[Atlantis]

You can use the 'pre' tags (2nd button on the 2nd line of the formatting tools in the full reply screen) to preserve multiple spaces - if you create the 'table' in a fixed width font (eg with Notepad on Windows) you can line things up pretty easily,

Thanks! I have got it. That's very helpful.

[Atlantis]

As I said in my post above, Europe is not exploiting the US, it's the other way around:

The U.S. Milks Europe, Not the Other Way Around

As the net beneficiary of the transatlantic business relationship, the U.S. should lay off Europe on trade.

March 8, 2018, 1:15 PM GMT

U.S. President Donald Trump's plans for a trade war aren't ostensibly focused on Europe, but Trump himself appears to think they are. He said on Tuesday that "the European Union has been particularly tough on the United States," making it "almost impossible for us to do business with them." Fact-checking Trump on this is pointless, but it's worth pointing out that the U.S. is on the verge of poisoning its favorite well for no obvious reason.

There is talk that Canada and Mexico could be excluded from Trump's planned steel and aluminium tariffs. If that's what happens, the steel tariffs will be the most damaging to Brazil, South Korea and Russia, which contribute 32 percent of U.S. steel imports. Germany, the biggest European exporter to the U.S., accounts for just three percent. The aluminium tariffs will hit Russia, the United Arab Emirates and China. aluminium production is an energy hog, so Europe, where energy is relatively expensive, is not a major producer. But Europe has complained loudly about Trump's plans and plotted a deliberately insulting response, threatening tariffs on Levi's jeans, Harley Davidson motorcycles, bourbon and now also peanut butter, cranberries and orange juice. "We can also do stupid," European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said of the plan.

In a strictly economic sense, this is not Europe's war. Politically, though, it goes down well with Europeans when the EU stands up to the American bully. The European public's mistrust of the U.S. tendency to dominate relationships was, in a nutshell, what killed off the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership when leaders on both sides of the Atlantic, including President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, backed it. The EU bureaucracy has jumped at the rare chance to fight a popular war, and its media campaign has all the pent-up fury and cunning of a spurned partner in a divorce.

The U.S. would do well to cut Europe out of any tariff offensive and make the noise stop. Otherwise, it risks souring the best economic relationship it has with anyone in the world. On Wednesday, The American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union released the latest of its annual "Transatlantic Economy" reports, describing an economic symbiosis that forms the basis of today's global economy with $5.5 trillion in total sales by the European affiliates of U.S. firms and U.S. affiliates of European ones. "In the end," the report goes, "it is the U.S.-EU partnership that drives and dictates global trade, investment and capital flows, with no commercial artery in the world as large as the investment artery forged between the United States and Europe."

This is a better description of what's going on than Trump's "almost impossible to do business" comment, just as foreign affiliate sales are a better measure to describe the relationship than the divergent trade numbers. They show how comfortable the respective markets are for each other's businesses.

The balance is in favor of the U.S. The output of American companies in the EU, at $720 billion in 2016, significantly exceeded that of European ones in the U.S., $584 billion. Europeans, meanwhile, spend more on research and development in the U.S. than Americans in Europe -- $41 billion vs. $31.3 billion in 2015. By these important measures, the U.S. is a net beneficiary of the relationship; even much of the trade imbalance is explained by the activity of U.S. firms: Almost 60 percent of U.S. imports from the EU are "related party" ones, meaning the goods are produced by U.S. companies. For Asia-Pacific nations, the share is just 40 percent.

It should be obvious even to Trump that trade is only part of an overall business relationship. From a European perspective, this relationship is skewed toward the U.S., especially when it comes to multinationals' tax shenanigans. Thanks to them, intellectual property royalties paid out of Ireland -- mainly by U.S. tech -- as a way to shift profits have averaged 23 percent of that country's economic output between 2010 and 2015. If there's a sucking sound to be heard, it's actually in Europe, not in the U.S.

No trade war has started yet: Trump is playing to his supporters, EU officials to Trump-skeptical European audiences. But if a war, even a minor one, does start, bad blood will rise quickly. Europe does have the means to hurt U.S. multinationals, even if it's not doing much now. If Trump cares about the U.S. economy's pillars, he should cherish European lenience -- and get off the EU's back.

Make my day, Donald ...!

I have the feeling that once the election is Pennsylvania has been decided, the orange ape will trod back into his cage to let Melani scrap his back and forget all about trade wars.

[Crantag]

You aren't choosing sound nationalist economic policy either. You are simply panicking because this isn't good for China. However, China has had a full year to do something about North Korea. Trump was nice to them, and now he isn't going to be anymore.

Actually I'm not panicking at all, and it's really not that bad for China, as China supplies a relatively small share of America's steel, despite the fact that China now produces fully half of the world's steel.

