Not clear where this is going:
With the political world distracted by President Trump’s media wars, one of the most consequential and contentious internal debates of his presidency unfolded during a tense meeting Monday in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, administration sources tell Axios.
The outcome, with a potentially profound effect on U.S. economic and foreign policy, will be decided in coming days.
With more than 20 top officials present, including Trump and Vice President Pence, the president and a small band of America First advisers made it clear they’re hell-bent on imposing tariffs — potentially in the 20% range — on steel, and likely other imports.
The penalties could eventually extend to other imports. Among those that may be considered: aluminum, semiconductors, paper, and appliances like washing machines.
One official estimated the sentiment in the room as 22 against and 3 in favor — but since one of the three is named Donald Trump, it was case closed.
No decision has been made, but the President is leaning towards imposing tariffs, despite opposition from nearly all his Cabinet.
In a plan pushed by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and backed by chief strategist Steve Bannon (not present at the meeting), trade policy director Peter Navarro and senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, the United States would impose tariffs on China and other big exporters of steel. Neither Mike Pence nor Jared Kushner weighed in either way.
Everyone else in the room, more than 75% of those present, were adamantly opposed, arguing it was bad economics and bad global politics. At one point, Trump was told his almost entire cabinet thought this was a bad idea. But everyone left the room believing the country is headed toward a major trade confrontation.
There are three possibilities. The first is the obvious – President Trump wants to impose tariffs as a way to give advantage to US producers, increase jobs, and reinvigorate the economy.
The second is President Trump is floating the idea of tariffs to gain leverage for future negotiations. Now he can get something in return for not imposing tariffs.
The third is that President Trump is looking forward a decade or two, and he sees a global war of some sort. If we are heading to a world war, we will need a steel industry and a robust manufacturing base. As it stands, we cannot get that in the face of cheap Chinese imports.
In that case even if there was a substantial cost to tariffs, it would be a cost well endured to get the country on the war-footing it will probably need to be on in a decade or two.
It is amazing to think about how one leader, whose loyalty is to the nation rather than to the establishment or his own reputation in the media, could change the course of mankind’s history decades hence. It is even more amazing how unusual it is to find such a leader.
[…] President Trump To Impose Tariffs […]
I have no doubt that free trade enhances economic growth. However, over the last 40 years of free trade and open borders (a necessary part of free trade), our Ruling Class has captured every penny of ecenomic growth. Moreover, they have clawed income away from the working class immiserating them, and middle class incomes have stagnated. If you want the benefits of free trade and open borders, you have to impose extremely steeply progressive income taxes on the rich, and redistribute the tax money to the working and middle classes. May I suggest a marginal tax of 100% on all income over $1,000,000, and that dividends, capitals, etc. count as regular income. Dissolution of all foundations and so-called charities should also be imposed, and a marginal estate tax of 100% on all estates in excess of $1,000,000. The goal is to prohibit the establishment of large fortunes.
This is the only way to maintain a cohesive culture. No doubt you think this extreme r.
He’s our Beowulf.
Before the free trade ninnies show how stupid they are, Trump is only treating the dog-eaters the way they treat us, which is to say, like shit. Fair is fair.
>It is even more amazing how unusual it is to find such a leader.
… in the West. Consider China or Russia.
True.
Imagine entering a basketball tournament as a pick-up team every year where you are lucky to make it a few rounds but never win. Each time the victor is announced you learn that the winning team does not play by the same rules that you do. The refs knew but do nothing about it. The commissioner says they will investigate but nothing changes. The fans notice but no one listens to them because they continue to buy tickets.
That’s “Free Trade.” Free Trade is not working because other countries are not playing by the rules and you cannot force them to without controls like tariffs. Without import and export controls countries will lose to the countries that use them. Look at when the US started Free Trade policy and trade deficit does go up but take closer note of the National Debt–it has increased due to Free Trade not just spending. We have tied our hands behind our backs as a nation and let other countries pummel us… good plan.
Suggested reading: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Trade-Doesnt-Work-Replace-ebook/dp/B004UI6XL8
Tariffs? YES! The Asians have been practicing Mercantilism against us for decades. I suggest we raise 40% tariffs, until, they lower all their trade barriers for 15 years. They should lower their barriers and keep them down for 15 years THEN we lower ours. In the past they always promise to do so and never do. The Asian economic model is very similar to Americans early one. We used finance to build state of the art high capacity manufacturing and drive everyone else out of business. I have a friend who worked in Japan. He said the cars there are totally different from the ones they import into the US. The steel is super thin in the Japanese domestic cars.
Here’s an not too long article that covers just about every point in how they have managed to twist their trade to ruin our manufacturing. It really covers all the major points in one fell swoop. Further reading that’s good is anything written by Eamonn Fingleton.
Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm