Trump's new trade policy

[stpioc]

More and more Americans view trade as an “opportunity”
Nor are Americans rising up in their millions against trade with the rest of the world — another signature “populist” Trump issue. On the contrary, support for trade has never been higher. Since 1993, Gallup has asked the public whether foreign trade is more of an economic opportunity or economic threat. A stunning 72 percent now say it’s more of an opportunity. As the chart show, this is far, far higher than that sentiment has ever been before.

Despite Trump’s grandstanding on immigration and trade, he seems to be singularly ineffective in getting Americans to turn their backs on the rest of the world. Instead, we are seeing more openness than ever. Perhaps by putting things so extremely, Trump has simply reminded many Americans that engagement with the global economy is, on balance, a good thing and that trying to shut it down is a silly, pointless endeavor.

What right-wing populism? Polls reveal that it’s liberalism that’s surging. - Vox

[stpioc]

During his campaign, President Donald Trump focused on renegotiating NAFTA, labeling China a currency manipulator, and bringing back lost manufacturing jobs. Instead, Trump has backed away from some of his promises on China and NAFTA, and is taking on smaller efforts. If Trump moves ahead with protecting the domestic steel industry, it will be one of the few trade moves that would correspond with his campaign promises.

But on the whole, Trump’s trade policy is completely incoherent. The Commerce Department has been considering whether steel imports are an economic security and national security threat. On Monday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross confirmed that Trump would take “bold action” to address these supposed threats.

Trump’s trade rhetoric was key to his campaign. Now it’s totally incoherent.

[stpioc]

If true, this is alarming.. Starting trade wars because it excites his die-hard supporters?? WTF?

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a move that would most likely ignite a major international trade conflict with some of the biggest economies in the world.

According to Jonathan Swan and Mike Allen of the news website Axios, Trump and top administration officials discussed imposing tariffs on major exporters of steel and other goods during a meeting Thursday at the White House. The tax on imported goods could be about 20%, according to Axios, and may be expanded to goods like paper, semiconductors, aluminum, and large household appliances.

While the intent is to penalize China, a goal of Trump’s dating back to the campaign, officials informed Trump that the tariff would most likely affect other major allies of the US including Canada, Germany, Japan, Mexico, and the UK.

The plan is backed by what Axios described as the "America First" wing of the White House including chief strategist Steve Bannon, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, trade adviser Peter Navarro, and senior policy adviser Stephen Miller.

During the meeting, according to Axios, Trump was told by "over 75%" of the people in attendance that the tariffs were a bad idea but remained in support of the idea because it would excite his die-hard supporters..

Trump steel tariff, trade war with China, Germany, Canada - Business Insider

[stpioc]

Based on a lie..

Contrary to an assertion made by President Trump on August 14, 2017, that Democrats were responsible for “some of the worst trade deals in World History,” almost all US free trade agreements were advanced by Republican administrations.

Nearly All US Trade Deals Were Negotiated, Signed, and Implemented by Republicans | PIIE

[stpioc]

Not good, this..

President Donald Trump recently dismissed some of his senior staff as globalists and demanded that someone draw up a plan for tariffs that would affect China, Axios reported Sunday evening. Citing multiple sources with knowledge of the meeting — and noting that the White House had not disputed the accounts —the outlet reported that Trump had issued the demand during an Oval Office meeting with top advisors. "So, John, I want you to know, this is my view. I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me some tariffs," Axios quotes the president as saying to John Kelly, his chief of staff.

Trump reportedly demands China action: 'I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me some tariffs'

[stpioc]

Head over heels into a trade war with China? That's all we need..

U.S. President Donald Trump last month rejected a Chinese proposal to cut steel overcapacity, despite the endorsement of some of his top advisors, the Financial Times said, citing people familiar with the matter. Beijing proposed cutting steel overcapacity by 150 million tonnes by 2022 in a deal twice rejected by Trump, who instead urged advisors to find ways to impose tariffs on imports from China, the paper said, citing the sources.

His advisors supported it, but Trump reportedly declined Chinese proposal to cut steel overcapacity

Even Wilbur Ross was in favor of the Chinese proposal..

And here is China watcher Stephen Roach..

Seemingly at odds with the world, US President Donald Trump has once again raised the possibility of a trade conflict with China. On August 14, he instructed the US Trade Representative to commence investigating Chinese infringement of intellectual property rights. By framing this effort under Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974, the Trump administration could impose high and widespread tariffs on Chinese imports.

Caught up in the bluster of the US accusations being leveled at China, little attention is being paid to the potential consequences of Chinese retaliation. Three economic consequences stand out. 

First, imposing tariffs on imports of Chinese goods and services would be the functional equivalent of a tax hike on American consumers. Chinese producers’ unit labor costs are less than one fifth those of America’s other major foreign suppliers. By diverting US demand away from Chinese trade, the costs of imported goods would undoubtedly rise sharply. The possibility of higher import prices and potential spillover effects on underlying inflation would hit middle-class US workers, who have faced more than three decades of real wage stagnation, especially hard.

Second, trade actions against China could lead to higher US interest rates. Foreigners currently own about 30% of all US Treasury securities, with the latest official data putting Chinese ownership at $1.15 trillion in June 2017 – fully 19% of total foreign holdings and slightly higher than Japan’s $1.09 trillion. In the event of new US tariffs, it seems reasonable to expect China to respond by reducing such purchases, reinforcing a strategy of asset diversification away from US dollar-based assets that has been under way for the past three years. In an era of still-large US budget deficits – likely to go even higher in the aftermath of Trump administration tax cuts and spending initiatives – the lack of demand for Treasuries by the largest foreign owner could well put upward pressure on borrowing costs.

Third, with growth in US domestic demand still depressed, American companies need to rely more on external demand.

In the end, China’s economic leverage over America is largely the result of low US domestic saving. In the first quarter of 2017, the so-called net national saving rate – the combined depreciation-adjusted saving of businesses, households, and the government sector – stood at just 1.9% of national income, well below the longer-term average of 6.3% that prevailed over the final three decades of the twentieth century. Lacking in saving and wanting to consume and grow, the US must import surplus saving from abroad to close the gap, forcing it to run massive current-account and trade deficits with countries like China to attract the foreign capital.

America and China’s Codependency Trap by Stephen S. Roach - Project Syndicate

[Admin]

President Donald Trump’s strategy to use import tariffs to protect and boost U.S. manufacturers backfired and led to job losses and higher prices, according to a Federal Reserve study released this week. “We find that the 2018 tariffs are associated with relative reductions in manufacturing employment and relative increases in producer prices,” concluded Fed economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce, in an academic paper. While the tariffs did reduce competition for some industries in the domestic U.S. market, this was more than offset by the effects of rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs, the study found..

Fed study finds Trump tariffs backfired - MarketWatch