|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Roberta Jacobson, is resigning from the post, the latest in a string of high-profile departures from the State Department.
Jacobson's departure, effective May 5, comes amid lingering tensions between the Trump administration and the Mexican government over immigration, trade and other sensitive topics. In recent days, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto scrapped a planned visit to the United States after a tense phone call with President Donald Trump.
Jacobson's decision to leave was first reported by The New York Times and confirmed to POLITICO by a person familiar with the issue.
Jacobson sent a note to staffers at her embassy praising their work.
"After more than thirty-one years of U.S. Government service, I have come to the difficult decision that it is the right time to move on to new challenges and adventures," she wrote in the memo, obtained by POLITICO. "This decision is all the more difficult because of my profound belief in the importance of the U.S.-Mexico relationship and knowledge that it is at a crucial moment. One of the things that makes it easier is knowing that all of you will continue to do your usual outstanding work in ensuring that the relationship grows and prospers."
The Trump administration has been looking at replacing Jacobson, an Obama administration appointee, but has not announced who it will nominate in her place.
Jacobson is highly regarded in Mexico and in U.S. diplomatic circles. She's one of several high-profile State Department officials to announce their decision to leave in recent months, including Joseph Yun, the special envoy for North Korean issues, and Thomas Shannon, the undersecretary of state for political affairs.
Jacobson's departure will no doubt add to concerns among U.S. lawmakers and others that the State Department is being gutted under Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has failed to fill numerous leadership positions in his 13 months at the helm.
Source
|
"New challenges and adventures". In other words: "I'm getting the. fuck. outta here".
I mean, with all the embassy posts already empty so far, who's even gonna notice?
|
The janitor on the day shift.
One more room to clean.
|
On March 02 2018 03:08 m4ini wrote:
So in which industries will we see the biggest price hikes (for the general population)? I'd assume cars?
Lets make no mistake, a (very) few people will get richer, but 98% of the americans have to carry that burden. Or does anyone here think that the fact that manufacturers of everything will just buy the more expensive american steel and not pass that price hike down the line to the customer?
There is an ongoing populist narrative that free trade is bad and hurts Americans. There is also this collective delusion that we are so big that we can do whatever we want and no other country would dare hit back. My family’s business’s main competitor is in Mexico, so free trade is a weird topic for me and my parent. My father is a lifelong Irish Democrat that hates Trump, but felt these tariffs sounded like a good idea. Until I explained to him that it would drive up the price of steel in the US for everyone and the EU planned to take a chunk out of the whisky industry as a warning shot not to fuck with them. He cooled on the idea after that. He isn't a stupid guy. It is just that protectionism has this primal appeal to people that makes it ripe for someone like Trump to peddle as a real solution.
|
Here's the last time that the US did the tariff thing on steel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff
On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.[3] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.[4] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.[5]
I don't see Trump winning this.
It's going to be just a game of chicken where the US is going to get targeted by tariffs in industries in key swing states. The politicians can't support it if it's going to cost them reelection.
|
Clearly the media are to blame!
Trump manipulation 101:
1) Trump has stupid idea
2) It becomes public (this could also be a part of step one, since Trump always "thinks" in public.
3) Everyone says it is stupid
4) Someone in the administration tries to save their face in a press conference and says that this was all not meant the way it has been described and that of course it won't happen.
Now there are 2 routes:
5a) Media reports: "Trump clearly the greatest leader, stopping stupid plan by subordinates. Trump always said that this is stupid and would have never done it because he is so smart!"
6a) Idea is quickly dropped and forgotten
5b)Media reports: "You see, not even Trump would dare to do something as colossally stupid."
6b) Trump: "You say I wouldn't dare? OF COURSE I DO"
7b) Stupid idea is promptly implemented, but not without doubling down on it by increasing the stupidity even more, just to show everyone that he certainly dares!
|
On March 02 2018 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 03:08 m4ini wrote:
So in which industries will we see the biggest price hikes (for the general population)? I'd assume cars?
Lets make no mistake, a (very) few people will get richer, but 98% of the americans have to carry that burden. Or does anyone here think that the fact that manufacturers of everything will just buy the more expensive american steel and not pass that price hike down the line to the customer?
There is an ongoing populist narrative that free trade is bad and hurts Americans. There is also this collective delusion that we are so big that we can do whatever we want and no other country would dare hit back. My family’s business’s main competitor is in Mexico, so free trade is a weird topic for me and my parent. My father is a lifelong Irish Democrat that hates Trump, but felt these tariffs sounded like a good idea. Until I explained to him that it would drive up the price of steel in the US for everyone and the EU planned to take a chunk out of the whisky industry as a warning shot not to fuck with them. He cooled on the idea after that. He isn't a stupid guy. It is just that protectionism has this primal appeal to people that makes it ripe for someone like Trump to peddle as a real solution.
