This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1margd
Markets look forward to tax changes, but many Trump actions or promises have downsides for long term (climate, deregulation) and sectors (travel ban / tourism, Cdn lumber tariff / home-building, NAFTA / automobiles).
The Stock Market’s Wall of Worry Stands Tall
While French election results and U.S. earnings are bullish, concerns about economy and Trump linger.
...The New Yorker’s (John) Cassidy writes the pace of the economy isn’t living up to the president’s lofty predictions.
He writes that the Commerce Department will soon release its initial estimate of how the U.S. economy did in the first three months of 2017, a period in which Trump was President for all but nineteen and a half days.
“Far from showing a quantum leap in G.D.P. growth, the official figures are expected to show a slowdown,” Cassidy writes. “In January, when Trump took office, Wall Street economists were expecting first-quarter G.D.P. growth of about 2.3% on an annualized basis, a respectable if unspectacular rate that would have surpassed the 2.1% recorded in the final three months of last year. Since February, however, many economists have been downgrading their forecasts. With retail sales softening and auto production falling, the widely followed Blue Chip consensus of forecasts projects that first-quarter growth will come in at under 1.5 per cent—and some experts believe even that number could be overestimated.”...
http://www.barrons.com/articles/the-stock-markets-wall-of-worry-stands-tall-1493...
What say you?
The Stock Market’s Wall of Worry Stands Tall
While French election results and U.S. earnings are bullish, concerns about economy and Trump linger.
...The New Yorker’s (John) Cassidy writes the pace of the economy isn’t living up to the president’s lofty predictions.
He writes that the Commerce Department will soon release its initial estimate of how the U.S. economy did in the first three months of 2017, a period in which Trump was President for all but nineteen and a half days.
“Far from showing a quantum leap in G.D.P. growth, the official figures are expected to show a slowdown,” Cassidy writes. “In January, when Trump took office, Wall Street economists were expecting first-quarter G.D.P. growth of about 2.3% on an annualized basis, a respectable if unspectacular rate that would have surpassed the 2.1% recorded in the final three months of last year. Since February, however, many economists have been downgrading their forecasts. With retail sales softening and auto production falling, the widely followed Blue Chip consensus of forecasts projects that first-quarter growth will come in at under 1.5 per cent—and some experts believe even that number could be overestimated.”...
http://www.barrons.com/articles/the-stock-markets-wall-of-worry-stands-tall-1493...
What say you?
2JGL53
>1 margd:
I say that if trump in his ignorance and arrogance manages to utterly crash the stock market to the point that my social security and pension both go away then all bets will be off and I will be hitting the streets with my brother anarchists. I mean, at that point, what have I got to lose?
I say that if trump in his ignorance and arrogance manages to utterly crash the stock market to the point that my social security and pension both go away then all bets will be off and I will be hitting the streets with my brother anarchists. I mean, at that point, what have I got to lose?
3proximity1
Right. After all, it could not be clearer that you have absolutely nothing to hope for from what are referred to as our "democratic processes." And this is in fact true, sad (to put it mildly) that it is.
In a system-- the U.S.'s electoral and political institutions -- which is a sheer joke as far as genuine responsiveness to (strong) popular will, you're left with no serious alternative to organized civil resistance and disobedience. And that is, in itself, a desperate hope.
Had Hillary Clinton been elected, nothing about any of that should have had a hope in Hell of being handled any differently. On the contrary, her election should have resoundlingly signalled, incredibly, even less ground for far-fetched hope than did the loopy election of Trump.
"Is our children learning (now) ?"
4margd
A Tax Plan That Befits the 'King of Debt'
The cuts-only plan President Trump is expected to unveil Wednesday follows a pattern: The risk associated with higher deficits takes a back seat when it comes with political pain.
Carolyn Kaster | April 26, 2107
...When Trump called himself “the king of debt” in a CBS interview last year, he was referring to how he used strategic borrowing in the operation of his businesses. But he’s resorting to a similar approach to run the government as well.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/trump-tax-plan-king-of-debt...
The cuts-only plan President Trump is expected to unveil Wednesday follows a pattern: The risk associated with higher deficits takes a back seat when it comes with political pain.
Carolyn Kaster | April 26, 2107
...When Trump called himself “the king of debt” in a CBS interview last year, he was referring to how he used strategic borrowing in the operation of his businesses. But he’s resorting to a similar approach to run the government as well.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/trump-tax-plan-king-of-debt...
5MegEynons
It is too soon to know the long term effects of Trump's actions and the market. He failed to call China a "currency manipulator". He is fighting with Canada, of all countries, over lumber. He is making claims that he has successes when companies do what they intended to do all along (in terms of adding employees).
