. Studies by outside groups conclude that the United States lost jobs because of the move: The employment gains in factories that make raw steel were outweighed by job losses in other industries, especially at companies that take raw steel and make it into parts for cars and appliances. To put it another way, it cost about $400,000 per job saved in the steel industry, according to an estimate by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Bush originally intended to keep the tariffs for three years, but he ended them in December 2003. Trading partners, especially the European Union, threatened to retaliate with tariffs on Florida oranges and Carolina fabrics and textiles, and it became clear to White House staff members that it was backfiring.
"We didn't expect it to cost us jobs," Card said. "Once the tit-for-tat starts, there are unintended consequences. You don't know the extent of how everyone else will react."
"The result of Bush's tariffs was a $30 million hit to the economy, according to a lengthy government report from the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2003."
An insignificant amount considering the number of jobs which could have resulted had we kept the tariffs in place for more than one year.
A tariff for one year is pretty meaningless and any nation that charges us VAT while whining that we place tariffs on our manufactured goods should be told to go pound sand. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. How are so many former Bernie Sanders supporters now "free trade" advocates? "Free trade" is a jobs give away to other nations which profits the 1% and no one else. I'm not now and never have been a Trump supporter but any effort to rein in free trade is a step in the right direction. We can't afford 500 billion dollar trade deficits and when you take that number and compare it to the supposed $30 million dollar hit our economy took by enacting tariffs under Bush, the logic of anti-tariff, free trade arguments is revealed to be non-existent.
I agree with Danni(The apocalypse is about to start).
Hopefully we can learn about what made Bush's try at this so wrong and make some corrections. It is truly unfair for us to import other countries good at 0% and they institute a tariff on us when we export to them.
It would seem as this would be common sense.
Plus, we are the worlds largest consumer market, we should use that to our advantage.
Why cant we sell to ourselves?
"Why cant we sell to ourselves?"
because "we" won't pay a premium for anything (except health care and Rx)
"It is truly unfair for us to import other countries good at 0% and they institute a tariff on us when we export to them."
I'm reposting BOAZ's post, I think we both are examples of posters putting logic and reality before partisanship. His point is inarguably a fact, don't even come back with arguments against American tariffs defending American manufacturing before you answer his point. If you can't answer it intelligently then you should reconsider your position.
This point has been beaten to death.
Putting tariffs on manufactured goods (high labor content) may have a net benefit, but putting tariffs on manufacturing inputs will be a net loss of jobs.
If you don't understand how making US goods more expensive in the US and for export will reduce consumption, then you don't math.
Lower consumption means less jobs.
Tariffs on manufactured goods will reduce jobs, but mostly in the countries that export to the US, but spending those taxes will create jobs, which may be positive.
Input taxes bad. Consumer taxes good if they are spent well.
A better option to boost US jobs is to let companies deduct the taxes their employees pay twice, up to the point the company pays no taxes itself. The business would them be encouraged to make money by employing people in the US rather than shave costs by off shoring.
"Putting tariffs on manufactured goods (high labor content) may have a net benefit, but putting tariffs on manufacturing inputs will be a net loss of jobs."
Then our competitors wouldn't do it. I'll take my lead from Germany, Japan, China and S. Korea. Not from free traders at Goldman Sachs.
Do Germany and Japan have steel tariffs? I did a quick google and could not find any info due to stories about US tariffs.
#14 So no manufacturing input tariffs then?
Canada doesn't and still manages to export the most to the US. Why do you think that is? Are Canadians just better at making steel or does easy access to ore and energy matter? Or does the type of steel matter? The answers will reveal why steel trade happens and why it is good for US jobs.
I'm reposting BOAZ's post, I think we both are examples of posters putting logic and reality before partisanship.
#8 | POSTED BY DANNI
If only you could do the same with regard to illegal immigration and stopping more foreign wars, I could buy you a MAGA hat. At the end of the day, everything else is just noise.
Aluminum is important for hick beverages alrighty ... .
Maybe this aluminum smelter will restart in NW USA ...
local congress critter Sue DelBene hoped so two years ago ...
But now she hauls the anti-trump rope ... .
and here is that in depth report from the USITC committee.
Drudge Retort Headlines
Report: Mueller Focusing on Obstruction; Not Collusion (75 comments)
Decision to Invade Iraq Cost Millions Their Lives (50 comments)
Your Facebook Likes Were Used to Manipulate You (31 comments)
Arizona Pedestrian Is Killed by Uber Self-driving Car (30 comments)
Congressman Offers McCabe Job to Save Pension (27 comments)
Trump Throws a Morning Tantrum Against Mueller (26 comments)
McCabe Firing: What We Know, and Don't Know (25 comments)