New higher Tariffs from trade talks - Page 71
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 71 of 77 FirstFirst ... 21616970717273 ... LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,420 of 1521
  1. #1401
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    That's interesting. This time, however, I disagree with a few of the things you've said. . .


    . . . One big problem I have with this (e.g. admitting climate change and doing something about it) is that if we simply unilaterally start going towards more environmentally friendly policies, other countries overseas are not going to do so. China and India are still increasing their emissions, and making us adhere to stricter environmental standards is going to shift more production overseas of goods. . . ..

    That's an important question -- how we can justify doing anything while other countries may be slower to respond?

    I'll address it -- and the solution is partly a matter of this topic -- tariffs.

    Back in the 70's it seemed clear to me that we needed to reduce our dependence upon oil. Not just because of the sky-high costs back then, but because of pollution, damage to our economy, and enriching the despots in oil-rich nations (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

    And the sky-rocketing costs of oil weren't just per barrel. Back then we spent 2x the ostensible price of oil on the Sixth Fleet - guarding oil and also entangling us there. It was a huge hidden subsidy to the oil industry.

    Since then, trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. Oil despots (including Saddam, the Ayatollah, Putin, and the Saudis) were emboldened. I mention this because while you or I might not have predicted the Iranian revolution or the Iraq war -- but back then it was still clear that our failure to do more in terms of energy conservation and self-sufficiency was a huge mistake. At least to me. It's hard to put dollars on the loss of lives, loss of trust, and the sorts of terrorism all this caused -- but it has been in the tens of trillions.

    By letting oil interests dictate policy, we lost trillions. For that money we could have given all our citizens the kind of things many other first world countries enjoy (affordable healthcare, free college education, streets with fewer potholes, cities seemingly without ghettos) -- but now seem out of reach.

    It's about to get worse. One more debt, a huge one, our kids will struggle to handle.

    Since then we've been blessed with a natural gas boom that buys us time to look ahead. Could be there will be some unintended consequences, such as messing with aquifers. Water is headed to be an increasingly costly commodity in many parts of the world -- one reason German investors are buying water here in California as an example. But overall, the natural gas boom is likely a lifeline to the future.

    But instead of looking ahead, we're (well, fossil fuel interests are) trying to find and burn most every bit of carbon fast as we can while there's money to be made. In the short run, it makes our economy look good. Let's officially deny climate change, cut funding for the inquiry, censor the rest, bring back gas guzzlers, and the like. One "good" thing about this forum, if Don or maybe Brewster Kahle (internet archive) keep at it, is that kids and historians will have no difficulty identifying the culprits in their own families who led us down this path.

    While there's some chance climate change will suddenly kill billions (welling up of sequestered carbon? terrorists replacing states? maybe loss of bees or something like Zika spreading north?), my own take is that it will just be hugely expensive for us and "merely" kill millions in mostly poorer countries (and further accelerate the kinds of mass migrations now changing Europe).

    Climate effects are already costing trillions -- as in orders of magnitude more than to build a "wall." We're losing coastal infrastructure to storms and sea rise and fighting climate-related wars and mass exoduses in places like Syria (India to follow??).

    Damage from wildfires in the US is up an order of magnitude. We're even seeing massive fires in the Arctic. Places in the Middle East now get hot enough to kill humans not sheltered in air conditioned spaces -- those spaces requiring still more fossil fuels burned to keep them cool.

    US and global agriculture faces increasingly unpredictable weather patterns - floods and droughts -- destroying more crops and seemingly requiring more government subsidies.

    I could fill a page with hard evidence and examples. The point is that we're already spending trillions on climate-related issues and it's clear that number is going up. Earlier I'd noted a dozen areas where we were going into "debt" (TR added one more) our kids will surely struggle to handle. And while some of those baker's dozen are already the size of our GDP in the US -- the climate thing may prove the most significant of all -- even without taking some of the alarmist projections to heart.

    So, now let's get to the notion that we can't do anything about this -- because other nations like China and India won't. Years ago (and even noted here) it seemed to me there was a way out of this.

    First, at least those nations actually admit it's a problem. If the world were addicted to coal and oil, they have at least admitted a problem and are showing up at the climate equivalent of AA meetings. China (while a huge coal user) is at least is building and deploying the world's largest solar industry -- to be followed by an electric vehicle industry. We're still in denial. Indeed, we're trying to bring back gas guzzlers.

    So here was the plan to deal with the other-nations-are-polluting-and-stealing-our-manufacturing-jobs problem:

    1) Aim to be the world's leader in energy efficiency and alternatives in transportation, buildings, industrial processes. "Leader" means highly efficient, low levels of pollution, lesser amounts of greenhouse gases emitted during production and use. We actually had (still have) the technology to be a world leader at this.

    2) Institute standards and tracking, somewhat similar to how we do fleet MPG, SEER ratings, LEAD building categories, motor and furnace efficiency, etc. etc. Not especially easy, but also not rocket science.

    3) Make it clear to the rest of the world that any product sold into the US has to meet these standards or face tariffs to level the playing field. Standards for both the product (energy efficiency, life and warranty, etc.) and it's production process. Countries like China either have to become first world ASAP (they won't, but they might move faster and would also try to game things) or everything they sell to Walmart gets 10-20-30% more expensive.

    4) Enjoy the jobs and profits. One net effect is that US makers (given the tariffs) stay in the game with higher quality, longer lasting, more energy efficient, closer to greenhouse-gas neutral products. Same as Trump is trying to do a tweety-fit at a time -- but measured tariffs in a way that the rest of the world understands and maybe sort of applauds. We're in the Paris Accord. We're abiding by International Law. We're leaning on world trade bodies to take climate change as real -- and benefiting along the way.

    5) Motivate other countries to move faster. Another net effect is that wanna-be-first world makers (China, India, etc.) have to up their game at a faster pace. Helps head off climate change. Otherwise they'd lose exports. Assuming we still have allies and friends, we might find the Brits, Germans, French, Canadians, Poles . . . other producers joining us.

    I'd also add that our denial is also slowing the pace of both understanding the complexities of prediction (we're good at understanding gross effects, poor at tracking climate chaos) and possible solutions. We need a whole host of carbon sequestering, methane trapping, energy storing, efficiency-improving technologies.

    Another point -- there's a strong correlation between countries which depend upon oil (or gold, diamonds) for the bulk of their wealth and despotism. By driving down the value of oil, we force countries like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia to either make do with less (and do less messing with democracies) or to diversify their economy and likely foster more of a middle and professional class.

    So - the world gets it's cake (a bit faster response to climate effects, fewer or less powerful despots) and we get to eat a large slice of it too (US businesses profit by being leaders -- and given a level playing field in which to compete).

  2. Likes Milland, Greg White, metlmunchr liked this post
  3. #1402
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,467
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    543
    Likes (Received)
    2615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    So - the world gets it's cake (a bit faster response to climate effects, fewer or less powerful despots) and we get to eat a large slice of it too (US businesses profit by being leaders -- and given a level playing field in which to compete).
    Sounds great, not going to happen though. Your own industry would never permit any of this because it'd hit their profits, and they own the politicians, not the voters.

    Anyway I'd add 2 things:

    Finally switch wholeheartedly to the metric system and actually make stuff compatible for export. I recently bought a new washing machine. I bought a European model not Chinese, price wasn't really a key driver. I didn't even see a US made one for sale.

    Work on fixing more of those smaller but hidden parasitic drags in your economy. I have to shake my head every time the subject of LTL freight in the USA comes up. It reminds me of your health insurance system frankly. Here the freight companies want to know cubic dimensions, mass and whether it's dangerous goods or not, plus a few other odds & ends like palleted, fully crated, can be top-loaded etc. Then they quote you a price and that's it. None of this bullshit about freight categories where they can game the system and reclassify stuff to bill you more, they don't care.

    WRT the oil from the Middle East and the money flows causing problems, I said all that 3 decades ago and little has changed. Saudi Arabia would still be a sparsely populated dry shit-hole and its Wahabist terrorist supporting nutcases an unnoticed tiny irritant had they not got the money to export their bigoted disease. That's on the Western world, we knew as far back as 1812 and as recently as the 1960's what they were like before they got started.

    PDW

  4. #1403
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    56
    Likes (Received)
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    That's an important question -- how we can justify doing anything while other countries may be slower to respond?

    I'll address it -- and the solution is partly a matter of this topic -- tariffs.

    Back in the 70's it seemed clear to me that we needed to reduce our dependence upon oil. Not just because of the sky-high costs back then, but because of pollution, damage to our economy, and enriching the despots in oil-rich nations (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

    And the sky-rocketing costs of oil weren't just per barrel. Back then we spent 2x the ostensible price of oil on the Sixth Fleet - guarding oil and also entangling us there. It was a huge hidden subsidy to the oil industry.

    Since then, trillions and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. Oil despots (including Saddam, the Ayatollah, Putin, and the Saudis) were emboldened. I mention this because while you or I might not have predicted the Iranian revolution or the Iraq war -- but back then it was still clear that our failure to do more in terms of energy conservation and self-sufficiency was a huge mistake. At least to me. It's hard to put dollars on the loss of lives, loss of trust, and the sorts of terrorism all this caused -- but it has been in the tens of trillions.

    By letting oil interests dictate policy, we lost trillions. For that money we could have given all our citizens the kind of things many other first world countries enjoy (affordable healthcare, free college education, streets with fewer potholes, cities seemingly without ghettos) -- but now seem out of reach.

    It's about to get worse. One more debt, a huge one, our kids will struggle to handle.

    Since then we've been blessed with a natural gas boom that buys us time to look ahead. Could be there will be some unintended consequences, such as messing with aquifers. Water is headed to be an increasingly costly commodity in many parts of the world -- one reason German investors are buying water here in California as an example. But overall, the natural gas boom is likely a lifeline to the future.

    But instead of looking ahead, we're (well, fossil fuel interests are) trying to find and burn most every bit of carbon fast as we can while there's money to be made. In the short run, it makes our economy look good. Let's officially deny climate change, cut funding for the inquiry, censor the rest, bring back gas guzzlers, and the like. One "good" thing about this forum, if Don or maybe Brewster Kahle (internet archive) keep at it, is that kids and historians will have no difficulty identifying the culprits in their own families who led us down this path.

    While there's some chance climate change will suddenly kill billions (welling up of sequestered carbon? terrorists replacing states? maybe loss of bees or something like Zika spreading north?), my own take is that it will just be hugely expensive for us and "merely" kill millions in mostly poorer countries (and further accelerate the kinds of mass migrations now changing Europe).

    Climate effects are already costing trillions -- as in orders of magnitude more than to build a "wall." We're losing coastal infrastructure to storms and sea rise and fighting climate-related wars and mass exoduses in places like Syria (India to follow??).

    Damage from wildfires in the US is up an order of magnitude. We're even seeing massive fires in the Arctic. Places in the Middle East now get hot enough to kill humans not sheltered in air conditioned spaces -- those spaces requiring still more fossil fuels burned to keep them cool.

    US and global agriculture faces increasingly unpredictable weather patterns - floods and droughts -- destroying more crops and seemingly requiring more government subsidies.

    I could fill a page with hard evidence and examples. The point is that we're already spending trillions on climate-related issues and it's clear that number is going up. Earlier I'd noted a dozen areas where we were going into "debt" (TR added one more) our kids will surely struggle to handle. And while some of those baker's dozen are already the size of our GDP in the US -- the climate thing may prove the most significant of all -- even without taking some of the alarmist projections to heart.

    So, now let's get to the notion that we can't do anything about this -- because other nations like China and India won't. Years ago (and even noted here) it seemed to me there was a way out of this.

    First, at least those nations actually admit it's a problem. If the world were addicted to coal and oil, they have at least admitted a problem and are showing up at the climate equivalent of AA meetings. China (while a huge coal user) is at least is building and deploying the world's largest solar industry -- to be followed by an electric vehicle industry. We're still in denial. Indeed, we're trying to bring back gas guzzlers.

    So here was the plan to deal with the other-nations-are-polluting-and-stealing-our-manufacturing-jobs problem:

    1) Aim to be the world's leader in energy efficiency and alternatives in transportation, buildings, industrial processes. "Leader" means highly efficient, low levels of pollution, lesser amounts of greenhouse gases emitted during production and use. We actually had (still have) the technology to be a world leader at this.

    2) Institute standards and tracking, somewhat similar to how we do fleet MPG, SEER ratings, LEAD building categories, motor and furnace efficiency, etc. etc. Not especially easy, but also not rocket science.

    3) Make it clear to the rest of the world that any product sold into the US has to meet these standards or face tariffs to level the playing field. Standards for both the product (energy efficiency, life and warranty, etc.) and it's production process. Countries like China either have to become first world ASAP (they won't, but they might move faster and would also try to game things) or everything they sell to Walmart gets 10-20-30% more expensive.

    4) Enjoy the jobs and profits. One net effect is that US makers (given the tariffs) stay in the game with higher quality, longer lasting, more energy efficient, closer to greenhouse-gas neutral products. Same as Trump is trying to do a tweety-fit at a time -- but measured tariffs in a way that the rest of the world understands and maybe sort of applauds. We're in the Paris Accord. We're abiding by International Law. We're leaning on world trade bodies to take climate change as real -- and benefiting along the way.