Funny thing is that people somehow (even here) see it as a shot towards china. This isn't protectionism, it's yet again fucking people in the US over so a select few can fill their pockets. Now, that happens everywhere, but nowhere as blatant as nowadays in the US. Dutertrump did a great job so far.
As a major sidenote, for the people here thinking that it's more "sticking it to the chinese" than anything else, china barely exports steel to the US. I know, i know, trump said n shit, fact of the matter is that less than 3% of your steel imports come from china. The biggest exporter of steel to the US is canada, followed by brazil and south korea, then mexico.
|
On March 02 2018 03:37 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 03:22 Plansix wrote:On March 02 2018 03:08 m4ini wrote:
So in which industries will we see the biggest price hikes (for the general population)? I'd assume cars?
Lets make no mistake, a (very) few people will get richer, but 98% of the americans have to carry that burden. Or does anyone here think that the fact that manufacturers of everything will just buy the more expensive american steel and not pass that price hike down the line to the customer?
There is an ongoing populist narrative that free trade is bad and hurts Americans. There is also this collective delusion that we are so big that we can do whatever we want and no other country would dare hit back. My family’s business’s main competitor is in Mexico, so free trade is a weird topic for me and my parent. My father is a lifelong Irish Democrat that hates Trump, but felt these tariffs sounded like a good idea. Until I explained to him that it would drive up the price of steel in the US for everyone and the EU planned to take a chunk out of the whisky industry as a warning shot not to fuck with them. He cooled on the idea after that. He isn't a stupid guy. It is just that protectionism has this primal appeal to people that makes it ripe for someone like Trump to peddle as a real solution. Funny thing is that people somehow (even here) see it as a shot towards china. This isn't protectionism, it's yet again fucking people in the US over so a select few can fill their pockets. Now, that happens everywhere, but nowhere as blatant as nowadays in the US. Dutertrump did a great job so far. As a major sidenote, for the people here thinking that it's more "sticking it to the chinese" than anything else, china barely exports steel to the US. I know, i know, trump said n shit, fact of the matter is that less than 3% of your steel imports come from china. The biggest exporter of steel to the US is canada, followed by brazil and south korea, then mexico.
That is what tariffs have always been, goverment protection for specific industries. The only reason the argument for free trade ever took hold was that is was seen as a way to stop wars. That joint economic prosperity and ties would protect us from seeking warfare as a means to solve our economic problems.
And of course the plan isn't going to stick it to China. That is another reason why tariffs are terrible. Politicians can claim they are punishing a specific country or industry, even if that isn't the case. But who cares? China can't vote in the US and politicians are only held accountable by their voters.
On March 02 2018 03:31 Lmui wrote:Here's the last time that the US did the tariff thing on steel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariffShow nested quote +On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.[3] After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.[4] In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4.[5] I don't see Trump winning this. It's going to be just a game of chicken where the US is going to get targeted by tariffs in industries in key swing states. The politicians can't support it if it's going to cost them reelection.
We just need to do it every time a Republican gets elected and decides to be the big bully in global trade. Except that we try to bully EU Nations and China, who can hit back harder.
|
We just need to do it every time a Republican gets elected and decides to be the big bully in global trade. Except that we try to bully EU Nations and China, who can hit back harder.
In this case you don't bully EU nations nor china though, that's the "weird" part. I would understand protecting against china dumping steel, but that's not the case. You're bullying some of your closest allies (not just) in regards to trade and military.
You can spin this one any way you want, there's no positive outcome for the US as a whole. At best, shit gets more expensive for cletus, at worst, people start losing jobs.
|
On March 02 2018 03:18 NewSunshine wrote:
"New challenges and adventures". In other words: "I'm getting the. fuck. outta here".
I mean, with all the embassy posts already empty so far, who's even gonna notice?
The Depts are so starved that If I scrub my online presence a little and pretend to be a Republican, I could be an assistant secretary in the State Dept or have a cushy diplomatic posting in 6 months. But then, y'know, Trump administration.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I actually had a pretty nice opportunity to work in the incoming administration as of like mid ‘16. I figured that one way or another it would end up looking like a career hazard and shitstorm. Pretty glad I didn’t go for it because that’s kind of exactly what happened to a lot of government employees.
|
On March 02 2018 04:01 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +We just need to do it every time a Republican gets elected and decides to be the big bully in global trade. Except that we try to bully EU Nations and China, who can hit back harder.
In this case you don't bully EU nations nor china though, that's the "weird" part. I would understand protecting against china dumping steel, but that's not the case. You're bullying some of your closest allies (not just) in regards to trade and military. You can spin this one any way you want, there's no positive outcome for the US as a whole. At best, shit gets more expensive for cletus, at worst, people start losing jobs.
By imposing these trade restrictions, we are thumbing our nose at agreements with the WTO and other countries we set up a long time ago. Recent Republican runs under the flag of “the US doesn’t listen to other nations and does what is good for Americans.” The EU specifically seems to have no patience for this in recent years and is very willing to slap the US for violating agreements we helped set up decades ago.
|
I mean, this admin seriously floated the idea of funding a border wall with a tariff on all Mexican imports. They couldn't pass an Econ 101 exam, expecting them to understand global trade is a lost cause.
|
Not possible, are traders sure in their beliefs that a man who couldn't keep a casino from going bankrupt doesn't know about economics?!
|
On March 02 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 04:01 m4ini wrote:We just need to do it every time a Republican gets elected and decides to be the big bully in global trade. Except that we try to bully EU Nations and China, who can hit back harder.
In this case you don't bully EU nations nor china though, that's the "weird" part. I would understand protecting against china dumping steel, but that's not the case. You're bullying some of your closest allies (not just) in regards to trade and military. You can spin this one any way you want, there's no positive outcome for the US as a whole. At best, shit gets more expensive for cletus, at worst, people start losing jobs. By imposing these trade restrictions, we are thumbing our nose at agreements with the WTO and other countries we set up a long time ago. Recent Republican runs under the flag of “the US doesn’t listen to other nations and does what is good for Americans.” The EU specifically seems to have no patience for this in recent years and is very willing to slap the US for violating agreements we helped set up decades ago.
Well.. Speaking of which. Mexicans answer came earlier, and now there's this one too.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-eu/eu-promises-firm-response-to-u-s-steel-tariffs-idUKKCN1GD68B
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union said on Thursday it would react firmly with a proposal within days for WTO-compatible countermeasures against the United States for trade restrictions on steel and aluminium, which it called a “blatant intervention” to protect U.S. industry.
“We strongly regret this step, which appears to represent a blatant intervention to protect U.S. domestic industry and not to be based on any national security justification,” the European Commission chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker said in a statement.
“We will not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures that put thousands of European jobs at risk ... The EU will react firmly and commensurately to defend our interests.”
|
The only for Trump to not have a repeat of what Bush did in 2002 is to guarantee no layoffs and constant orders from the Government for Infrastructure which would be very very worrying if said path was chosen.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Well he’s not wrong. Embargoes with exceptions always lead to smuggling/re-export.
|
Weird how they hold us to the terms of the agreement we helped create back in 1994-1995 that was signed by 123 countries. Of the previous 50 years of other trade discussions aimed at assure free trade and fewer conflicts. These Nations don’t want to put up with Donny’s con artist bullshit, the same way they didn’t want to deal with Bush’s foolish policies.
|
On March 02 2018 05:08 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 04:20 Plansix wrote:On March 02 2018 04:01 m4ini wrote:We just need to do it every time a Republican gets elected and decides to be the big bully in global trade. Except that we try to bully EU Nations and China, who can hit back harder.
In this case you don't bully EU nations nor china though, that's the "weird" part. I would understand protecting against china dumping steel, but that's not the case. You're bullying some of your closest allies (not just) in regards to trade and military. You can spin this one any way you want, there's no positive outcome for the US as a whole. At best, shit gets more expensive for cletus, at worst, people start losing jobs. By imposing these trade restrictions, we are thumbing our nose at agreements with the WTO and other countries we set up a long time ago. Recent Republican runs under the flag of “the US doesn’t listen to other nations and does what is good for Americans.” The EU specifically seems to have no patience for this in recent years and is very willing to slap the US for violating agreements we helped set up decades ago. Well.. Speaking of which. Mexicans answer came earlier, and now there's this one too. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-eu/eu-promises-firm-response-to-u-s-steel-tariffs-idUKKCN1GD68BShow nested quote +BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union said on Thursday it would react firmly with a proposal within days for WTO-compatible countermeasures against the United States for trade restrictions on steel and aluminium, which it called a “blatant intervention” to protect U.S. industry.
“We strongly regret this step, which appears to represent a blatant intervention to protect U.S. domestic industry and not to be based on any national security justification,” the European Commission chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker said in a statement.
“We will not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures that put thousands of European jobs at risk ... The EU will react firmly and commensurately to defend our interests.”
you know, I'm kind of happy that Trump won the election in the US. Sorry for all you guys over there but this really is helping us out with sticking together as Europeans for once. Trump is the best thing that could have happened for European morale. Yeah it hurts everyone involved with the shit he does, both Europeans and Americans (as well as everyone else because he does this with everyone) but I'd say the value we get out of people actually liking what the EU does for once is higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
