19
votes
Trump hits Canada, Mexico, EU with steel and aluminum tariffs
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Trump hits allies with metal tariffs; Mexico, EU and Canada vow to retaliate
- Authors
- Jeremy Diamond and Julia Horowitz
- Word count
- 682 words
Yeah, Canadian metal imports are clearly done on purpose to weaken our national security. I'll bet Trudaeu stays up late most nights, scheming on how we can take us down by selling us cheap metal...
And the real irony is that the justification is that this is weakening our economy, when the tariffs will likely result in most metal using industries to pay significantly more while also inviting tariffs from abroad. The one heartening thing about this is that everybody, from China to the EU to Canada, seems to be aiming them primarily after the part of the country that supports Trump the most. Votes (and lack of them) have consequences, a lesson everyone seems to have forgotten...
Yup. Working in a metal-heavy industry. All this is doing is raising the prices for raw material. No one will sell at normal prices anymore. They will simply sell at n-1% (hyperbole, but you get the point) to undercut the tarriffed providers.
Exactly, a recent study projected that 28,000 jobs will be lost in the construction industry alone due to the tariffs. The price of new housing will rise. The administration's own infrastructure plan may have to be delayed and infrastructure projects throughout the country will suffer. These tariffs only benefit the steel and aluminum magnates who crafted them.
It's like he's trying to raise the cost of living in America.
The issue that I've seen so far tho is the people that are being negatively impacted by these tariffs aren't seeing this as something that is a result of Trump's policies and are seeing it more in the light of "Those damn communists/socialists trying to destroy the American economy."
I am truly devastated at the way we are realigning our allegiances.
Now that China has given Ivanka several patents, they are suddenly exempt from tariffs despite Trump constantly railing against China's trade practices during the campaign. Just this morning the Chinese government lifted their threat of tariffs ahead of a meeting with U.S. officials. Such blatant corruption is galling.
Not to mention, who could have imagined a liberal democracy alienating their tried-and-true allies to get closer to authoritarian states?
We used to be a shining city on a hill. An example of an untarnished democracy. We'll never get that back.
Sure we will. It’ll come in the form of people that (before The_Cheeto) we would have in the past universally considered morally bankrupt. They’ll look like angels after all this- and everyone will be happy to have them. “Hey at least [___] isn’t Trump!”
If anything, I'd wager presidential norms will be codified after this administration.
What I meant to say before is that we will always be stained by it, even if we reestablish those norms. Our allies will not engage in formal treaties with us when our political system is unstable enough that, at any time, a new administration might disavow our commitments.
Our nation used to be a beaming example of a low corruption state -- contrary to popular belief. The world will always remember this new period in our history.
I think the lesson in all of this norm shifting should be in how fragile presidential norms really are, and how important it is to evaluate that the norms exist for good reasons.
I'm not a fan of Mr. Trump (and likely never will be), but I can say that most of the history of what we understand to be "presidential norms" have only existed really since the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. There were a lot of trends that coincided with their presidencies, to be sure, such as the modernization of the executive branch (and its increased authority during times of war), but stuff like "giving a speech in person every year to congress" only really started happening with Wilson. Stuff like "trying to appeal to the common voter with regular addresses" really started with Delano. Stuff like "trying to respect the journalism industry's right to report on news" only really started with Jimmy Carter.
I'm not saying that a president coming in and just undoing as much of what his predecessor has done as possible has no consequences, but it probably is a bit of a stretch, even still, to claim that the Trump administration has walked away from all the US' commitments it had under Obama. We're still in Afghanistan. We're still engaged in military operations all around the world as they relate to terrorism. We're still operating under the pretense of the Paris agreement (though the administration has also announced plans to withdraw that I can't imagine it won't follow through on even if they lose the election in 2020).
Basically, while what we have is a repudiation of globalist foreign policy and a return of American isolationism (which is about the first half of our existence), it is so far only expressing itself in degrees.
On corruption, the US government has also had its fair share of corruption throughout its history. One of our presidents was literally shot for trying to de-politicize many bureaucratic appointments (See also: James Garfield). Even if the return to overt nepotism and self-interested policy making is not desirable, it is probably too much to say it wasn't ever common in US history.
The problem with a return to isolationism is that it creates a power vacuum - historically when empires/large powers lose influence and stability you tend to have a greater risk of war as other actors jostle to fill the gap. Think of the decline of the Habsburgs and Ottomans leading up to WW1.
If the US retreats from the world stage others - like China - will start to challenge the US more in different parts of the world traditionally in the US sphere of influence (such as South America) and there will be paradoxically a greater risk of war than a more interventionist foreign policy.
Once you are on the top of the mountain it's very difficult to climb down safely again. The British perhaps are the best example of a country gracefully giving up their empire, but even that led to decades of unrest around the world (India/Pakistan, Ireland, Cyprus, Africa etc).
It’s possible. Then again I wonder if other nations don’t see this also as something to consider with any agreement.
What is to stop ANY country from voting in an unstable person to lead things who throws all agreements out the window? The possibility was apparently always there, just no one dared follow through with it.
If anything it could simply change things such that no country will expect agreements to be honored by every president. So perhaps Congress will change the rules of what the president can do in such a space.
Who knows.
No, this is not the normal way nations engage with one another on the global stage. One of the hallmarks of a 1st world nation is a stable even-handed goverment which honors its major commitments. This predictability is what allows global trade arrangements to flourish.
Agreeements usually expire after a set number of years. Then new administrations may negotiate different terms or end the agreeement entirely. The current administration's knee-jerk foreign policy is making us seem too unpredictable.
Iran, for one, may never trust us again.
My hope is that we can turn things back around over the next few years/decades and come out of all this a stronger country. Although, I think to do that we will need to find some way to convince people to overcome their cynicism and do something about the problems that they see, which will be a difficult task if the last two years have been anything to go by.
It really will take decades to repair our allegiances. Germany spent the last 70 years regaining the world's trust. I hope it doesn't take that long for us.
Others have also speculated this administration may be inoculating our democracy against larger threats. I sure hope they're right.
Yeah, I really hope that what we are going through now makes us more wary of such things in the future, much like Germany is now wary of fascism, hate, etc.
I think it's already starting. A couple of months ago Maryland's senate passed a bill requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns. I'm not sure if that will be taken to federal court, but if it holds up it will only take a few states adopting that to make it a de facto requirement. Even if a candidate isn't an option in a few states they wouldn't have one, assuming they're a non-write-in state like mine, that will send a TON of votes to 3rd parties and likely put the Libertarian and Green parties over a few key thresholds for national recognition. (5% for federal campaign funding, and whatever other % for various televised debate attendance)
I think they'll have to cave.
I'm curious: what period do you consider America to be the least corrupt?
"The trade penalties, 25% on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminum, take effect at midnight, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters Thursday."
The same man who founded International Steel Group and is a known figure in the steel industry. As someone who's always considered the US and EU to be like brothers, it makes me sad that I can't help but feel like the US can no longer be thought of in that way. I'm sure Canada feels the same...
Donald Trump nominated Kenneth J. Braithwaite to be the US ambassador to Norway. He said a couple months ago that he was hoping for an exception for Norwegian aluminum.
The ambassador then went back to Washington to try to convince politicians of the strategic importance of not scorning NATOs northern front through these tariffs.
The official reasoning behind these measures are "national security" because the US doesn't have its own supply of these materials nationally. There was a huge discussion whether Norway would buy the US F-35 Lighting II or the Swedish Eurofighter aircraft. Norway landed on the F-35 creating a large amount of US jobs. Norway doesn't have sufficient national industry to produce fighter aircraft. Many NATO-countries together make up the F-35 partership program because that's what benefits national security for all involved in the alliance.
For their next large military acquisition, I'd be surprised if Norway didn't choose something produced by a different NATO partner, presumably in Europe. Aluminum tariffs will be a large factor in that decision because of the proportion aluminium production makes up of Norwegian heavy industry.