Actually this is probably good for China. America's reactionary economic policy provides China the opportunity to step up and fill the void, at least from a rhetorical standpoint. China is also less and less dependent on the US export market, particularly since the 2008-9 crash (in America and elsewhere--China wasn't even terribly affected by it). In many events America's loss is China's gain, with respect to the international trading scene. Just look at TPP (I was heavily against TPP. Obama's arrogance in heavily pushing an ultimately doomed agenda did have negative effects though.)

You mis-charactize me completely. At the end of the day, I pretty much couldn't give two shits these days if America burns. Yet this doesn't prevent me from presenting an economic analysis that is not overly skewed by my anti-America bias, which I certainly do harbor indeed.

[mikema63]

Trade wars are bad is so obvious a conclusion it hardly merits being called an analysis honestly.

This whole debacle really drives home how stupid the president is. If he had any hope of winning a second term it would be on the back of a strong to decent economy. But no, let's watch the world burn.

[Crantag]

Trade wars are bad is so obvious a conclusion it hardly merits being called an analysis honestly.

This whole debacle really drives home how stupid the president is. If he had any hope of winning a second term it would be on the back of a strong to decent economy. But no, let's watch the world burn.

If that is directed at me, yes this is an easy one to call, but I ordinarily do in fact present economic analysis, and have also done so in this thread.

Also there are no absolutes, and I am often suspicious of economic orthodoxy, but this one is pretty easy.

[Sivad]

If the tit for tat were to continue we could slide into global recession like in 1929.

I'm sold. A good economic collapse always gets the insurrectionary juices flowing.

[jimjam]

So, Trump gives a pass to Canada, Mexico, and announces Australia need only apply for relief.

Meanwhile Europe gets a punch in the eye.

So, who benefits from a wedge being driven between the US an Europe?

Russia!

Collusion!

Oh, and remember Trump used inferior Chinese steel in his hotel construction!

[Ter]

The globalists are whining.
Trump just kept another election promise.
If he is seen to support the working class Americans, they will probably vote for him next time as well.
Thank god Hillary is not farting in the White house.

[Sivad]

Ultimately, tariffs are just taxes on rich transnational merchants. We know why they don't want them. It is because it is a labor arbitrage tax.


You aren't choosing sound nationalist economic policy either.

Progressives should all be in favor of strong protectionism. Free trade is bad for the environment, bad for labor, and bad for human rights in general. We shouldn't be doing any business with any entities(states or corporations) that don't have high standards in those three areas.

Progressive protectionism by contrast would instead allow countries to wean themselves off export dependence. It would enable the rebuilding and re-diversification of domestic economies by limiting what goods states let in and what funds they allow to enter or leave the country. Having regained control of their economic future, countries can then set the levels of taxes and agree the regulations needed to fund and facilitate this transition. National competition laws would ensure that monopolies didn't develop behind protective barriers and an internationalist approach to trade with poorer countries would insist that the gains from reduced levels of international trade helped fund the move towards a localised economy that benefitted the poor majority. In essence, this approach would make space for domestic funding and business to meet most of the needs of society worldwide.

Perhaps of most short-term political importance would be that prioritising the grounding of manufacturing, money and services here in the UK would enable politicians and activists to call the bluff of relocation threatening big business and finance, who at present have the whip hand over all governments who support open markets. Under progressive protectionism they have to be sited here to sell here and at a stroke the all-powerful threat of relocation is rendered impotent.

This taking back of national control over the economy is the only way to tackle the financial, social and environmental crises, return local power to citizens and provide a sense of security and hope for their future. If implemented it could play a crucial role in seeing off the rise of the extreme right, as this invariably flourishes when the sense of insecurity within the majority worsens. At present none of the policies offered by parties of any political hue are likely to tackle this in the way that progressive protectionism can.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tectionism

[Atlantis]

Trump just kept another election promise.

The question is if he'll actually go through with his trade war after the election:

Pennsylvania Republican backs Trump's tariff move as special election approaches

The US depends on the EU because

- it has a huge trade surplus in services,

- the EU is the most important market to US multinationals,

- the US depends on foreign investors to finance its budget deficit after Trump's tax cuts,

- US defense industry depends on procurement from Nato to subsidize R&D,

- the EU could hit back where it really hurts.

Now, they may get into some foolishness because a real estate developer understands more about Mafia connections than about international trade and Wilbur Ross understands more about destroying jobs through restructuring than about saving jobs.

[Atlantis]

I'm sold. A good economic collapse always gets the insurrectionary juices flowing.

The investors will not let a good crisis pass without making a profit.

For the people it's the soup kitchen,



and the revolution is on the wrong side of the road.

[Rugoz]

Progressives should all be in favor of strong protectionism. Free trade is bad for the environment, bad for labor, and bad for human rights in general. We shouldn't be doing any business with any entities(states or corporations) that don't have high standards in those three areas.

Is that why Trump imposes tariffs on imports from Europe, which has stronger environmental standards and labor protection. Make up your mind, Trumpanzees.

[Beren]

Actually this is probably good for China.

The whole Trump presidency is good for China, it's like a gift.

[Atlantis]

We shouldn't be doing any business with any entities(states or corporations) that don't have high standards in those three areas.

Agreed!

Progessives of the World unite!

Trump is helping us to form a global coalition against the US, which is an exploitative empire and the greatest violator of human rights, a plutocracy that can't even provide basic services to its own people, and the worst polluter in human history.

Yankee imperialism will never be the same again.

[mikema63]

I rather suspect Trump doing this is going to do more to reinvigorate pro-free trade sentiment in america than anything I could say or do to convince people. It's really very helpful of him to do everything in the dumbest way possible. He has damaged the image of populism and done wonders for the democratic parties electoral chances over the next few years. All while failing to do anything that would entrench his cause or brand of politics (except in some of his court appointments).

It pushes out the socially moderate pro-capitalist types out of the republican party and into the cold and most of the american left that isn't actually committed ideological socialists will embrace any pro-capitalist position and rhetoric that trump seems to oppose. All around it's my position that wins in the long run.

[Beren]

He has damaged the image of populism and done wonders for the democratic parties electoral chances over the next few years.

In my opinion he had a big role in Le Pen's and Wilders' failures.

[Atlantis]

I rather suspect Trump doing this is going to do more to reinvigorate pro-free trade sentiment in america than anything I could say or do to convince people. It's really very helpful of him to do everything in the dumbest way possible. He has damaged the image of populism and done wonders for the democratic parties electoral chances over the next few years.

That's not how Trump's supporters see it. They believe in the Trump show and feel reconfirmed in their beliefs by the hostility he is attracting.

That is also not how populist leaders are faring in other countries. Putin, Erdogan, Orban in Hungary, PiS in Poland, they have all managed to eliminate the opposition by cracking down on free speech, controlling the judiciary and putting on a jingoistic show for their supporters.

Russia's economy is in constant crisis, but Russians love their strong-man Putin who shows the West what is what in Crimea and Syria.

The Turkish economy is on the brink, but Erdogan can always mobilize support of 80% ahead of elections by bombing the Kurds in Turkey, Syria or Iraq, while cracking down on the press, the judiciary and civil society.

In Poland, the PiS nationalists are isolating the country by pissing at the Germans, the EU, the Russians, the Ukrainians, the US, the Jews, etc., while dismantling the free press and controlling the judiciary.

I'll let Beren explain how Orban does it in Hungary.

I'm afraid autocratic populism is spreading today like fascism spread in the 1930s, and while all the arguments are in favor of liberal democracy and open societies, a large segment of the population is not accessible to reason, especially since the global environment is getting too complex for most people. Dimwits are dimwits, in the US like in Turkey.

On the surface, the US has its checks and balances, but the US plutocracy is profoundly corrupt and knows how to manipulate public opinion. Instead of goons, Trump uses tweets and the alt-right media machine to fight mainstream media. He'll be able to nominate most high-court judges, and he has ample means of escalating trade wars or political tensions worldwide to distract from domestic issues.

[Beren]

I'll let Beren explain how Orban does it in Hungary.

He's blaming Soros, Brussels, and migrants while capturing the state and tapping EU-transfers. The newest scandal is about how his son-in-law's company Elios was involved.

[SpecialOlympian]

Lol the best part is that Trump got talked out of actually imposing the tariff on any meaningful importers and ended up doing nothing.

Steel production is heavily automated anyway. Even with increased production the amount of jobs created would be negligible. Not that it matters, since nothing is happening anyway. But if, somehow, Trump were able to carry out his dumbassed whims the increase in steel prices would destroy more jobs in other industries than it created in steel production.

Just a reminder: this is the same president who called Flynn in the middle of the night to ask if a weak or strong dollar was better for exports. If you can figure the answer on your own then congratulations: you have a greater knowledge of economics and trade than the current president. You also put forth greater effort than the president did in crafting, and defending, his tariff.

Good brains. The best brains. Acting on nationalist/populist policies, which historically have always been economically sound.

[Sivad]

The investors will not let a good crisis pass without making a profit.

For the people it's the soup kitchen

Exactly.

the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.

and the revolution is on the wrong side of the road.

The country took a progressive turn back in the 30's and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't this time around. It mostly depends on whether the masses are provided with a left populist option or not. The Trump phenomenon is directly attributable to the fact that there hasn't been any real progressive populist option in this country for decades.