|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I do wonder why Trump rails so hard on the soy side of this. I guess he's counting on his base to falsely believe his lies there's some huge problem facing soy farmers that he didn't bring on with his tariffs on Chinese products and that there's some long-standing soy feud with the EU. That or it's just the only soundbite that fits in his brain.
|
On July 29 2018 23:31 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 23:22 ShoCkeyy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6003457/amp/Mystery-Russia-LIQUIDATES-holdings-Treasury-securities.htmlThe Russian government has sold off the vast majority of its holdings of US Treasury securities for reasons that remain mysterious, in a dramatic move that experts are calling unprecedented.
A US Treasury report released on July 18 shows that Russian holdings of Treasury securities declined by 84 per cent between March and May, down to just $14.9 billion from March holdings of $96.1 billion. So apparently Russia either knows of an impending crash in the U.S dollar or they tried to crash us, don’t know, but that’s the only thing I can think of when a country essentially sells all their bonds no? would you like me to try to make up some alternate explanations? I'm sure if I thought a bit I could come up with a few, not sure how good they'd be ofc. looking at that article itself; it seems to also offer some reasonable alternate explanations. did you fully read your own article?
Yea I did, the the two I listed were the top ones I pulled from the article out of my own analysis. I mean I just posted it because this thread has seen a lack of articles in general to drive conversations rather than arguing about semantics or about each other’s political leanings.
|
On July 30 2018 00:35 warding wrote:
Uhm... has everyone forgot about TTIP? The EU and the US have been at the bargaining table for a long time... Until Trump put it on hold. The claim that Trump got the EU to the bargaining table is just dumb.
Also, the EU is a group of 28 of countries bound together by... the idea of having no trade barriers among one another. President Trump got elected on a protectionist trade policy. Today isn't opposite day and facts matter.
Despite what was claimed by a poster earlier, populists were against things like the Investor-State Dispute Settlement tribunals of the TTP/TTIP and not "free trade". That was agreed left and right, the difference is that the far left wasn't protectionist. Certainly not MMT Greens.
|
On July 30 2018 00:36 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 23:31 zlefin wrote:On July 29 2018 23:22 ShoCkeyy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6003457/amp/Mystery-Russia-LIQUIDATES-holdings-Treasury-securities.htmlThe Russian government has sold off the vast majority of its holdings of US Treasury securities for reasons that remain mysterious, in a dramatic move that experts are calling unprecedented.
A US Treasury report released on July 18 shows that Russian holdings of Treasury securities declined by 84 per cent between March and May, down to just $14.9 billion from March holdings of $96.1 billion. So apparently Russia either knows of an impending crash in the U.S dollar or they tried to crash us, don’t know, but that’s the only thing I can think of when a country essentially sells all their bonds no? would you like me to try to make up some alternate explanations? I'm sure if I thought a bit I could come up with a few, not sure how good they'd be ofc. looking at that article itself; it seems to also offer some reasonable alternate explanations. did you fully read your own article? Yea I did, the the two I listed were the top ones I pulled from the article out of my own analysis. I mean I just posted it because this thread has seen a lack of articles in general to drive conversations rather than arguing about semantics or about each other’s political leanings.
ok; it just seems odd to say what you did (wherein you focused on just two possible explanations) without listing the articles other explanations, which to me also sounded like very plausible explanations.
to those who didn't read the article, some of the other explanations:
worries over asset seizure due to sanctions. US treasuries are simply far too easy for the US to seize.
change in directness of investments: cayman islands investments were up by 20B or so; it's possible the russian investments are still there, they're just less direct and are hidden through layers of shell companies or banking havens, or whatever.
