ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

All numbers are based from 2017

The US is the largest importer of steel in the world at nearly 35 millions metric tons.
The US export slightly under 10 millions metric tons.

Canada represent 87,7% of those imports. You just slapped a 25% tax on steel, which I can assure you, will mean the prices will increase to represent that loss.

This mean that for every dollars before tariffs, you'll pay 1,33$ for after tariffs.

Steel currently go at 4185$ US per ton (I assume it's by ton, it might not be).

So if the US stop exporting and use all of their steel locally, there will still be a 25 millions metric tons to be imported of which 87,7% come from Canada (if everyone is affected by a 25% tariffs, there's no logical reason why the distribution of importers should change) which mean just under 22 milions metric tons from Canada (21,925M).

At 4185$ US per ton, that represents 91,75 billions dollars. If you slap a 33% price increase due to the tariffs, you are looking at a 30,25 billions dollars extra cost for products that require steel. This is money that will be charged on the american people and you will also pay more in buyer tax on every steel products (you'll get taxed on the tax).

The US produced 82 metric tons, exported 10 and imported 35, for a total of 107 metric tons used in the US. This means that, depending if Canadian steel make up or not all of the extra 12,3% of the rest of steel imports. That at a equal ratio and assuming that US steel exports stop and become locally used, Canadian steel will consist of 20,491% of US steel consumed and up to 23.33% if US importations became 100% Canadian.

So, if 20,491% of steel see a 33% price increases, it ends up meaning an average 6,83% price increase across all steel products, 7,78% if steel imports became 100% Canadian. Add in the buyer tax and you are looking at possibly another 1% that the consumer will have to pay on average.

So in the end, the american consumer is likely to see steel products to have a significant price hike.

Whaaaaat iiiiiffff... now bear with me for a moment... what if the US made more of its own steel...

The entirety of everybody commenting on steel tariffs assumes that the US market will not seize the opportunity to produce more steel. Does anybody remember when the world ran on American made superior quality steel? I’m old enough to remember the previous generation constantly bitching up a storm during the transition to cheap Chinese shit.

Buying cheap from American scrapyards plus environmentally devastating recycling processes plus slave labor equals economic warfare. Fuck em. [Insert link to climate change thread]

"

faerwin wrote:

tl;dr

All numbers are based from 2017

The US is the largest importer of steel in the world at nearly 35 millions metric tons.
The US export slightly under 10 millions metric tons.

Canada represent 87,7% of those imports. You just slapped a 25% tax on steel, which I can assure you, will mean the prices will increase to represent that loss.

This mean that for every dollars before tariffs, you'll pay 1,33$ for after tariffs.

Steel currently go at 4185$ US per ton (I assume it's by ton, it might not be).

So if the US stop exporting and use all of their steel locally, there will still be a 25 millions metric tons to be imported of which 87,7% come from Canada (if everyone is affected by a 25% tariffs, there's no logical reason why the distribution of importers should change) which mean just under 22 milions metric tons from Canada (21,925M).

At 4185$ US per ton, that represents 91,75 billions dollars. If you slap a 33% price increase due to the tariffs, you are looking at a 30,25 billions dollars extra cost for products that require steel. This is money that will be charged on the american people and you will also pay more in buyer tax on every steel products (you'll get taxed on the tax).

The US produced 82 metric tons, exported 10 and imported 35, for a total of 107 metric tons used in the US. This means that, depending if Canadian steel make up or not all of the extra 12,3% of the rest of steel imports. That at a equal ratio and assuming that US steel exports stop and become locally used, Canadian steel will consist of 20,491% of US steel consumed and up to 23.33% if US importations became 100% Canadian.

So, if 20,491% of steel see a 33% price increases, it ends up meaning an average 6,83% price increase across all steel products, 7,78% if steel imports became 100% Canadian. Add in the buyer tax and you are looking at possibly another 1% that the consumer will have to pay on average.

So in the end, the american consumer is likely to see steel products to have a significant price hike.

No one (with any brain) is contesting that conclusion. The obvious drawback of tariffs is higher prices. The potential advantages 1) a lower trade deficit due to growing domestic industry OR 2) increased tax revenue; the former applies in cases where domestic goods outcompete imports, the latter in cases where they don't.

