Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 150K
  • Politics 
Meanwhile if I was a UK citizen I'd be counting the days to the next election.

Q: [From the BBC] Is the UK better off under this deal than it was six months ago, before President Trump introduced his tariffs?

Starmer rejects the premise of the question.

The question you should be asking is, is it better than where we were yesterday?

And I think if you should come out when you finished asking me questions and talk to the workforce here, because what this does is to reduce to zero the tariffs on steel and aluminium. Look how important that is.

Reduces massively from 27.5% to 10% of tariffs on the cars that we export – so important to JLR, actually to the sector generally. But JLR in particular, who sell so many cars into the American market.

And of course, it also includes pharmaceuticals, some really important measures. Obviously, we don’t have tariffs yet [in pharmaceuticals], but we’ve got within the deal significantly preferential treatment whatever happens in the future. So this is hugely important for our pharmaceutical sector as well.

In addition to that, we said we had red lines on standards, particularly in agriculture. We’ve kept to those standards.
Click to expand...


Q: How do you know President Trump won’t just post something on Truth Social ripping this all up?

Starmer says there is a written text. He says he and Trump trust each other.

We respect each other, the president and I, and we trust each other, and have trusted each other through this process, each of us mandating our negotiating teams to get the best deal for our respective countries.
Click to expand...
 
altmin said:
Meanwhile if I was a UK citizen I'd be counting the days to the next election.

Q: [From the BBC] Is the UK better off under this deal than it was six months ago, before President Trump introduced his tariffs?

Starmer rejects the premise of the question.




Q: How do you know President Trump won’t just post something on Truth Social ripping this all up?

Starmer says there is a written text. He says he and Trump trust each other.
Click to expand...
He trusts Trump.
 
altmin said:
Meanwhile if I was a UK citizen I'd be counting the days to the next election.

Q: [From the BBC] Is the UK better off under this deal than it was six months ago, before President Trump introduced his tariffs?

Starmer rejects the premise of the question.




Q: How do you know President Trump won’t just post something on Truth Social ripping this all up?

Starmer says there is a written text. He says he and Trump trust each other.
Click to expand...

Rowan Atkinson GIF
 
nycfan said:


Reporter: “… now thousands of dock workers and truck drivers are worried about their jobs “

Trump [interrupting question] “that means we lose less money. When I see that, that means we lose less money. Look, China was making over a trillion, $1.1 Trillion in my opinion, you know you have different numbers from $500 billion to a trillion or a trillion-one, I think it was $1.1 trillion and frankly if we didn’t do business we would have been better off, OK, you understand that, so when you say it slowed down, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. But we’re going to make it so they can, I’d like to say they’ll do better actually in terms of the bottom line. Uh we’d like to see China opened up so we can compete in China …”
Click to expand...

Reporter: what about all the people who say your view of what trade deficits are and how they work is not only wrong, but just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever?
And by “all the people,” I mean literally every person in the planet other than you.
 

NFU says 2 agricultural sectors having to bear 'heavy burden' to allow removal of tariffs in other sectors​

The National Farmers Union has welcomed aspects of the US-UK trade deal, but expressed concerns in particular about the tariff on ethanol being lifted.

Tom Bradshaw, the NFU president, said:

For several years, we’ve campaigned with the UK’s agricultural attachés in Washington for market access for British beef, a product globally respected for its quality and strong environmental credentials. These efforts have contributed to enabling the UK government to secure ring-fenced access for British beef exports to the US.

However, the inclusion of a significant volume of bioethanol in the deal raises concerns for British arable farmers. We’ll be engaging closely with our members to help them understand and prepare for the potential impact.

Our biggest concern is that two agricultural sectors [beef and ethanol] have been singled out to shoulder the heavy burden of the removal of tariffs for other industries in the economy. While we understand this, we also know that today is the start, not the end, of a process and UK agriculture cannot continue to shoulder such imbalances in future negotiations.
Click to expand...
 
Commenting on the US-UK trade deal, the Liberal Democrats restated their demand for MPs to get a vote on it. (See 9.23am). Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, said:

When it comes to any trade deal – and especially one with someone as unreliable as Donald Trump – the devil will be in the detail. One thing is clear, Trump’s trade tariffs are still hitting key British industries, threatening the livelihoods of people across the UK.

The government must now publish the full details of this deal and give MPs a vote. It would show complete disrespect to the public if this deal was waved through without giving parliament a say.
Click to expand...
Under the arrangements that determine how parliament approves treaties, there is no guarantee that MPs get a vote on trade deals. In the US and the EU, Congress and the European Parliament do vote on trade deals.
 

'We've just been shafted' - Badenoch denounces US-UK trade deal​

Kemi Badenoch, who is a fan of social media, has been reading Truth Social, where Donald Trump has posted these messages about the US-UK trade deal.
Based on these figures, Badenoch said in a statement:

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses.

We cut our tariffs — America tripled theirs.

Keir Starmer called this ‘historic.’ It’s not historic, we’ve just been shafted!
Click to expand...
Clock Smile GIF by CBC
 
altmin said:
Meanwhile if I was a UK citizen I'd be counting the days to the next election.

Q: [From the BBC] Is the UK better off under this deal than it was six months ago, before President Trump introduced his tariffs?

Starmer rejects the premise of the question.




Q: How do you know President Trump won’t just post something on Truth Social ripping this all up?

Starmer says there is a written text. He says he and Trump trust each other.
Click to expand...
That's all lip service, no one trust Trump. Just look at all if the agreements he is currently disregarding. What's to stop him from changing this one, next week?
 
altmin said:

NFU says 2 agricultural sectors having to bear 'heavy burden' to allow removal of tariffs in other sectors​

The National Farmers Union has welcomed aspects of the US-UK trade deal, but expressed concerns in particular about the tariff on ethanol being lifted.

Tom Bradshaw, the NFU president, said:
Click to expand...
Could you help me decipher Bradshaw's statement? I feel as though I'm missing a few things.

1. First paragraph: the government got ring-fenced access to the US market for British beef. That means British beef will be treated preferentially to beef imported from elsewhere. Seems good for the beef industry.

2. Second paragraph: bioethanol is part of the deal. Not sure what that means -- maybe US bioethanol gets preferential treatment?

3. Then there's this, which makes no sense in light of 1 and 2.

"Our biggest concern is that two agricultural sectors [beef and ethanol] have been singled out to shoulder the heavy burden of the removal of tariffs for other industries in the economy."

Beef is getting boosted here! Right? And bioethanol getting shafted. So they aren't on the same side. How have they been singled out? And what heavy burden is that? The burden of the removal of tariffs for other industries? Whose tariffs? Removal of tariffs by the UK? But to "shoulder the burden of that" is negative, suggesting that the NFU wants tariffs. But so why would it be complaining that it bears the burden of removing tariffs, when it thinks removing tariffs is good?

I feel like there's a NOT logical operation in there that I'm not seeing.
 
nycfan said:


The consistent focus on dolls and sort of implied critique that female frippery causes trade deficits is getting pretty old …
Click to expand...

I didn't see the gender angle. I figured he defaulted to dolls because Ivanka was the only one he bought presents for.
 
superrific said:
I didn't see the gender angle. I figured he defaulted to dolls because Ivanka was the only one he bought presents for.
Click to expand...
At first, I assumed something similar but they keep pounding it … girls with dolls and pencils, tell her it’s for the good of the country, do you want to go to war with foreign guns so a girl can have 30 dolls …
 
nycfan said:
At first, I assumed something similar but they keep pounding it … girls with dolls and pencils, tell her it’s for the good of the country, do you want to go to war with foreign guns so a girl can have 30 dolls …
Click to expand...
Lie back and think of the empire . . .
 
How could we win anything by doing a deal with the U.K? Trade surplus, and I think their tariffs were only 1% before all this.

Maybe a smarty reporter should ask Trump how he will measure success on the deal with the U.K? Our surplus will double or something?

And if trade surpluses are going to be the measure, then maybe someone should suggest to Trump that he ban oil imports from Canada. He'd then have a huge surplus and they would no longer be ripping us off. Success.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Trade surplus, and I think their tariffs were only 1% before all this.
Click to expand...
I doubt that after Brexit. I actually don't know whether the UK decided to keep EU level tariffs, or raised them again because their trade agreements are all expired.

Talking about "tariff levels" is a bit silly and the media coverage has indulged it. When we say 1%, we mean on average because tariffs on goods are extremely inconsistent. That 1% can be subject to a lot of fudging. If you divide trade by tariff paid, you can get a tariff rate -- but that's not the tariff at the margin. It's not necessarily what any good is tariffed.
 
Calheel said:
I thought I sufficiently qualified my explanation, but perhaps not. I was limiting my point to a simple mathematical matter -- and not considering anything else -- the trade deficit is subtracted from GDP

Click to expand...
The only reason imports are subtracted from GDP is because those imports should show up as positive contributions for business investment (including inventory) and consumption.

It literally is subtracted because imports should not add to GDP so they have to subtract it out since it appears elsewhere - assuming the numbers for all are reliable.

So from a pure math perspective imports should have no impact.

Now you could argue that imports reduce consumption of American made products but that is a more nuanced second order argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top