|
On July 30 2018 00:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 23:42 Toadesstern wrote:On July 29 2018 23:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 23:03 Toadesstern wrote:On July 29 2018 22:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 14:03 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 08:26 A3th3r wrote:https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-warTrump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here. I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are. You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits. Do you pay sticker price at the car dealerships too? Or get your coolant changed out for anti-freeze? The EU has been quick to collect the record and by saying they are not fucking over their farmers to make Trump happy. NK is stillproduxing nuclear fuel and it will take years to verify the remains they returned to us. Last time NK gave us back remains, some of th where animal bones. But yes, a huge win if you lower your standard “held a press conference” The EU can say whatever it wants at this stage. The bottom line is that Trump got them to the bargaining table. As with North Korea, we will see what happens next. But Trump campaigned on renegotiating trade deals, and that is exactly what he is doing, despite massive protestations from his opponents that he won’t succeed. idk, in the EU it's hailed as a big win for Juncker as the EU only gave things they wanted to do/willing to do before tariffs even came into place... I'm not sure that's "making someone come to the table". Unless you're specifically talking about selling it as such, which would be another thing I guess. The major component of the pledge is renegotiating EU/US trade relations. This is going to happen, which the EU does not really want. But Trump is forcing them into it nonetheless. What the EU is getting out of this is delayed US action on EU exports. The real winner in this regard is Merkel, who knows that Germany will take a big hit if Trump puts additional tariffs on German cars that merely match EU tariffs on US autos. She can’t afford that politically right now. See, that's the kind of stuff that's either being dishonest or you really aren't aware (I think that's highly unlikely): The EU has 10% on all kinds of automobiles throughout the bench. The US has either 3% or 25%. You only mention the 3% (or to be precise "allude to") and talk about putting that to the same 10% the EU has while ignoring the 25% you guys already have. From the way it was reported over here at least it sounds like all 3 are dropped/reduced to put them on a more even level, which would make it a lot easier to export SUVs into the US for example. But you don't want to mention that for obvious reasons. You only talk about the EU 10% getting reduced while assuming that the 25% the US has is not part of it? And if you think that the EU (Germany in particular) would be against this you are absolutely wrong. There have been offers like that before the tariffs where in place, in particular from Germany because duh and later on as well. The idea that the EU is against reciprocal trade stems from the idea that only the EU would be giving something up in this case. Are you actually going to argue that the current auto tariff regime does not -- on the whole -- benefit the EU as it pertains to auto trade? Presuming that you're not (which you shouldn't), your post above looks quite frivolous.
yeah I am arguing that.
The EU has an advantage on car exports as it only has 3% vs 10% in the US. That leads to EU cars being exported into the US and almost no US cars being imported into the EU. Or rather that's the result of US manufacturers not seeing a reason to try and cater towards the EU market in the first place and basicly giving up on it. As can be seen by Japanese cars, Korean cars etc still being bought here.
On the other hand the US has the advantage when it comes to SUVs, trucks etc. with a 25% tariff on them there's no way a european SUV would ever be profitable in the US unless build in the US/Canada/Mexico, so we're basicly not exporting any of those and I don't think I have to tell you how important SUVs / pick-up trucks are for the US (and chinese for that matter) market. Maybe if you're living in a big city you're going to buy a european style small car because it's actually beneficial for it to be small but everyone else in the US is buying big cars/trucks/SUVs from what I've heard.
I would argue that it's a stupid decision by the US car industry/government to give up on everything but SUV's and niche things that are bought no matter the price.
But I don't think that the current situation helps the EU, we're getting a 1 for 1 trade. It might very well hurt the US though since even though you guys are getting the same 1 for 1 trade, we just happen to not like the style of cars you want us to buy because again, clearly japanese, korean etc cars are bought here nontheless.
I'd say that's an important distinction. If they go through an slash tariffs on both sides I I def see it helping on both sides, but I would never call it "all the EU got was a delay on the tariffs" the way you put it, because we basicly got a 25% reduction in tariffs out of it if it goes through.
|
United States43211 Posts
On July 30 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 23:21 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2018 22:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 14:03 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 08:26 A3th3r wrote:https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-warTrump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here. I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are. You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1023281103745032193Do you pay sticker price at the car dealerships too? Or get your coolant changed out for anti-freeze? The EU has been quick to collect the record and by saying they are not fucking over their farmers to make Trump happy. NK is stillproduxing nuclear fuel and it will take years to verify the remains they returned to us. Last time NK gave us back remains, some of th where animal bones. But yes, a huge win if you lower your standard “held a press conference” The EU can say whatever it wants at this stage. The bottom line is that Trump got them to the bargaining table. As with North Korea, we will see what happens next. But Trump campaigned on renegotiating trade deals, and that is exactly what he is doing, despite massive protestations from his opponents that he won’t succeed. Last night you were describing this as a deal, now it’s getting them to the bargaining table. Is there no longer a deal? As usual, you have completely missed the mark with your relentless strawmanning. Go take another look at the post. The term "deal" or any approximation thereof does not appear in what I wrote. And considering that The Weekly Standard article that was being discussed does not state that a trade deal was finalized -- only stating that there was agreement to renegotiate the existing deal on a certain set of parameters -- your misconstruction of the posting in this case is particularly egregious.
My bad, you were quoting a poster talking about the deal and saying it [the deal] was a huge victory for Trump. You also described it as the outcome, which is an odd word for you to have chosen to describe the preliminary stage.
On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits.
It seems pretty clear that last night you believed there to be a deal, and some kind of huge victory. You've walked back a very long way since then.
|
On July 30 2018 00:35 warding wrote:
Uhm... has everyone forgot about TTIP? The EU and the US have been at the bargaining table for a long time... Until Trump put it on hold. The claim that Trump got the EU to the bargaining table is just dumb.
Also, the EU is a group of 28 of countries bound together by... the idea of having no trade barriers among one another. President Trump got elected on a protectionist trade policy. Today isn't opposite day and facts matter.
“Most of the deal is stuff we were already on the verge of agreeing on in the T.T.I.P. negotiations, before that deal got deep-sixed after Trump’s election,” said Rufus Yerxa, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents exporters. “But at least the President is talking about more open trade instead of how great tariffs are.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/trump-trade-european-union.html
Tariff-free trade would have been part of the comprehensive TTIP agreement between the EU and the US, on hold since Trump took office. Negotiations on TTIP could be resumed. Let's call it "Trump-TIP" or "Tremendous Trump-TIP" if that serves the cause, Daniel Caspary, a member of the European Parliament and trade expert, suggested in June. Trump could probably sell that as his great success.
https://www.dw.com/en/tough-trade-talks-ahead-for-eus-jean-claude-juncker-in-washington/a-44796514
We didn't forget, both sides are aware what this discussion is about, but if it helps them pass it they're ok with Trump selling this to his xDaunts as an amazing deal of his own making.
|
On July 30 2018 00:53 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 00:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 23:42 Toadesstern wrote:On July 29 2018 23:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 23:03 Toadesstern wrote:On July 29 2018 22:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 14:03 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 08:26 A3th3r wrote:https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-warTrump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here. I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are. You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1023281103745032193Do you pay sticker price at the car dealerships too? Or get your coolant changed out for anti-freeze? The EU has been quick to collect the record and by saying they are not fucking over their farmers to make Trump happy. NK is stillproduxing nuclear fuel and it will take years to verify the remains they returned to us. Last time NK gave us back remains, some of th where animal bones. But yes, a huge win if you lower your standard “held a press conference” The EU can say whatever it wants at this stage. The bottom line is that Trump got them to the bargaining table. As with North Korea, we will see what happens next. But Trump campaigned on renegotiating trade deals, and that is exactly what he is doing, despite massive protestations from his opponents that he won’t succeed. idk, in the EU it's hailed as a big win for Juncker as the EU only gave things they wanted to do/willing to do before tariffs even came into place... I'm not sure that's "making someone come to the table". Unless you're specifically talking about selling it as such, which would be another thing I guess. The major component of the pledge is renegotiating EU/US trade relations. This is going to happen, which the EU does not really want. But Trump is forcing them into it nonetheless. What the EU is getting out of this is delayed US action on EU exports. The real winner in this regard is Merkel, who knows that Germany will take a big hit if Trump puts additional tariffs on German cars that merely match EU tariffs on US autos. She can’t afford that politically right now. See, that's the kind of stuff that's either being dishonest or you really aren't aware (I think that's highly unlikely): The EU has 10% on all kinds of automobiles throughout the bench. The US has either 3% or 25%. You only mention the 3% (or to be precise "allude to") and talk about putting that to the same 10% the EU has while ignoring the 25% you guys already have. From the way it was reported over here at least it sounds like all 3 are dropped/reduced to put them on a more even level, which would make it a lot easier to export SUVs into the US for example. But you don't want to mention that for obvious reasons. You only talk about the EU 10% getting reduced while assuming that the 25% the US has is not part of it? And if you think that the EU (Germany in particular) would be against this you are absolutely wrong. There have been offers like that before the tariffs where in place, in particular from Germany because duh and later on as well. The idea that the EU is against reciprocal trade stems from the idea that only the EU would be giving something up in this case. Are you actually going to argue that the current auto tariff regime does not -- on the whole -- benefit the EU as it pertains to auto trade? Presuming that you're not (which you shouldn't), your post above looks quite frivolous. yeah I am arguing that. The EU has an advantage on car exports as it only has 3% vs 10% in the US. That leads to EU cars being exported into the US and almost no US cars being imported into the EU. Or rather that's the result of US manufacturers not seeing a reason to try and cater towards the EU market in the first place and basicly giving up on it. As can be seen by Japanese cars, Korean cars etc still being bought here. On the other hand the US has the advantage when it comes to SUVs, trucks etc. with a 25% tariff on them there's no way a european SUV would ever be profitable in the US unless build in the US/Canada/Mexico, so we're basicly not exporting any of those and I don't think I have to tell you how important SUVs / pick-up trucks are for the US (and chinese for that matter) market. Maybe if you're living in a big city you're going to buy a european style small car because it's actually beneficial for it to be small but everyone else in the US is buying big cars/trucks/SUVs from what I've heard. I would argue that it's a stupid decision by the US car industry/government to give up on everything but SUV's and niche things that are bought no matter the price. But I don't think that the current situation helps the EU, we're getting a 1 for 1 trade. It might very well hurt the US though since even though you guys are getting the same 1 for 1 trade, we just happen to not like the style of cars you want us to buy because again, clearly japanese, korean etc cars are bought here nontheless. I'd say that's an important distinction. If they go through an slash tariffs on both sides I I def see it helping on both sides, but I would never call it "all the EU got was a delay on the tariffs" the way you put it, because we basicly got a 25% reduction in tariffs out of it if it goes through.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the 25% tariff only applies to light trucks, not passenger vehicles such as SUVs.
Edit: Well, it looks like heavier SUVs may be classified as light trucks, but the more standard and popular crossover types are not.
|
On July 30 2018 01:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 00:53 Toadesstern wrote:On July 30 2018 00:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 23:42 Toadesstern wrote:On July 29 2018 23:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 23:03 Toadesstern wrote:On July 29 2018 22:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 14:03 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2018 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 08:26 A3th3r wrote:https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/donald-trumps-meeting-with-jean-claude-juncker-was-a-victory-in-the-trade-warTrump continues to shock the world, as he seems to be all about these days. In any case, this is a good trade deal that is a mutually beneficial arrangement. The author of "the art of the deal" comes through with a winner of a deal here. I think that the EU purchasing more soybeans & American oil is a good thing. It sounds like they are working to protect copyright law worldwide as well, a measure that China is stridently against, being the copycats that they are. You know it’s a huge victory for Trump when The Weekly Standard has nice things to say about it. And it wasn’t exactly hard to see that this was the most likely outcome of Trump’s trade policy. The US has all of the leverage as it has the market that these countries depend upon and it is the country running the trade deficits. https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1023281103745032193Do you pay sticker price at the car dealerships too? Or get your coolant changed out for anti-freeze? The EU has been quick to collect the record and by saying they are not fucking over their farmers to make Trump happy. NK is stillproduxing nuclear fuel and it will take years to verify the remains they returned to us. Last time NK gave us back remains, some of th where animal bones. But yes, a huge win if you lower your standard “held a press conference” The EU can say whatever it wants at this stage. The bottom line is that Trump got them to the bargaining table. As with North Korea, we will see what happens next. But Trump campaigned on renegotiating trade deals, and that is exactly what he is doing, despite massive protestations from his opponents that he won’t succeed. idk, in the EU it's hailed as a big win for Juncker as the EU only gave things they wanted to do/willing to do before tariffs even came into place... I'm not sure that's "making someone come to the table". Unless you're specifically talking about selling it as such, which would be another thing I guess. The major component of the pledge is renegotiating EU/US trade relations. This is going to happen, which the EU does not really want. But Trump is forcing them into it nonetheless. What the EU is getting out of this is delayed US action on EU exports. The real winner in this regard is Merkel, who knows that Germany will take a big hit if Trump puts additional tariffs on German cars that merely match EU tariffs on US autos. She can’t afford that politically right now. See, that's the kind of stuff that's either being dishonest or you really aren't aware (I think that's highly unlikely): The EU has 10% on all kinds of automobiles throughout the bench. The US has either 3% or 25%. You only mention the 3% (or to be precise "allude to") and talk