    5) Motivate other countries to move faster. Another net effect is that wanna-be-first world makers (China, India, etc.) have to up their game at a faster pace. Helps head off climate change. Otherwise they'd lose exports. Assuming we still have allies and friends, we might find the Brits, Germans, French, Canadians, Poles . . . other producers joining us.

    I'd also add that our denial is also slowing the pace of both understanding the complexities of prediction (we're good at understanding gross effects, poor at tracking climate chaos) and possible solutions. We need a whole host of carbon sequestering, methane trapping, energy storing, efficiency-improving technologies.

    Another point -- there's a strong correlation between countries which depend upon oil (or gold, diamonds) for the bulk of their wealth and despotism. By driving down the value of oil, we force countries like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia to either make do with less (and do less messing with democracies) or to diversify their economy and likely foster more of a middle and professional class.

    So - the world gets it's cake (a bit faster response to climate effects, fewer or less powerful despots) and we get to eat a large slice of it too (US businesses profit by being leaders -- and given a level playing field in which to compete).
    Wow. What you are saying will be a big change and it would help with pollution and carbon emissions for sure. For all of the things which Oil is used for the challenge is gigantic. Europe is piping in Oil from Russia which the pipeline is a huge investment. Third world countries will likely require oil and not be able by comparison to make or buy the energy saving infrastructure to pump water or make electricity and to increase food production.

    Sure I would like to see this happen. I am not so optomistic.

  5. #1404
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    Well, I agree with you both (PDW and Trueturning) that there would be opposition from the usual suspects.

    What the proposal does is point out that we're not violating some law of physics to make progress. After that it's up to us.

    One of the more sane candidates for election in the US (coal state governor, Bullock) managed to greatly reduce the role of hidden money in his state. What he did was say that any company that wanted to sell anything to the state (asphalt, paper, fuel oil, whatever) had to disclose any and all political contributions they made. This had the effect of making hidden money, not hidden. Seems to have reduced both the amount of bribes, err contributions, and the flat out falsehoods involved. And people were better able to judge issues on their merits.

    This guy's main national campaign issue is -- let's get the hidden money out of politics. After that, we'll have an honest discussion about reducing health care costs or things like better preparing for climate change. It's not clear he will even make the next set of debates. But if some President, just by executive order (likely legal?) did the same for the Federal gov't -- sell anything to us and you need to disclose political contributions -- it might be a good start.

    Study after study shows that the laws and regulations we get aren't the ones most citizens want -- but the ones the biggest donors want. When that money got hidden after "Citizens United" it became even worse. Personally, I think we're pretty much toast (climate change pun not entirely accidental) if we don't turn this around.

    As for your other point, Trueturning, about the centrality of oil to the world's economies. Yep. Neither oil or coal are going to disappear overnight. Natural gas is a lifeline to the future, though. And what we're talking about is picking up the pace on conservation and alternatives, while better preparing to mitigate the costs of climate change. This is like a cancer. The sooner we keep it from growing, the better our chances.

  6. Likes Milland liked this post
  7. #1405
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    barcelona, spain
    Posts
    2,247
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    509
    Likes (Received)
    1372

    Default

    The EU needs/wants cheap natgas, for 5-15 years, while phasing out coal in the UK, germany, overall.
    The 2 russian gas pipes get this to the EU, and reduces/avoids reliance on US shipped natgas.
    The US gas is more expensive, and now (often, usually, and in the past) comes with big immediate US political demands.

    The EU is making the normal rational choice of getting more suppliers into the game with russian natgas.
    The EU does not *depend* on russia, but it is economically beneficial, and faster in delivery.

    The EU has zero star-eyed expectations of russia.
    Many EU nations have fought bitter wars with russia not long ago.

    --
    Where there are multiple pipelines for russian gas, tanker-shipped gas from the US and elsewhere must be economically similar and carry low political overhead to sell vs russian natgas.

  8. Likes PeteM liked this post
  9. #1406
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8092

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    Where there are multiple pipelines for russian gas, tanker-shipped gas from the US and elsewhere must be economically similar and carry low political overhead to sell vs russian natgas.
    I'd heard of the "tooth fairy". Komrade Bernie Sanders & Sputniks have recently introduced us to the "money fairy", his Maduro buddy to the "starvation fairy".

    Odd to hear Vlad Putin redefined as the "gas fairy", unless he's showing bare-arse instead of bare tits these days. But no skin off my one, so I'm good with that.