However, considering that embargoes better ensure protectionism (a very high tariff and an embargo are functionally identical), tariffs are strategically relegated to the latter task — that is, taxing imports and the foreign industries that produce them. Taxing a behavior disincentivizes it; therefore, although we can't stop a foreign power from taxing its constituency more to fund subsidies to their industries, we can tariff them such that it is not those industries that pocket that money, but instead our government. In this way a well-designed tariff discourages economic meddling by foreign governments, as they tax their population and get no net reward for it.

So technically I'm against protectionist (too high) tariffs/embargoes. What I'm for is anti-foreign-subsidy (Goldilocks middle) tariffs.

Tariffs are fine.

IF YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE OTHER COUNTRIES TARIFF THE HELL OUT OF OUR EXPORTS TO THEM AND THE FACT THAT EVEN WITH TRUMP SIGNALLING FROM THE BEGINNING ALL THESE TARIFFS HE WOULD IMPOSE THE DOW (business leaders investors etc mainly that know what they're doing) HAVE POURED MONEY INTO USA BUSINESS AND EVEN MAJOR COMPANIES LIKE APPLE ETC ETC ARE RETURNING PLANTS HERE...

yes... tariffs are fine.

They were only demonized by people who wanted to make more money for themselves, at the expense of USA workers.

It's time to give Canada China etc etc a taste of their own medicine and NO, they have no chance of winning a trade war with the economic juggernaut of world history, USA.

Trump is doing good in this regard.

I trust in the fact that he won't do this in excess of trade imbalances.

Countries crying they will retaliate, will not much in any way shape or form, or the injustice they are defending will be met with USA hurting them far beyond what was "fair".

†

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Whaaaaat iiiiiffff... now bear with me for a moment... what if the US made more of its own steel...

The entirety of everybody commenting on steel tariffs assumes that the US market will not seize the opportunity to produce more steel. Does anybody remember when the world ran on American made superior quality steel? I’m old enough to remember the previous generation constantly bitching up a storm during the transition to cheap Chinese shit.

Buying cheap from American scrapyards plus environmentally devastating recycling processes plus slave labor equals economic warfare. Fuck em. [Insert link to climate change thread]

Because it's not realistic to expect a production increase of 25% in such a short period of time. Especially when you have someone that's politically unstable like Trump. No one that's smart will invest millions to produce more steel when you have no idea if the market will be able to absorb it in a few years.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

tl;dr

All numbers are based from 2017

The US is the largest importer of steel in the world at nearly 35 millions metric tons.
The US export slightly under 10 millions metric tons.

Canada represent 87,7% of those imports. You just slapped a 25% tax on steel, which I can assure you, will mean the prices will increase to represent that loss.

This mean that for every dollars before tariffs, you'll pay 1,33$ for after tariffs.

Steel currently go at 4185$ US per ton (I assume it's by ton, it might not be).

So if the US stop exporting and use all of their steel locally, there will still be a 25 millions metric tons to be imported of which 87,7% come from Canada (if everyone is affected by a 25% tariffs, there's no logical reason why the distribution of importers should change) which mean just under 22 milions metric tons from Canada (21,925M).

At 4185$ US per ton, that represents 91,75 billions dollars. If you slap a 33% price increase due to the tariffs, you are looking at a 30,25 billions dollars extra cost for products that require steel. This is money that will be charged on the american people and you will also pay more in buyer tax on every steel products (you'll get taxed on the tax).

The US produced 82 metric tons, exported 10 and imported 35, for a total of 107 metric tons used in the US. This means that, depending if Canadian steel make up or not all of the extra 12,3% of the rest of steel imports. That at a equal ratio and assuming that US steel exports stop and become locally used, Canadian steel will consist of 20,491% of US steel consumed and up to 23.33% if US importations became 100% Canadian.

So, if 20,491% of steel see a 33% price increases, it ends up meaning an average 6,83% price increase across all steel products, 7,78% if steel imports became 100% Canadian. Add in the buyer tax and you are looking at possibly another 1% that the consumer will have to pay on average.