The markets seem to be responding well to his instability. In fear, I think that we all are concerned with the long term effects of anything that this president may accomplish.
The markets seem to be responding well to his instability. In fear, I think that we all are concerned with the long term effects of anything that this president may accomplish.
6margd
As a dual citizen, I like to think I side with Canada or US without fear or favor, depending on the merits of the case. The softwood lumber dispute puzzles me, though. NAFTA councils have sided with Canada, and, never mind the private v govt land disparity, it's hard for Canada not to have a price advantage when it has so much more forest. OTOH, in building a summer place in Ontario, we found it was $$$$ cheaper to import Canadian lumber hundreds of miles from the US into Canada than to buy it there. That's dumping? Unless it's maybe another way the Canadian consumer is screwed by competition-averse private sector, e.g., books, autos.
I understand that Canada's been developing other markets (e.g., Asia) for its lumber, so the lasting impact might be on the US homebuyer? And the rest of us if we get into a tit for tat trade war? (Th US with 10X population Canada might have trade surplus and thus is more vulnerable in any trade war, but there are northern states and certain sectors in the US that could suffer greatly... )
I understand that Canada's been developing other markets (e.g., Asia) for its lumber, so the lasting impact might be on the US homebuyer? And the rest of us if we get into a tit for tat trade war? (Th US with 10X population Canada might have trade surplus and thus is more vulnerable in any trade war, but there are northern states and certain sectors in the US that could suffer greatly... )
7MegEynons
My first thoughts were, gee, now the price of new housing will increase. Will there be a shortage of lumber? Etc. It makes no sense with so many issues taking place in the world and the US to prioritize this....
8margd
And so it begins...
B.C. moves to ban U.S. coal transport in retaliation for softwood duties
'We've gone from seeing Americans as being good trading partners to being hostile trading partners.'
...In a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (B.C. Premier Christy) Clark says,"For years, American thermal coal exports through Canada have been increasing due to a shortage of U.S. port capacity."...
By Karin Larsen, CBC News Posted: Apr 26, 2017
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-moves-to-ban-u-s-coal-transpo...
B.C. moves to ban U.S. coal transport in retaliation for softwood duties
'We've gone from seeing Americans as being good trading partners to being hostile trading partners.'
...In a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (B.C. Premier Christy) Clark says,"For years, American thermal coal exports through Canada have been increasing due to a shortage of U.S. port capacity."...
By Karin Larsen, CBC News Posted: Apr 26, 2017
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-moves-to-ban-u-s-coal-transpo...
9margd
The Scary Signal of the Bond Market
The surprising drop in 10-year Treasury yield speaks volumes about challenges of a changing economy.
Byron Wien | April 28, 2017
...Given the combination of rising debt obligations with growing inequality, the economies of the major industrialized economies may be headed toward a dangerous point. Looking at one example, as a result of increasing longevity, the cost of supporting the population which will need assistance that cannot be afforded by the immediate family could be great. That may be one major unintended consequence of medical breakthroughs.
There are two ways to deal with the inequality problem. The first is increased redistribution, which, although not endorsed by me, is supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The second is increased growth, which is the objective of the Trump economic program and would benefit people at all income levels. Right now, that growth initiative looks like it will be delayed. There are some who fear that Trump’s entire agenda is in doubt because of dissension in Congress on the part of both Democrats and Republicans. In addition, there are a number of problems that the new Trump administration must face beside the aging demographics. Only three-quarters of those attending public high schools graduate, and many of those who do lack the reading and quantitative skills necessary to hold a good job in today’s competitive workplace. Environmental problems like air and water pollution are increasing, but budget for the Environmental Protection Agency has been cut. Globalization and technology continue to provide challenges to the economy; while these factors may increase growth and productivity, they do tend to displace jobs.
We are now on the brink of artificial intelligence invading the white collar workplace and reducing the number of jobs in health care and the legal profession. Economic progress appears to be associated with increasing the ranks of the unemployed or marginally employed. Retraining those affected or finding alternative employment is one of the important challenges facing society today. Increasing real growth from 2% to 3% is going to be difficult, but necessary both to improve the standard of living and provide the resources to deal with future needs.
Taking a hard look at unfunded obligations, increased taxes may well be necessary over the long term, but we will probably not tackle these problems until a crisis is upon us. While this is usually how major challenges are dealt with, that crisis is coming, and one worry I have is that the new administration is already too overwhelmed by the immediate problems to be focusing much on the future. The irony is that interest rates are declining at the federal level when they should be rising in anticipation of future borrowing needs. The market is making new highs but there is plenty to think about. I find myself getting up in the morning before the alarm clock has rung.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/byron-wien-the-scary-signal-of-the-bond-market-1...