about putting that to the same 10% the EU has while ignoring the 25% you guys already have. From the way it was reported over here at least it sounds like all 3 are dropped/reduced to put them on a more even level, which would make it a lot easier to export SUVs into the US for example. But you don't want to mention that for obvious reasons. You only talk about the EU 10% getting reduced while assuming that the 25% the US has is not part of it? And if you think that the EU (Germany in particular) would be against this you are absolutely wrong. There have been offers like that before the tariffs where in place, in particular from Germany because duh and later on as well. The idea that the EU is against reciprocal trade stems from the idea that only the EU would be giving something up in this case. Are you actually going to argue that the current auto tariff regime does not -- on the whole -- benefit the EU as it pertains to auto trade? Presuming that you're not (which you shouldn't), your post above looks quite frivolous. yeah I am arguing that. The EU has an advantage on car exports as it only has 3% vs 10% in the US. That leads to EU cars being exported into the US and almost no US cars being imported into the EU. Or rather that's the result of US manufacturers not seeing a reason to try and cater towards the EU market in the first place and basicly giving up on it. As can be seen by Japanese cars, Korean cars etc still being bought here. On the other hand the US has the advantage when it comes to SUVs, trucks etc. with a 25% tariff on them there's no way a european SUV would ever be profitable in the US unless build in the US/Canada/Mexico, so we're basicly not exporting any of those and I don't think I have to tell you how important SUVs / pick-up trucks are for the US (and chinese for that matter) market. Maybe if you're living in a big city you're going to buy a european style small car because it's actually beneficial for it to be small but everyone else in the US is buying big cars/trucks/SUVs from what I've heard. I would argue that it's a stupid decision by the US car industry/government to give up on everything but SUV's and niche things that are bought no matter the price. But I don't think that the current situation helps the EU, we're getting a 1 for 1 trade. It might very well hurt the US though since even though you guys are getting the same 1 for 1 trade, we just happen to not like the style of cars you want us to buy because again, clearly japanese, korean etc cars are bought here nontheless. I'd say that's an important distinction. If they go through an slash tariffs on both sides I I def see it helping on both sides, but I would never call it "all the EU got was a delay on the tariffs" the way you put it, because we basicly got a 25% reduction in tariffs out of it if it goes through. Correct me if I am wrong, but the 25% tariff only applies to light trucks, not passenger vehicles such as SUVs.
mmh, from what I'm reading you're correct yeah, bit of a gray area, but that's still the most sold vehicle type in the US though, isn't it?
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/e6Ehfy4.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6Mnrvt6.gif)
again, rather than it being a policy issue, I would argue that it's an issue with US car manufacturers stubbornness to adapt their products outside of the US resulting in noone wanting them outside of the US because they're not catering towards our situation.
Noone's going to buy a Ford F-series here unless for some very specifc situation that either involves nostalgia or being a farmer and getting to use it both privately and for work.
|
It depends upon how they are defining “light trucks.” If it is including crossover SUVs, then yes, I can see “light trucks” being the most popular type of vehicle in the US. But I don’t think that such a definition of light truck matches up with what is actually subjected to the higher tariff.
|
if they're included or not, that's a massive advantage the US has over the EU and it makes exporting a good portion of the automobiles the US buys impossible to produce unless you produce them in NA or go through some other kind of trickery.
Pretty sure even you would agree that that 25% tariff not being in place is a punch in the face for Detroit or any other US manufacturer who live on this form of protectionism.
It's questionable wether non-US companies can crawl back in that market when US ones dominate the market to such a degree but better late than never.
|
United States43211 Posts
US also sets their own standards for everything which, while generally looser than EU standards, are incompatible. That means you can’t sell the same vehicle in each, you need to design a US edition. Oddly enough the US editions are generally manufactured in the US, which makes the whole trade war a little pointless.
|
pretty much any consumer vehicle that is not a sedan is a "light truck" for the purposes of these definitions. the only exceptions are some mini suv's like the crv which is built on the same platform as the civic/ accord, i believe.
|
|
|
Glad we have gone through the whole Trump victory walk back that happens every time he “makes a deal”. We should be doing this until shortly after the recession hits.
|
On July 30 2018 06:10 Plansix wrote:
Glad we have gone through the whole Trump victory walk back that happens every time he “makes a deal”. We should be doing this until shortly after the recession hits.
At which point Trump and his followers will shake their fists and go "see? America is getting screwed!", relying on the complete lack of critical thinking required to make that narrative jive.
|
|
|
On July 30 2018 00:43 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 00:35 warding wrote:
Uhm... has everyone forgot about TTIP? The EU and the US have been at the bargaining table for a long time... Until Trump put it on hold. The claim that Trump got the EU to the bargaining table is just dumb.
Also, the EU is a group of 28 of countries bound together by... the idea of having no trade barriers among one another. President Trump got elected on a protectionist trade policy. Today isn't opposite day and facts matter. Despite what was claimed by a poster earlier, populists were against things like the Investor-State Dispute Settlement tribunals of the TTP/TTIP and not "free trade". That was agreed left and right, the difference is that the far left wasn't protectionist. Certainly not MMT Greens.
Was nice taking a weekend off and see someone else have to battle the "nu uh your point is dumb" from people who understand it less.
Also useful history lesson for those who thought they got one from their school.
As a member of the far left I can confirm it's not free trade I'm against. Just further spreading the power dynamic that makes trade not "free" as kwark alluded to.
|
Mercedes and BMW raising the price on some of their made in US cars in china which happens to be the largest auto market. 40% import duty now on American made cars. Good excuse to shift some manufacturing to China which Daimler is considering. So much for America First.
German carmaker BMW said it will raise the prices of two U.S.-made crossover sport-utility vehicles in China to cope with the additional cost of tariffs on U.S. car imports into the world's biggest auto market.
In a move due to take effect on Monday, BMW said in a statement to Reuters over the weekend that it will increase maker-suggested retail prices of the popular, relatively high-margin X5 and X6 SUV models by 4 percent to 7 percent.
The rates of increase suggest that BMW is willing to absorb much of the higher costs stemming from bringing the SUVs to China from its factory in South Carolina, underscoring the fierce competition among luxury car brands in China.
BMW's move comes after China imposed new tariffs earlier this month on about $34 billion of U.S. imports, from soybeans and cars to lobsters, as part of a widening trade row. Beijing, which this year cut tariffs on all automobiles imported into China, slapped an additional 25 percent levy on U.S.-made cars as of July 6. As a result, China now levies a 40 percent import duty on all cars imported from the United States.
"BMW stands for free (trade) but can't stand still without taking actions to respond to the market changes," a BMW spokeswoman said in an email message to Reuters.
BMW imports X4, X5 and X6 crossover SUV models from the United States for sale in China where demand for SUVs has been booming. Last year, the German automaker shipped more than 100,000 vehicles from the United States to China.
The company made no reference to pricing of its X4 model.
BMW's decision to absorb much of the impact of the higher tariffs echoes an earlier move by U.S. carmaker Ford Motor Co, which said it would not increase its prices for now in an effort to sustain its business momentum.
China-based car dealers told Reuters that German rival Mercedes Benz, operated by Daimler AG, moderately raised the price in mid-July of its GLE, a sporty midsize SUV produced in the state of Alabama, in China. A Daimler spokeswoman referred Reuters to comments made by the company last week.
Daimler's chief executive Dieter Zetsche said last Thursday the car maker was looking at ways to mitigate the impact of the trade war. This would include a review of whether to shift some U.S. production to China. Daimler also said last week its 2018 pre-tax profits would fall from last year because the new Chinese import tariffs would hurt sales of Mercedes-Benz SUVs.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/29/bmw-to-hike-prices-on-x5-x6-suvs-in-china-to-cope-with-tariffs.html
|
On July 29 2018 22:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 22:00 JimmiC wrote:
Does anyone else think it is odd that the "right" hates free trade and the "left" is fighting for it. This is opposite world. This is a bit of a misnomer. It’s not that the right generally hates free trade so much as it sees the current regime of trade treaties as being unfair trade deals that soak America. What we have now is not “free trade.”
lol you think donny dipshit will be able to negotiate a good deal? That's rich. I will eat a flaming shoe full of dog shit if he gets something even 1/4 as good as what we had before him. Everyone knows he can't negotiate for shit. The EU leaders will call him handsome big handed and strong and he will sign the worst trade deals imaginable that fucks the US over and call it a win while shaking their hands with that stupid shit eating grin of his that he gets whenever he does something idiotic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