  10. #1407
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    124
    Likes (Received)
    179

    Default

    Lets not kid ourselves, there is little chance of China agreeing to our demands.

    Tariff them hard, now!

  11. #1408
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2395
    Likes (Received)
    2181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanermo View Post
    The EU needs/wants cheap natgas, for 5-15 years, while phasing out coal in the UK, germany, overall.
    The UK is burning effectively zero coal now.100-200MW. Might be more in Winter, but probably not.

  12. #1409
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    West Virginia
    Posts
    46
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post

    Another point -- there's a strong correlation between countries which depend upon oil (or gold, diamonds) for the bulk of their wealth and despotism. By driving down the value of oil, we force countries like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia to either make do with less (and do less messing with democracies) or to diversify their economy and likely foster more of a middle and professional class.
    I was pretty much with you until that^^^^. The idea that we can actually affect foreign nations by indirect methods has never really worked out and that’s doubly true with nations that don’t mind trampling their people. Sanctions just create nuclear weapons programs and a healthy trans-shipping industry. Strategic overdriving created millions of starving people with no basic services but it sure didn’t stop the Soviets from trying to keep up for 30+ years and bringing the planet to the edge of oblivion. Saudi Arabia will be an untouchable financial powerhouse until Mecca moves and the regular people will just get poorer, but their policies won’t change. They don’t need to as long as they’ve got a population.

    If we spent 10% as much time, intellectual investment, money and lives on ourselves as we do worrying about everybody else the entire planet would be a better place.

  13. #1410
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee,WI
    Posts
    1,224
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7123
    Likes (Received)
    964

    Default

    It is nice to discuss this but how will anything change? 2020 is coming and it will be Donald Trump vs whoever the democrats recycle. I haven't heard any new, fresh ideas from Washington.

  14. #1411
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IrritableBadger View Post
    I was pretty much with you until that^^^^. The idea that we can actually affect foreign nations by indirect methods has never really worked out and that’s doubly true with nations that don’t mind trampling their people. Sanctions just create nuclear weapons programs and a healthy trans-shipping industry. . .
    Not sure you understood my point. I'm not suggesting sanctions.

    Rather, the faster we conserve and develop energy alternatives, the less value oil has. Nations that depend almost entirely on oil to fund their regimes, will have less money coming in to fund armies, nuclear weapons, their secret police, state-sponsored terrorism, etc. Examples of oil dependent and despotic nations include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.

    And it turns out that nations depending almost entirely upon oil for revenues (like those depending almost entirely on something else extracted like gold or diamond exports) tend to be despotic. Easy for a brutal dictator to gain control of some extracted wealth. But if that falls in value, either the dictator has less wealth to do its people and the world harm -- or a country's people find a way to get better leadership and create a more diversified economy.

    It's an almost entirely hands-off way of helping ourselves (our energy efficient, non-polluting, more carbon neutral, level playing field and profitable industries) -- and making the world a better place. No armies, covert actions, interventions, sanctions, even tariffs needed. Just make oil less valuable.

    Even if it doesn't work, it costs us nothing (except of course, somewhat lower profits for the 2% of our domestic product that is directly oil related) and we still have the more efficient industries, better products, and have knocked off some of the trillions of climate-related debt we're passing on to our kids.

  15. #1412
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    2,714
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    194
    Likes (Received)
    1981

    Default

    You mean tariff us hard now

  16. Likes Greg White liked this post
  17. #1413
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by converterking View Post
    It is nice to discuss this but how will anything change? 2020 is coming and it will be Donald Trump vs whoever the democrats recycle. I haven't heard any new, fresh ideas from Washington.
    One can hope the Democrats nominate someone who's competent, moderate, and not entirely bound by special interests.

    Or, that through some miracle, a competent, moderate, and not entirely bound by their own narcissistic self-image candidate emerges to challenge on the Republican side.

    The former is maybe 50% likely? The latter -- one could hope.

    Our two-party primary system seems (within those parties) to have dragged candidates to the far left and the far right. But we voters still have the power, if we use it, to drag them both back towards the middle.

  18. #1414
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee,WI
    Posts
    1,224
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7123
    Likes (Received)
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post

    The former is maybe 50% likely? The latter -- one could hope.
    You are very optimistic.

  19. #1415
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by converterking View Post
    You are very optimistic.
    Pretty sure that's one of the main ingredients in any problem solution. Worst case, it beats being pessimistic and depressed.