So in the end, the american consumer is likely to see steel products to have a significant price hike.

No one (with any brain) is contesting that conclusion. The obvious drawback of tariffs is higher prices. The potential advantages 1) a lower trade deficit due to growing domestic industry OR 2) increased tax revenue; the former applies in cases where domestic goods outcompete imports, the latter in cases where they don't.

However, considering that embargoes better ensure protectionism (a very high tariff and an embargo are functionally identical), tariffs are strategically relegated to the latter task — that is, taxing imports and the foreign industries that produce them. Taxing a behavior disincentivizes it; therefore, although we can't stop a foreign power from taxing its constituency more to fund subsidies to their industries, we can tariff them such that it is not those industries that pocket that money, but instead our government. In this way a well-designed tariff discourages economic meddling by foreign governments, as they tax their population and get no net reward for it.

So technically I'm against protectionist (too high) tariffs/embargoes. What I'm for is anti-foreign-subsidy (Goldilocks middle) tariffs.

Tariffs only work in your own country and hurt your own citizens. Meanwhile. China steel and aluminum exports rise. People buy from the lowest price. Opinion hardly matter.

"

faerwin wrote:

Because it's not realistic to expect a production increase of 25% in such a short period of time.

Shouldn't you be more worried about selling Canada's excess production of steel?

I doubt that Canada will have much issue selling our steel since the US is bend on trying to screw the world. If anything, export and import from the US will drop significantly and the rest of the world will trade together

If you still think “instability” is the word, you haven’t been paying attention. Or, more specifically, you’ve only been paying attention to “the swamp,” who certainly only see things in such terms. E.g., Tillerson, the corporate hitman, cut and burned the State Department, and now Pompeo is planting seeds in fertile soil. The results ought to be pretty self evident by now. GG team.

People with money (speculation, because I’m not one of them), who are used to watching and reacting to global political games (confident speculation, because I am one of those, sort of), are likely extremely confident in the American economy at the moment. Act I of the play was conveniently annotated for anyone who bought a playbill, “bring the money, we’re razing the brush.”

"

CanHasPants wrote:

If you still think “instability” is the word, you haven’t been paying attention. Or, more specifically, you’ve only been paying attention to “the swamp,” who certainly only see things in such terms. E.g., Tillerson, the corporate hitman, cut and burned the State Department, and now Pompeo is planting seeds in fertile soil. The results ought to be pretty self evident by now. GG team.

People with money (speculation, because I’m not one of them), who are used to watching and resting to global political games (confident speculation, because I am one of those, sort of), are likely extremely confident in the American economy at the moment. Act I of the play was conveniently annotated for anyone who bought a playbill, “bring the money, we’re razing the brush.”

Confidence is the USA economy is staggeringly high.

All the whining about tariffs can actually be translated as whining about Trump.

Aka, it's irrational trump hate that gets them spouting off about how bad tariffs are.

Tariffs are good and bad, but in the end, it's about balance trade deficits.

It's so mindless the whining about Trump on this issue, it's sort of comical.

"

saylu wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

"

faerwin wrote:

tl;dr

All numbers are based from 2017

The US is the largest importer of steel in the world at nearly 35 millions metric tons.
The US export slightly under 10 millions metric tons.

Canada represent 87,7% of those imports. You just slapped a 25% tax on steel, which I can assure you, will mean the prices will increase to represent that loss.

This mean that for every dollars before tariffs, you'll pay 1,33$ for after tariffs.

Steel currently go at 4185$ US per ton (I assume it's by ton, it might not be).

So if the US stop exporting and use all of their steel locally, there will still be a 25 millions metric tons to be imported of which 87,7% come from Canada (if everyone is affected by a 25% tariffs, there's no logical reason why the distribution of importers should change) which mean just under 22 milions metric tons from Canada (21,925M).

At 4185$ US per ton, that represents 91,75 billions dollars. If you slap a 33% price increase due to the tariffs, you are looking at a 30,25 billions dollars extra cost for products that require steel. This is money that will be charged on the american people and you will also pay more in buyer tax on every steel products (you'll get taxed on the tax).

The US produced 82 metric tons, exported 10 and imported 35, for a total of 107 metric tons used in the US. This means that, depending if Canadian steel make up or not all of the extra 12,3% of the rest of steel imports. That at a equal ratio and assuming that US steel exports stop and become locally used, Canadian steel will consist of 20,491% of US steel consumed and up to 23.33% if US importations became 100% Canadian.

So, if 20,491% of steel see a 33% price increases, it ends up meaning an average 6,83% price increase across all steel products, 7,78% if steel imports became 100% Canadian. Add in the buyer tax and you are looking at possibly another 1% that the consumer will have to pay on average.

So in the end, the american consumer is likely to see steel products to have a significant price hike.

No one (with any brain) is contesting that conclusion. The obvious drawback of tariffs is higher prices. The potential advantages 1) a lower trade deficit due to growing domestic industry OR 2) increased tax revenue; the former applies in cases where domestic goods outcompete imports, the latter in cases where they don't.

However, considering that embargoes better ensure protectionism (a very high tariff and an embargo are functionally identical), tariffs are strategically relegated to the latter task — that is, taxing imports and the foreign industries that produce them. Taxing a behavior disincentivizes it; therefore, although we can't stop a foreign power from taxing its constituency more to fund subsidies to their industries, we can tariff them such that it is not those industries that pocket that money, but instead our government. In this way a well-designed tariff discourages economic meddling by foreign governments, as they tax their population and get no net reward for it.

So technically I'm against protectionist (too high) tariffs/embargoes. What I'm for is anti-foreign-subsidy (Goldilocks middle) tariffs.

Tariffs only work in your own country and hurt your own citizens.

False. Tariffs imposed by one nation can obviously effect the economy of another. Furthermore, tariffs can avoid hurting ones own citizens provided the tariff isn't too high relative to the profit margin gap, and the foreign industry is monopolized.

Allow me to provide an example with very, very rough numbers so you can see what I mean.

Let's say a US-based manufacturer, having to deal with environmental standards and minimum wage laws, is able to produce widgets at an internal cost of $90 per case. They then apply a ~10% profit margin and sell this cases for $100 each.

A foreign manufacturer, unencumbered by the environmental standards and minimum wage laws, is able to not only produce these widgets but also ship them to the US at a cost of $80 per case before government subsidies; however, because the foreign government subsidizes its favorite widget manufacturer $20 per case (using money from the taxpayers of that foreign country), that cost is effectively $60. If you're thinking "oh, they just apply a 10% profit margin and sell the cases for $66 each," you're wrong; they know domestic widgets manufacturers can't compete with an $80 case, so they apply a 25% profit margin. (Note that the crony capitalist subsidy makes it impossible for other widget manufacturers in that country complete against the state-sanctioned monopoly.)

If the US instituted a 20% tariff on those foreign widgets, citing the foreign subsidy as justification, the effective cost for the foreign manufacturer would be $72. That's still enough to undercut domestic widgets while retaining a 10% profit margin, so the sale price of foreign widgets doesn't change — still $80 per case net to retailer. The American consumer doesn't even notice, and our federal government pockets $12 in additional tax revenue to respend domestically. Meanwhile in the foreign country, the foreign government reconsiders the subsidy; where before all $20 per case was going to their crony capitalist buddies, now only $8 is, while 60% of it is going from foreign taxpayers to Uncle Sam's wallet. If the foreign government believes ending the subsidy will result in the US ending the tariff, they might remove the subsidy.

On the other hand, if a 50% tariff was imposed to make domestic widget manufacturers competitive, customers would indeed notice and suffer. Imports of foreign widgets would cost about the same as domestic widgets, so retailers would need to spend about $100 per case either way. This price hike would be passed on to consumers. In this way protectionist tariffs always harm domestic consumers.

I'm not advocating protectionist tariffs, however. I'm advocating smaller tariffs that discourage certain foreign government from bad economic policy while pocketing some easy tax dollars that come to us at the expense of foreign, not domestic, taxpayers. The test of such a tariff is whether its implementation significantly raises prices to the domestic consumer; if it does, then it's not a very good tariff.