What Donald Trump’s Trade Wars Have Learned About the American Economy, Trade and Foreign Investments: A Shortcut to the Beachhead?
The breadth, speed and severity of President Trump’s actions, which he finalized only shortly before the Rose Garden announcement, sparked immediate panic across markets and among allies. The airwaves filled with dire predictions as people scrutinized the sources and sizes of the numbers, the strategy and even the legal authority. Amid the hysteria, fair concerns have also emerged about what the plan lacks: time for companies and governments to respond, permanence for those tariffs intended to shift investments and a clear vision of the goals and how to reach them. But there are simple steps the administration could take now to correct course and move from its embattled beachhead into a sustainable forward position.
The 10 percent global tariff — a foundational permanent policy, which has already taken effect, and which carries a tolerable cost — is the right starting point. Congress should vote it into law as soon as possible. That would confirm its status and provide tax revenue that could help solve the budget math problems of Capitol Hill. The Built USA Act was introduced in the month of January by Representative Golden who is a conservative Democrat.
President Trump’s escalating tariffs on trading partners has not only rattled U.S. and international markets – it’s also set off alarm bells in Congress.
This is also not to say that people haven’t tried. There are many theories that want to explain Trump’s preoccupation with trade wars. Perhaps he wants to revitalize American manufacturing and bring factory jobs back to postindustrial communities wracked by poverty and despair. Maybe he wants the revenue that he makes from large tariffs to help address the nation’s long-term debt. Or maybe he wants to make the US more export-driven in order to fix the global economic system.
Donald Trump apparently doesn’t believe in a relationship between individuals, peoples or states as anything other than a status game and a competition for dominance. His long history of scams, hostile litigation — not to mention his frequent refusal to pay contractors, lawyers, brokers and other people who were working for him — is evidence enough of the reality that a deal with Trump is less an agreement between equals than an opportunity for Trump to abuse and exploit the other party for his own benefit. For Trump, there is no such thing as a mutually beneficial relationship or a positive-sum outcome. Everyone has to lose in every interaction and nobody has to win. We all know that Trump is a winner.
Reply to the “Comment on ‘Trump tariffs” by Sen. Maria Cantwell: bipartisan support to rein Trump’s tariffs”
Congress has the right to trade if you think about it. But this president has misconstrued and we think actually misused this authority. So we’re saying we want Congress to reassert itself in this debate and get approval for these unbelievable tariffs that are costing consumers so much money and ruining people’s 401(k) savings.
The author wrote Cantwell. Yes, for sure. I represent the most trade dependent state in the country. We make planes and we grow a lot of agricultural products. We want the United States to be a leader in the economy of tomorrow and all the job creation that comes with that. The way you get there, just like those companies have done, is by innovating, having a great skilled workforce, and open markets to sell your product to. There are strategies to take the next step to help the United States win more market share. And we should be doing that versus kind of taking our best trade allies and making them mad at a time when we really need them to be on our side.
Source: Sen. Maria Cantwell says there is bipartisan support to rein Trump’s tariffs
Reply to “Comment on ‘Fading of the Supermajority Cuts and Jobs” by M. Fadel
It’s fading. This is described as a bipartisan bill. You co-authored it with a Republican. But how much Republican support is there for this bill? Is it possible for it to pass?
Fadel: Now, the president has threatened to veto your bill if it ever comes to his desk. If the bill is passed and Trump vetoes it, what would you do?
I don’t think the economy was going to fall by $11 trillion. This is wreaking havoc on consumers. Basically GDP is about 70% consumer spending. Congress has a right to ask about the plan. Why aren’t you consulting with us as we have to consult with our constituents?”
And the thing that people don’t want is to have continued uncertainty. A lot of people who are looking at their 401(k) and might be considering retiring this year, have a lot of worries about what that will mean.
Source: Sen. Maria Cantwell says there is bipartisan support to rein Trump’s tariffs
Reply to “Comment on ‘Implications of a very large trade deficit on the economic status of the United States’” by R. Ron Wyden
Cantwell: Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, is introducing another resolution related to this. Our colleagues are waking up to the fact that the president went too far and need to have a discussion. We need to listen to our constituents. We need to listen to the small businesses. We need to listen to the consumer who’s being hurt here and decide what it is that we can do to reassert ourselves in the debate.
Wyden’s resolution would force a vote on the president’s emergency declaration if enough senators signed on to it.
Fadel: I am not sure The tariffs are necessary for short term pain to cure the long term problem of the $1.2 trillion trade deficit according to Trump. Do you agree with that?