  20. Likes Greg White liked this post
  21. #1416
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    3) Make it clear to the rest of the world that any product sold into the US has to meet these standards or face tariffs to level the playing field. Standards for both the product (energy efficiency, life and warranty, etc.) and it's production process. Countries like China either have to become first world ASAP (they won't, but they might move faster and would also try to game things) or everything they sell to Walmart gets 10-20-30% more expensive.

    4) Enjoy the jobs and profits. One net effect is that US makers (given the tariffs) stay in the game with higher quality, longer lasting, more energy efficient, closer to greenhouse-gas neutral products. Same as Trump is trying to do a tweety-fit at a time -- but measured tariffs in a way that the rest of the world understands and maybe sort of applauds. We're in the Paris Accord. We're abiding by International Law. We're leaning on world trade bodies to take climate change as real -- and benefiting along the way.
    I couldn't agree with you more here. In fact, this is what Warren seems to have suggested. Either you align with our environmental standards, or you face tariffs/bans on products. We already do this for things like medical devices made overseas, so I don't see the issue here on the face of it. I actually was very happy to see environmental standards added in the USMCA. There were also labor standards added. I was very disappointed that very little about this was mentioned in a lot of mainstream media coverage. It really was a very ingenious method of attaining their goal of trying to have production reshored. If the Democrats wanted to push climate/environmental reform, they should have been and should be working day and night to make a deal fast with Trump and Republicans to get this done. This is a clear alignment between them. Trump, but not really so much broader Republicans, wants to push more domestic production and use legislation like this to do so. He doesn't care about the environment. Dems care about both the environment and promoting American jobs. It's been disappointing to say the least to watch them piss this away to instead simply play politics. Again, I am no ardent Trump supporter. I am simply calling it how I see it from the outside looking in - they could be getting the climate agenda done and making the opposition happy, which leads to both sides being happy. Instead, they'd rather play division and pit one against the other. They are no better than he is in that sense.

    Aligning environmental standards with ours for preferential treatment would be an easy meet-me-in-the-middle and both help our environment while also helping us promote American industry.

    I don't think people realize how much this matters for offshored production. I once was looking into why certain goods were being produced almost exclusively overseas vs domestically by using trade data from the US govt. One of the items in the spreadsheet I came to was glass beads. It was something like 99%+ imported and only a very tiny portion exported. I started calling US companies and eventually got in contact with a woman who'd been in that business for something like 30+ years. They said that the beads they produced domestically were high quality and used only for very special applications, like some sort of weighted blanket for autistic people (I can't remember the exact usage). They also have plants overseas. When we got into the "why", she said that the overarching reason was environmental standards. Glass beads made in the US have to have a very, very low lead content, and they can't use arsenic in the production process that produces a lot of emissions, or something to that effect. However, these regulations don't apply overseas, so they simply import it from China where none of this is enforced or applies. That is why all the beads used in sandblasting are from there, not because of lower wages so much.

  22. #1417
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    Dems care about both the environment and promoting American jobs.
    That was then, this is now. Working people are 'deplorables', remember ?

  23. Likes barbter liked this post
  24. #1418
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    That was then, this is now. Working people are 'deplorables', remember ?
    I'm not a big fan of either party. I don't see one as being much better than the other. Maybe I should have made it clearer by phrasing that as "say they care". However, I'm more interested in the trade aspect of this discussion than getting into politics.

  25. #1419
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    456
    Likes (Received)
    4935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    That was then, this is now. Working people are 'deplorables', remember ?
    Stupid comment. And Clinton was out of touch.

    But it wasn't working people Clinton called deplorables. It was racists like David Duke and his supporters, at a time when she called out Trump for basking in his (David Duke's) endorsement.

  26. Likes Greg White liked this post
  27. #1420
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    25,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8092

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    Stupid comment. And Clinton was out of touch.

    But it wasn't working people Clinton called deplorables. It was racists like David Duke and his supporters, at a time when she called out Trump for basking in his (David Duke's) endorsement.
    Not sure that was true in her mind. But it didn't matter, did it?

    Whole lot more reg'lar folk than that Duke fool and his tiny band of sputniks took it kinda personal, yah?

    Folk were pissed-off, last go? It is going to be "interesting" to see how the next one goes.

    Tough world out there. ANY nation with a wimp-ass CEO gets f***ked. Dems, so far, are fielding silly nattering fools when what they need is a hard bastard. LBJ or Truman style.

    Ripofflicans already HAVE their bastard.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •