Ok of course. It would be best if these articles would mention that they are also illegal. That’s the primary problem. One capricious asshole is asking for them and they just happen. Only congress...
Ok of course.
It would be best if these articles would mention that they are also illegal. That’s the primary problem. One capricious asshole is asking for them and they just happen. Only congress can levy tariffs except in time of war. But we aren’t at war. Trump is using a fake emergency with drugs or immigration as a premise. He’s even admitted that this isn’t the real reason. Apparently there are loopholes and nobody is smart enough or brave enough to quickly close them.
Of course, I’m not a constitutional scholar, nor a member of congress that has abdicated its responsibilities over the past few decades. But still, it would be super cool if there were actually guardrails against a mentally ill russian asset destroying the economy. For example, congress could quickly impeach him and remove him from office. And the Supreme Court could also do its job.
A loophole means it's legal so long as the toothless supreme court can't be relied on to interpret the law for what we all know it means. Which means it'd be pointless to impeach him until he...
A loophole means it's legal so long as the toothless supreme court can't be relied on to interpret the law for what we all know it means. Which means it'd be pointless to impeach him until he slips up and goes too far.
This is what it's like living in a country run by 2 parties instead of 3 government branches. The republicans in congress ignore the elephant stomping on their toes because it's their party candidate and the Democrats might ignore it simply because they don't want the loophole closed for the next time they have a president in power. Both parties tell their Supreme Court judges they have in their pocket what to do, rending the supreme court toothless or worse, biased when one party gains more influence than the other resulting in laws being rewritten rather than properly interpreted. The 3 branch system only works so long as all 3 branches remain antagonistic, but they're openly colluding instead. The system that protects us is broken and hanging on only by a deeply cracked cog.
In Trump's first term, we saw how the impeachment process can fail, but that has nothing to do with the Surpreme Court. It's all about who's in the House (to start impeachment) and who's in the...
In Trump's first term, we saw how the impeachment process can fail, but that has nothing to do with the Surpreme Court. It's all about who's in the House (to start impeachment) and who's in the Senate (to convict). We might see another impeachment after the midterms, though I doubt the Senate would change enough to convict.
More happily, the Supreme Court has ruled against the Trump administration recently. It was a 5-4 decision and it doesn't mean they can be relied on to do so in the future. But Justice Barrett was nominated by Trump and ruled against the Trump administration, which shows some independence. We don't know what they'll do when more appeals get to the Supreme Court.
Economists have long understood that higher tariffs do not, in general, reduce trade deficits. In fact, global data show that countries with higher tariffs actually have higher trade deficits.
The simplest problem is that many US exporters — Boeing, General Motors, Caterpillar, to name just a few — rely on foreign inputs. So if a tariff has to be paid on foreign steel or aluminum coming into the US, American exporters who use those materials face higher costs. That will hurt their international competitive position and in turn increase the US trade deficit.
It would be too hasty to conclude that high tariffs cause higher trade deficits, given the perennial distinction between causation and correlation. Still, it is difficult to spin the global data into the argument that high tariffs will help reduce the trade deficit.
The most important factors behind trade balances include savings decisions, fiscal policy, economic growth rates, wealth levels and demographic characteristics such as the age of the population. As economist Joseph Gagnon bluntly put it: “None of the studies found any role for trade barriers.”
...
One mechanism often touted by Trump is that the mere threat of tariffs may induce a foreign business to invest and set up shop in the US. That can be true, but it shows once again that tariffs cannot be counted on to reduce trade deficits. If the foreign investment arrives, that means a capital inflow, boosting the value of the dollar. The net result is that exporting becomes harder for US companies, which hardly is the path to a lower trade deficit.
That scenario shows one of the contradictions behind Trump’s trade policy: The president wants more foreign direct investment and a lower trade deficit. Those two goals work against each other.
To expand on this, there's also the question of whether a trade deficit is a bad thing. It might mean that a country is attracting lots of outside investment, which can be a good thing if it's...
To expand on this, there's also the question of whether a trade deficit is a bad thing. It might mean that a country is attracting lots of outside investment, which can be a good thing if it's handled well. From an international trade point of view, the extra imports are paying for the investments.
There can be too much investment, though. (Particularly as debt.) How much is too much is a matter of opinion.
I mean, it's well known that trade deficits are generally fine, and the US's isn't likely a problem. Trump, even if he understands what it is, is clearly using it because it sounds bad and there...
I mean, it's well known that trade deficits are generally fine, and the US's isn't likely a problem.
Trump, even if he understands what it is, is clearly using it because it sounds bad and there for is something he can fix and use to justify whatever the hell he's doing.
From a Canadian point of view, the US has a tiny trade deficit with Canada in the grand scheme of things, and it's mainly because of oil anyway. Trump is focusing on just goods when he says...
From a Canadian point of view, the US has a tiny trade deficit with Canada in the grand scheme of things, and it's mainly because of oil anyway. Trump is focusing on just goods when he says there's a huge deficit, a result of Canadians importing less from the US than the other way round (which is to be expected considering the difference in population size). But he's conveniently ignoring all the other services that Canada imports from the US, which cuts the deficit to something like $30 billion. And if you cut out the oil that the US imports from Canada, then there is no deficit at all.
It's hard to see his tariffs as anything other than a bullying tactic to try and negotiate better deals. Of course, the more sinister reason is he wants to cripple the Canadian economy in the hope that Canada would prefer to join the US, and he can then access all of Canada's resources.
Personally, I can't help but think that he just doesn't really understand economics and trade that well. He gives off the vibes of someone who has never had to learn these things, but has rather spent his whole life getting toadies to give him reports and summaries so he can make a binary decision that favours him as much as possible. To him, surplus = good, deficit = bad. Has he actually spent any time looking at the intricacies and contemplated how many US jobs have been created around refining Canadian crude oil, for example?
Ok of course.
It would be best if these articles would mention that they are also illegal. That’s the primary problem. One capricious asshole is asking for them and they just happen. Only congress can levy tariffs except in time of war. But we aren’t at war. Trump is using a fake emergency with drugs or immigration as a premise. He’s even admitted that this isn’t the real reason. Apparently there are loopholes and nobody is smart enough or brave enough to quickly close them.
Of course, I’m not a constitutional scholar, nor a member of congress that has abdicated its responsibilities over the past few decades. But still, it would be super cool if there were actually guardrails against a mentally ill russian asset destroying the economy. For example, congress could quickly impeach him and remove him from office. And the Supreme Court could also do its job.
A loophole means it's legal so long as the toothless supreme court can't be relied on to interpret the law for what we all know it means. Which means it'd be pointless to impeach him until he slips up and goes too far.
This is what it's like living in a country run by 2 parties instead of 3 government branches. The republicans in congress ignore the elephant stomping on their toes because it's their party candidate and the Democrats might ignore it simply because they don't want the loophole closed for the next time they have a president in power. Both parties tell their Supreme Court judges they have in their pocket what to do, rending the supreme court toothless or worse, biased when one party gains more influence than the other resulting in laws being rewritten rather than properly interpreted. The 3 branch system only works so long as all 3 branches remain antagonistic, but they're openly colluding instead. The system that protects us is broken and hanging on only by a deeply cracked cog.
In Trump's first term, we saw how the impeachment process can fail, but that has nothing to do with the Surpreme Court. It's all about who's in the House (to start impeachment) and who's in the Senate (to convict). We might see another impeachment after the midterms, though I doubt the Senate would change enough to convict.
More happily, the Supreme Court has ruled against the Trump administration recently. It was a 5-4 decision and it doesn't mean they can be relied on to do so in the future. But Justice Barrett was nominated by Trump and ruled against the Trump administration, which shows some independence. We don't know what they'll do when more appeals get to the Supreme Court.
From the article:
...
To expand on this, there's also the question of whether a trade deficit is a bad thing. It might mean that a country is attracting lots of outside investment, which can be a good thing if it's handled well. From an international trade point of view, the extra imports are paying for the investments.
There can be too much investment, though. (Particularly as debt.) How much is too much is a matter of opinion.
I mean, it's well known that trade deficits are generally fine, and the US's isn't likely a problem.
Trump, even if he understands what it is, is clearly using it because it sounds bad and there for is something he can fix and use to justify whatever the hell he's doing.
From a Canadian point of view, the US has a tiny trade deficit with Canada in the grand scheme of things, and it's mainly because of oil anyway. Trump is focusing on just goods when he says there's a huge deficit, a result of Canadians importing less from the US than the other way round (which is to be expected considering the difference in population size). But he's conveniently ignoring all the other services that Canada imports from the US, which cuts the deficit to something like $30 billion. And if you cut out the oil that the US imports from Canada, then there is no deficit at all.
It's hard to see his tariffs as anything other than a bullying tactic to try and negotiate better deals. Of course, the more sinister reason is he wants to cripple the Canadian economy in the hope that Canada would prefer to join the US, and he can then access all of Canada's resources.
Personally, I can't help but think that he just doesn't really understand economics and trade that well. He gives off the vibes of someone who has never had to learn these things, but has rather spent his whole life getting toadies to give him reports and summaries so he can make a binary decision that favours him as much as possible. To him, surplus = good, deficit = bad. Has he actually spent any time looking at the intricacies and contemplated how many US jobs have been created around refining Canadian crude oil, for example?
Mirror: https://archive.is/sZRs9
I appreciate people like you