The surprising drop in 10-year Treasury yield speaks volumes about challenges of a changing economy.
Byron Wien | April 28, 2017
...Given the combination of rising debt obligations with growing inequality, the economies of the major industrialized economies may be headed toward a dangerous point. Looking at one example, as a result of increasing longevity, the cost of supporting the population which will need assistance that cannot be afforded by the immediate family could be great. That may be one major unintended consequence of medical breakthroughs.
There are two ways to deal with the inequality problem. The first is increased redistribution, which, although not endorsed by me, is supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The second is increased growth, which is the objective of the Trump economic program and would benefit people at all income levels. Right now, that growth initiative looks like it will be delayed. There are some who fear that Trump’s entire agenda is in doubt because of dissension in Congress on the part of both Democrats and Republicans. In addition, there are a number of problems that the new Trump administration must face beside the aging demographics. Only three-quarters of those attending public high schools graduate, and many of those who do lack the reading and quantitative skills necessary to hold a good job in today’s competitive workplace. Environmental problems like air and water pollution are increasing, but budget for the Environmental Protection Agency has been cut. Globalization and technology continue to provide challenges to the economy; while these factors may increase growth and productivity, they do tend to displace jobs.
We are now on the brink of artificial intelligence invading the white collar workplace and reducing the number of jobs in health care and the legal profession. Economic progress appears to be associated with increasing the ranks of the unemployed or marginally employed. Retraining those affected or finding alternative employment is one of the important challenges facing society today. Increasing real growth from 2% to 3% is going to be difficult, but necessary both to improve the standard of living and provide the resources to deal with future needs.
Taking a hard look at unfunded obligations, increased taxes may well be necessary over the long term, but we will probably not tackle these problems until a crisis is upon us. While this is usually how major challenges are dealt with, that crisis is coming, and one worry I have is that the new administration is already too overwhelmed by the immediate problems to be focusing much on the future. The irony is that interest rates are declining at the federal level when they should be rising in anticipation of future borrowing needs. The market is making new highs but there is plenty to think about. I find myself getting up in the morning before the alarm clock has rung.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/byron-wien-the-scary-signal-of-the-bond-market-1...
10lriley
#9--'...increased growth, which is the objective of the Trump economic program and would benefit people at all income levels'.
I read shit like how increased growth will benefit all very often and wonder what kind of world writers like Wien live in. I think most people by now understand that the people benefiting from whatever growth there's been in our society over say the last two decades are a very tiny fraction of the population. Which is to say growth is one thing and distribution of wealth is something else and that you can have the one as we've seen without having the other. So Trump's economic plan will at best maintain the status quo but in the long run it's an untenable plan that really fixes nothing...only puts off at the cost of exacerbating even further the day of an economic catastrophe with continuance down the same kinds of pathways that have created huge fortunes for a very few and much poverty for a great many.
Sanders and Warren is the much better way.
I read shit like how increased growth will benefit all very often and wonder what kind of world writers like Wien live in. I think most people by now understand that the people benefiting from whatever growth there's been in our society over say the last two decades are a very tiny fraction of the population. Which is to say growth is one thing and distribution of wealth is something else and that you can have the one as we've seen without having the other. So Trump's economic plan will at best maintain the status quo but in the long run it's an untenable plan that really fixes nothing...only puts off at the cost of exacerbating even further the day of an economic catastrophe with continuance down the same kinds of pathways that have created huge fortunes for a very few and much poverty for a great many.
Sanders and Warren is the much better way.
11margd
Trump has been comparing his first 100 days to FDR's--wasn't that ~start of the Great Depression??
I'm no economist, but situation today seems more and more untenable. I worry for next generation, especially. Hope my concern proves baseless...
Maybe Wien should have written that his preferred option, growth, "SHOULD" (not would) benefit people at all income levels. Growth without redistribution of some kind--livable wages or higher taxation of the more prosperous--isn't going to solve the problem of rising debt obligations combined with growing inequality.
Even so, there ARE limits to growth as a solution: every year when retailers sound disappointed by "only" 2% sales growth, I wonder how far past sustainability we are!
I'm no economist, but situation today seems more and more untenable. I worry for next generation, especially. Hope my concern proves baseless...
Maybe Wien should have written that his preferred option, growth, "SHOULD" (not would) benefit people at all income levels. Growth without redistribution of some kind--livable wages or higher taxation of the more prosperous--isn't going to solve the problem of rising debt obligations combined with growing inequality.
Even so, there ARE limits to growth as a solution: every year when retailers sound disappointed by "only" 2% sales growth, I wonder how far past sustainability we are!
12lriley
#11--not exactly. The great depression began in 1929. FDR became president in 1933. FDR was very much into banking reform and works programs and projects--building infrastructure. FDR borrowed many of his ideas from John Maynard Keynes and a few from the socialist party. A lot of people including Chomsky really see Sanders as a FDR style new dealer. Donald Trump and FDR have very little if anything (except for the basic needs of air, food, water, shelter and a few other things such as country of origin) in common.
As far as Wien he writes for Barron's--a business rag and is just continuing the canard that if things are rosy on Wall St. they're rosy on Main St. too---which is not the case. We had a real estate bubble that crashed the economy in 2007--there were years of continuing deregulation that led up to that and only some reform that came with Frank-Dodd. We have a huge student loan bubble growing and growing now and Trump busy deregulating again. Those students in more cases than not have very dim job prospects in their futures. It's inevitable IMO that all this is going to collide sooner or later. It's something Sanders talked about all the time on the campaign trail--it's something Stein talked about all the time--it's something that Clinton seemed to be catching on to towards the end of her campaign.
As far as Trump either he actually believes that all we need is growth--(and that works for the super wealthy like him)...and he's a fool if he thinks it's actually going to help Main St. because it goes contrary against the grain of any evidence I've seen or he just doesn't care about Main St other than placating enough voters to vote for him with a bunch of bs and lies. The trend has been and continues to be towards an every growing wealth disparity and it comes with consequences which feed a variety of economic and social ills.
I'll say one other thing--if the democrats can shut down the govt.--strategically they should do it--make the republicans cave on whatever the democrats don't like in Trump's plan--fingers might be pointed at the democrats but sooner rather than later the republicans are going to own the shutdown because they're the ones with the power. The other thing the democrats need to do though is get some kind of coherent idea of what they're about--what they stand for and that includes what kind of economy and society they're willing to fight for and they need to look to the voters (not their donors) to find it.
As far as Wien he writes for Barron's--a business rag and is just continuing the canard that if things are rosy on Wall St. they're rosy on Main St. too---which is not the case. We had a real estate bubble that crashed the economy in 2007--there were years of continuing deregulation that led up to that and only some reform that came with Frank-Dodd. We have a huge student loan bubble growing and growing now and Trump busy deregulating again. Those students in more cases than not have very dim job prospects in their futures. It's inevitable IMO that all this is going to collide sooner or later. It's something Sanders talked about all the time on the campaign trail--it's something Stein talked about all the time--it's something that Clinton seemed to be catching on to towards the end of her campaign.
As far as Trump either he actually believes that all we need is growth--(and that works for the super wealthy like him)...and he's a fool if he thinks it's actually going to help Main St. because it goes contrary against the grain of any evidence I've seen or he just doesn't care about Main St other than placating enough voters to vote for him with a bunch of bs and lies. The trend has been and continues to be towards an every growing wealth disparity and it comes with consequences which feed a variety of economic and social ills.
I'll say one other thing--if the democrats can shut down the govt.--strategically they should do it--make the republicans cave on whatever the democrats don't like in Trump's plan--fingers might be pointed at the democrats but sooner rather than later the republicans are going to own the shutdown because they're the ones with the power. The other thing the democrats need to do though is get some kind of coherent idea of what they're about--what they stand for and that includes what kind of economy and society they're willing to fight for and they need to look to the voters (not their donors) to find it.
13davidgn
As usual, Nafeez Ahmed is the guy to read for the big picture (and, if nobody has noticed, I'm very much solicitous of the big picture).
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-trump-regime-was-manufactured-by...
Note that this was from February and adjust accordingly.
I've still got to catch up with Ahmed's more recent pieces:
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/beyond-trump-rebooting-the-system-from-i...
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/republican-insider-trump-is-creating-dee...
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-inside-the-trump-lobby-that-wa...
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-trump-regime-was-manufactured-by...
Note that this was from February and adjust accordingly.
I've still got to catch up with Ahmed's more recent pieces:
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/beyond-trump-rebooting-the-system-from-i...
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/republican-insider-trump-is-creating-dee...
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-inside-the-trump-lobby-that-wa...
142wonderY
>12 lriley: Looks like the Dems got quite a bit:
Eight ways Trump got rolled in his first budget negotiation
Eight ways Trump got rolled in his first budget negotiation
15margd
Trump and NAFTA, from perspective of truckers, pros and cons:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-hearts-truckers-and-on-the-border-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-hearts-truckers-and-on-the-border-...
16lriley
Into its 23rd year that Nafta trade deal still has traction with the population. There have been plenty more trade deals since but that one sticks the most in the public eye. And it's interesting because politicians are always clubbing each other with it. Obama and some of the other democratic wannabes in 2008 beat up Hillary Clinton over it and then Obama passed more trade deals and wanted to do the Nafta on steroids thing with the TPP. And now we have Trump who was going to repeal it but no.....on reconsideration he's going to work another deal within the deal....which is to say he's just another in a long line of big fat liars.
The question for me is how many times are politicians going to use it against their opposition and then hypocritically if and when they gain power turn around and support shit just exactly like it. It's still widely unpopular and the American public has been hoodwinked over and over again by these sleazy fucks in both parties.
The question for me is how many times are politicians going to use it against their opposition and then hypocritically if and when they gain power turn around and support shit just exactly like it. It's still widely unpopular and the American public has been hoodwinked over and over again by these sleazy fucks in both parties.
17StormRaven
The problem with getting rid of NAFTA is that there are large numbers of Americans who benefit from it, and most of those people are "ordinary Americans", and economically harming them would be a bad look for a politician.
18margd
Also, I suspect, all three countries have been on short end of stick. Sounds like US for dairy and softwood lumber (Canada) but, for example, Canada hurt on beef (Mad Cow past any reasonable pt by US) and offshore wind farm in L Ontario award (moratorium affected all, not just US developers). Would be great if any renegotiation truly addressed these for truly level playing field, but also worker pay, environmental protection, etc. Not holding my breath...
19StormRaven
Sounds like US for dairy and softwood lumber
Dairy is specifically excluded from NAFTA with respect to Canada, which is actually one of the things the TPP was supposed to address.
The U.S. benefits from the softwood lumber trade, because it makes the costs of construction lower, benefiting the entire construction industry. Imposing duties on softwood lumber imports would probably cause a backlash from lumber-using industries in the U.S. It does hurt the U.S. softwood lumber industry, which has lobbied for tariffs on Canadian lumber, and there have been several disputes over the trade going back to the 1980s at least.
Dairy is specifically excluded from NAFTA with respect to Canada, which is actually one of the things the TPP was supposed to address.
The U.S. benefits from the softwood lumber trade, because it makes the costs of construction lower, benefiting the entire construction industry. Imposing duties on softwood lumber imports would probably cause a backlash from lumber-using industries in the U.S. It does hurt the U.S. softwood lumber industry, which has lobbied for tariffs on Canadian lumber, and there have been several disputes over the trade going back to the 1980s at least.
20lriley
The problem with Nafta and subsequent trade bills is all the jobs and people who were displaced. Many of those were union and/or well paying jobs and many of the jobs created since then are kind of shitty low wage--no benefit work. One only has to look around the rust belt to figure that one out. Where did all the people go and why did so many of those left in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania vote for Trump. I kind of think some of them are still resentful even all these years later and FWIW politicians from both major parties have treated them like fools since 1994.Speaking of which in Trump's version on the campaign trail all those jobs lost were going to magically reappear when he repealed Nafta--when they're never going to reappear under any circumstance. Still people like to dream--of a better life--better times. The new battle really is over a living wage for retail, service and food workers. The same people who benefited most from the Nafta and other trade deals as it happens are generally speaking against a living wage and I suspect that's exactly how pretty much everyone in the Trump administration feel too.
The trade bills are corporation friendly. They are not labor friendly. They are not environment friendly. The fact is they're anti those things. They are vehicles for making super wealthy people even wealthier.
The trade bills are corporation friendly. They are not labor friendly. They are not environment friendly. The fact is they're anti those things. They are vehicles for making super wealthy people even wealthier.
21StormRaven
Many of those were union and/or well paying jobs and many of the jobs created since then are kind of shitty low wage--no benefit work.
This has very little to do with NAFTA, and a lot to do with policies promoted prior to NAFTA, such as Reagan placing anti-union commissioners on the NLRB who slow-walked union complaints and gave minimal awards to unions when employers were found to have engaged in illegal practices.
U.S. Steel production has declined from its all time high of 137 million tons in 1973 to 87 million tons in the last few years, but the number of workers needed to do that has declined more - in the U.S., there were ~500,000 steel workers in 1974, and by 2015 there were only ~142,000. The reason for the drop in steel workers isn't trade deals, but rather improvements in technology that mean the steel producers don't need as many workers as they used to in order to make the same amount of steel.
In point of fact, industrial employment in the formerly unionized sectors of manufacturing is generally down all over the world. Japan, Germany, the U.K., Brazil, and South Africa all shed two-thirds to five-sixths of their steel workers in the last few decades. China has said they will reallocate a half a million coal miners and steel workers in 2017, moving them to other work.
This has very little to do with NAFTA, and a lot to do with policies promoted prior to NAFTA, such as Reagan placing anti-union commissioners on the NLRB who slow-walked union complaints and gave minimal awards to unions when employers were found to have engaged in illegal practices.
U.S. Steel production has declined from its all time high of 137 million tons in 1973 to 87 million tons in the last few years, but the number of workers needed to do that has declined more - in the U.S., there were ~500,000 steel workers in 1974, and by 2015 there were only ~142,000. The reason for the drop in steel workers isn't trade deals, but rather improvements in technology that mean the steel producers don't need as many workers as they used to in order to make the same amount of steel.
In point of fact, industrial employment in the formerly unionized sectors of manufacturing is generally down all over the world. Japan, Germany, the U.K., Brazil, and South Africa all shed two-thirds to five-sixths of their steel workers in the last few decades. China has said they will reallocate a half a million coal miners and steel workers in 2017, moving them to other work.
22RickHarsch
>20 lriley: >21 StormRaven: Leaving aside what I think IS wrong with NAFTA, I think StormRaven's point is extremely important and is difficult to focus on with NAFTA taking all the blame. (And, of course, I already think that most of what has gone wrong in the US began with Reagan.) There has to be some way to address the replacement of jobs by technique, and I'm afraid it will never be one that fits the current paradigm of working in the US. Steel companies aren't going to offer to share their extra profits. So this is a problem that hits one of the main sources of union strength (I mean, of course, waned strength...).
23lriley
#21--I'm not arguing with or saying your point is wrong. What I'm saying is if you had one of those jobs and then had it yanked out from under you it's something you might remember--even now. You might even remember it if you were a kid and it was a parent who lost their job and all of a sudden you went from living here to living there and from eating this to eating that and from going to school here to going to school there. The impact of all that can take generations to go away and whether or not manufacturing numbers are down.
So IMO only part of the problem is the trade policy (which again is anti-labor, anti-environment and configured to benefit people or entities on a grander scale financially)---but it's also how a govt. attenuates the societal problems that comes after the implementation of something that has a harmful effect to a lot of people. And our govt. has never followed up to seriously help all those who these policies left swinging in the wind.
So IMO only part of the problem is the trade policy (which again is anti-labor, anti-environment and configured to benefit people or entities on a grander scale financially)---but it's also how a govt. attenuates the societal problems that comes after the implementation of something that has a harmful effect to a lot of people. And our govt. has never followed up to seriously help all those who these policies left swinging in the wind.
24RickHarsch
>23 lriley: A key point, though, again, is that the Democratic party never recovered from the Reagan onslaught.
25StormRaven
So IMO only part of the problem is the trade policy (which again is anti-labor, anti-environment and configured to benefit people or entities on a grander scale financially)
A free trade policy is probably labor neutral at worst, and probably pro-environment overall. The thing is, trade only provides people the opportunity to acquire the things they want, and usually at a lower cost because it was produced more efficiently. If there were trade barriers, people would still want those things, and they would still be produced. The difference is that they would be produced less efficiently, at more cost (and would consequently cost more), and there would be less demand for labor (because the increased cost of producing goods would consume resources).
A free trade policy is probably labor neutral at worst, and probably pro-environment overall. The thing is, trade only provides people the opportunity to acquire the things they want, and usually at a lower cost because it was produced more efficiently. If there were trade barriers, people would still want those things, and they would still be produced. The difference is that they would be produced less efficiently, at more cost (and would consequently cost more), and there would be less demand for labor (because the increased cost of producing goods would consume resources).
26jjwilson61
A completely free trade policy would be an environmental disaster. All production would flee to those locations that have no environmental controls (and no labor regulations either) and every country would be pushed to eliminate their environmental regulations in a race to the bottom.
27StormRaven
All production would flee to those locations that have no environmental controls (and no labor regulations either) and every country would be pushed to eliminate their environmental regulations in a race to the bottom.
If that were the case, we should be able to see that happening already under agreements like NAFTA. Have Mexico and Canada engaged in a race to the bottom with the U.S. regarding environmental and labor regulations?
If that were the case, we should be able to see that happening already under agreements like NAFTA. Have Mexico and Canada engaged in a race to the bottom with the U.S. regarding environmental and labor regulations?
28RickHarsch
>27 StormRaven: Actually, yes. On the Mexican side of the border Asian companies, for instance, do great business as union organizers are terrorited; and from the north we have increasing sloppy oil delivery systems.
29jjwilson61
>27 StormRaven: Well, the US up until now hasn't gutted their environmental laws, but as a consequence dirty industries have fled to Mexico.
30margd
A while back, Sierra Club said Mexico labor and environmental standards have been most negatively affected of the three countries:
http://vault.sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/nafta-and-mexico.pdf
The environmental partner agreement to NAFTA uses the Monarch Butterfly on its letterhead, which is appropriate because it migrates through all three countries: http://www.cec.org/. Unfortunately agriculture and forestry practices in all three countries may drive the migratory population extinct...
http://vault.sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/nafta-and-mexico.pdf
The environmental partner agreement to NAFTA uses the Monarch Butterfly on its letterhead, which is appropriate because it migrates through all three countries: http://www.cec.org/. Unfortunately agriculture and forestry practices in all three countries may drive the migratory population extinct...
31lriley
One should keep in mind that the Nafta was a republican trade bill that came out of George H. W. Bush's one and only term. It was something worked out during that term between conservative lawmakers in the US, the conservative Mulroney govt. in Canada and the very corrupt Salinas govt. in Mexico. It was meant to be the key accomplishment of the Bush 1 administration's second term. Unfortunately for them Clinton came along and with the help of Perot's campaign run that 2nd Bush term didn't happen.
It should also be kept in mind that the Democratic controlled house was dead set against it---that the Republican minority in the House was mostly for it. That the Clinton administration persuaded/bribed enough lawmakers on both sides to vote for it to pass. Amongst those who voted against were Dick Gephardt, a young Sherrod Brown, John Lewis--the civil rights icon, David Bonior--the majority whip, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, John Dingell, Sander Levin, Don Riegle--I threw some Michiganders in here just for the hell of it. Those on the democratic side voting for included Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Newt Gingrich was all for it. So was John Kasich and John McCain--pretty much every single big wheel republican who is still in politics today was for it. One of its architects was the Arizona republican Jim Kolbe. This is what he had to say:
'We should keep in mind that the Nafta is first and foremost a trade agreement. It is not a labor or environmental pact'. I don't think he could have been any more clear than that.
A Bryan Riley of the Heritage Foundation had this to say recently:
'Inclusion of environmental and labor mandates risks turning trade agreements into multinational regulatory arrangements that restrict trade flows rather than free them'.
Which speaks to the one of the main criticisms at that time back in the late 80's/early 90's--that there was no inclusion of labor or environmental voices when this agreement was made.
It should also be kept in mind that the Democratic controlled house was dead set against it---that the Republican minority in the House was mostly for it. That the Clinton administration persuaded/bribed enough lawmakers on both sides to vote for it to pass. Amongst those who voted against were Dick Gephardt, a young Sherrod Brown, John Lewis--the civil rights icon, David Bonior--the majority whip, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, John Dingell, Sander Levin, Don Riegle--I threw some Michiganders in here just for the hell of it. Those on the democratic side voting for included Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. Newt Gingrich was all for it. So was John Kasich and John McCain--pretty much every single big wheel republican who is still in politics today was for it. One of its architects was the Arizona republican Jim Kolbe. This is what he had to say:
'We should keep in mind that the Nafta is first and foremost a trade agreement. It is not a labor or environmental pact'. I don't think he could have been any more clear than that.
A Bryan Riley of the Heritage Foundation had this to say recently:
'Inclusion of environmental and labor mandates risks turning trade agreements into multinational regulatory arrangements that restrict trade flows rather than free them'.
Which speaks to the one of the main criticisms at that time back in the late 80's/early 90's--that there was no inclusion of labor or environmental voices when this agreement was made.
32margd
8 contd. (Trade Wars. Retaliation. We all lose if this continues.)
Canada weighing multiple trade actions against U.S. over softwood lumber dispute
Federal government considering retaliatory duties on goods from Oregon, ban on coal exports through B.C.
Alexander Panetta | May 05, 2017
...second threat: possible duties against Oregon industries. That's the home state of a Democratic senator, Ron Wyden, who has been a hardliner on the lumber dispute.
The Canadian government has found several Oregon business-assistance programs it says may constitute illegal subsidies. It's considering a process that could lead to retaliatory duties on imports from that state's products, such as plywood, flooring, wood chips, packaging material and wine.
Two government sources told The Canadian Press the threat has nothing to do with U.S. President Donald Trump; they say it's a one-off, specific action related to one dispute, and one Democratic senator in one state.
They say a long-term deal on softwood lumber would be the best way to prevent the dispute from escalating.
"We hope we don't have to act," one source told The Canadian Press, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss matters not yet made public. "We hope this dispute can be resolved."
The course of action being reviewed by the Canadian government is similar to the process used in the U.S. that slapped a 20-per-cent duty on northern lumber. It involves a request to the Canada Border Services Agency to study illegal subsidies in Oregon, a process that would take several months.
The government says it has zeroed in on nine programs in Oregon that assist businesses, primarily in lumber.
...Another official said there's no intention of changing the low-drama, co-operative posture Trudeau has taken toward the White House: "This is not about the president. This is about the state... The strategy (with Trump) is still one of positive engagement...
"(But) we still have to respond to these issues as they come."...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-weighs-tarrifs-on-america-1.4102052
_____________________________________________________________ETA
No, there’s not going to be a trade war with Canada: White House spokesman
Despite rising tensions, Sean Spicer brushed off the possibility of a trade war breaking out between Canada and the U.S.,
saying "that's why we have dispute-settlement mechanisms"
Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press | May 9, 2017
http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/exporting-and-importing/no-theres-not-going...
Canada weighing multiple trade actions against U.S. over softwood lumber dispute
Federal government considering retaliatory duties on goods from Oregon, ban on coal exports through B.C.
Alexander Panetta | May 05, 2017
...second threat: possible duties against Oregon industries. That's the home state of a Democratic senator, Ron Wyden, who has been a hardliner on the lumber dispute.
The Canadian government has found several Oregon business-assistance programs it says may constitute illegal subsidies. It's considering a process that could lead to retaliatory duties on imports from that state's products, such as plywood, flooring, wood chips, packaging material and wine.
Two government sources told The Canadian Press the threat has nothing to do with U.S. President Donald Trump; they say it's a one-off, specific action related to one dispute, and one Democratic senator in one state.
They say a long-term deal on softwood lumber would be the best way to prevent the dispute from escalating.
"We hope we don't have to act," one source told The Canadian Press, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss matters not yet made public. "We hope this dispute can be resolved."
The course of action being reviewed by the Canadian government is similar to the process used in the U.S. that slapped a 20-per-cent duty on northern lumber. It involves a request to the Canada Border Services Agency to study illegal subsidies in Oregon, a process that would take several months.
The government says it has zeroed in on nine programs in Oregon that assist businesses, primarily in lumber.
...Another official said there's no intention of changing the low-drama, co-operative posture Trudeau has taken toward the White House: "This is not about the president. This is about the state... The strategy (with Trump) is still one of positive engagement...
"(But) we still have to respond to these issues as they come."...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-weighs-tarrifs-on-america-1.4102052
_____________________________________________________________ETA
No, there’s not going to be a trade war with Canada: White House spokesman
Despite rising tensions, Sean Spicer brushed off the possibility of a trade war breaking out between Canada and the U.S.,
saying "that's why we have dispute-settlement mechanisms"
Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press | May 9, 2017
http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/exporting-and-importing/no-theres-not-going...
33margd
!
White House advisors called Ottawa to urge Trudeau to help talk Trump down from scrapping NAFTA
John Ivison | May 8, 2017
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/white-house-urged-tru...
White House advisors called Ottawa to urge Trudeau to help talk Trump down from scrapping NAFTA
John Ivison | May 8, 2017
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/white-house-urged-tru...
34margd
DOW tumbles 372 pts as Trump drama roils markets (5/17/2017)
https://www.reuters.tv/v/Sq8/2017/05/17/dow-drops-300-pts-as-trump-drama-roils-m...
https://www.reuters.tv/v/Sq8/2017/05/17/dow-drops-300-pts-as-trump-drama-roils-m...
36margd
Sen McCain's recommended read calls for deftness our negotiator-in-chief lacks, I'm afraid:
How to renegotiate the treaty (NAFTA) without blowing up the economy.
The Editorial Board | July 20, 2017
...If Mr. Trump wants a political victory, he’ll push to further open Mexican and Canadian markets rather than impose trade barriers that hurt American businesses and consumers.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-nafta-stakes-1500592674
How to renegotiate the treaty (NAFTA) without blowing up the economy.
The Editorial Board | July 20, 2017
...If Mr. Trump wants a political victory, he’ll push to further open Mexican and Canadian markets rather than impose trade barriers that hurt American businesses and consumers.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-nafta-stakes-1500592674
