The Trump Presidency VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
He's a shallow bastard, pardoning celebrities and granting clemency to a celebrity-endorsed convict[1]. He doesn't bother with the usual review process.
Click to expand...

Hey he also did so to undercut the power of the courts to control police departments racist policies and practices. So that is a campaign promise lived up to.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
We have seen it in the 180° turn the Europeans did from their relationship with the US administration from Bush jr to Obama. The shift from Trump to his successor will be even more dramatic.
But until then Trump will have a hard time getting anyone to make any kind of commitments to a deal with the US.
Click to expand...

Will it though? They must have learned better than to trust the american public and who it chooses to elect. So while they might like his successor can they make deals with him when they will be walked out of so easily by future presidents?
 
Segnosaur said:
Hmmm.... slower job growth, more people needing food stamps, bigger trade deficit.... Doesn't sound like getting rid of those regulations did all that much now, does it.
Click to expand...


Those are obviously all leftover effects from President Obama. Remember, anything good was caused by Trump, and anything bad was caused by President Obama. Period.
Surely you remember how, when the withdrawal from Iraq was going well, it was all being done according to President Bush's plan, and President Obama had nothing to do with it, and when the withdrawal was going poorly, it was entirely President Obama's responsibility.
 
TofuFighter said:
I noticed that in his comments about free trade at the end of the G7 summit included 'ending tariffs and subsidies', which suggests to me that people have pointed out the canadian dairy farmer problem to him. Not that I expect those subsidies to evaporate, but I can imagine the US dairy farmers are feeling a little nervous about how this is all going to turn out.
Click to expand...

Part of the issue is that people tend to confuse competitive advantage with subsidies. For example, in the longstanding lumber debate that Trump has returned to several times: The US lumber lobby thinks Canada should not sell logging rights on public lands to the highest bidder as it does now, instead they want the Canadian government to set the price at or above the current rate in the US and claims that not doing so represents a “subsidy”.


It’s not of course, and both the WTO and NAFTA arbitration has ruled so multiple times. Regardless this is probably an example of the type of “subsidy” Trump want to end.
 
"We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag." - Barack Obama



No, wait, I'm sorry, that was Reagan.
 
lomiller said:
Part of the issue is that people tend to confuse competitive advantage with subsidies. For example, in the longstanding lumber debate that Trump has returned to several times: The US lumber lobby thinks Canada should not sell logging rights on public lands to the highest bidder as it does now, instead they want the Canadian government to set the price at or above the current rate in the US and claims that not doing so represents a “subsidy”.


It’s not of course, and both the WTO and NAFTA arbitration has ruled so multiple times. Regardless this is probably an example of the type of “subsidy” Trump want to end.
Click to expand...

Can you please link to the WTO and NAFTA rulings?
 
Cleon said:
"We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag." - Barack Obama



No, wait, I'm sorry, that was Reagan.
Click to expand...
Nice catch, thanks.
 
Cleon said:
"We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag." - Barack Obama
No, wait, I'm sorry, that was Reagan.
Click to expand...

Snopes confirmed (two days ago - presumably because the quote is doing the rounds) that this was part of a Reagan speech.

The fuller transcript is worth reading.
 
Cleon said:
"We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag." - Barack Obama



No, wait, I'm sorry, that was Reagan.
Click to expand...

Reagan certainly was for free trade. Trump seems to be for it in ways but it has to be reciprocal.
 
logger said:
Reagan certainly was for free trade. Trump seems to be for it in ways but it has to be reciprocal.
Click to expand...

He is a mercantilist. His fixation on balanced trade is far removed from reciprocity as a matter of equal treatment.

ETA: you say I never insult. I just unloaded my most offensive word at him.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He is a mercantilist. His fixation on balanced trade is far removed from reciprocity as a matter of equal treatment.

ETA: you say I never insult. I just unloaded my most offensive word at him.
Click to expand...

I've always liked you Bob, and I still do, but your insults confuse me as much as some of your arguments. Would that this was the extent of everyone's insults. I think you're canadian on the inside.
 
lomiller said:
Part of the issue is that people tend to confuse competitive advantage with subsidies. For example, in the longstanding lumber debate that Trump has returned to several times: The US lumber lobby thinks Canada should not sell logging rights on public lands to the highest bidder as it does now, instead they want the Canadian government to set the price at or above the current rate in the US and claims that not doing so represents a “subsidy”.

It’s not of course, and both the WTO and NAFTA arbitration has ruled so multiple times. Regardless this is probably an example of the type of “subsidy” Trump want to end.
Click to expand...

This makes far more sense than the assumption that I made.
 
TofuFighter said:
I've always liked you Bob, and I still do, but your insults confuse me as much as some of your arguments. Would that this was the extent of everyone's insults. I think you're canadian on the inside.
Click to expand...

I'm half Canadian. My dad was born and raised in Manitoba.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Can you please link to the WTO and NAFTA rulings?
Click to expand...

You can look them up yourself if you want. The final rulings are difficult to read because they are just agreeing/disagreeing with previous rulings that are not well referenced.


A good summery can be found here:

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Lumber_Trade.pdf

The NAFTA report said the U.S. made a mistake in calculating its duties based on U.S. prices, and by not taking Canadian market conditions into consideration. It ordered Washington to recalculate them. NAFTA decisions are legally binding and must be put into effect within 60 days.


Two weeks later, a WTO panel concluded that the U.S. wrongly applied harsh duties on Canadian softwood exports. The panel also found that provincial stumpage programs provide a "financial benefit" to Canadian producers. But, the panel made it clear that the benefit is not enough to be a subsidy, and does not justify current U.S. duties.

On Aug. 10, 2005, an "extraordinary challenge panel" under NAFTA dismissed
American claims that the earlier NAFTA decision in favor of Canada violated trade rules.But by November 2005, the U.S. Commerce Department said it would comply with the NAFTA ruling, even though it disagreed with it.
The following month, the U.S. Commerce Department said it had recalculated its countervailing and anti-dumping duties on softwood. The result? The new duties would be set at a total of 10.8 percent, almost halving the old rate. The decision was expected to save Canadian lumber companies $600 million a year.

In February 2006, the U.S. lumber lobby said the World Trade Organization had ruled that the U.S. had complied with its international obligations while applying antidumping duties against Canadian lumber imports. Canadian officials countered that the U.S. was continuing to artificially inflate anti-dumping rates by using different calculation methods to avoid complying with an earlier WTO decision.


In March 2006, a NAFTA panel again ruled in Canada's favor, finding that Canadian softwood lumber exports are not subsidized. At this point, the total duties collected by the U.S. had reached $5.2 billion.
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
You can look them up yourself if you want. The final rulings are difficult to read because they are just agreeing/disagreeing with previous rulings that are not well referenced.


A good summery can be found here:

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Lumber_Trade.pdf
Click to expand...

Revealing. My shock years ago at witnessing the total reliance on contractual fine print lasting scores of pages, the Courts of Texas, and non-delivery of the shady promises made therein, all the while shaking the client down to get paid, was chalked up to the idiosyncrasies of that particular US corporation. Big mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom