How messed up are Trump Supporters?

[Amarok]

Canadian government subsidized Canadian paper manufacturers, giving them an unfair advantage relative to US paper manufacturers.

US imposes a tariff on Canadian paper to level the playing field.

Why is that deplorable?

Your country never gets to lecture us about  unfair advantages and you bastards keep tariffs too . And if Trump thinks were bending to his bullying he's mistaken .

---

Atheist Forums › Discussion › Politics

What part of that don't you understand?

We're
in
the
politics
section
of
course
we're
discussing
politics
you
fucking
troll.

There is a difference between talking about politics and political tribalism .

---

I understand and am OK with the pendulum nature of American politics. That seems to be a big difference between me and you guys.

Tariffs have fuck all to do with that .

[Angrboda]

[Amarok]

Alpha fails eternal state

And Trump's destiny

---

Yep, as they have for 40 years for the bottom half of earners.

If we limit immigration and encourage people to consider certain trades instead of pursuing expensive but useless college degrees, maybe that would change.

Yeah that the stupidest economic plan ever.That's literally something that someone who knows nothing about meta economics would say.

[Brian37]

The epitome of cognitive dissonance. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Amarok]

You're a troll, and we've all seen this shtick from you before. Bye-bye.

No he just spanks you every time and now you take your ball home

---

Yeah, when someone says "predictably," I take that as a prediction.

Pointing out a state of time is not a prediction as Khem pointed out

[Anomalocaris]

Even if the trade between the US and China completely shuts down, the impact on the Chinese economy will still be too little to cut significantly their long term growth prospects.  China is still expected to remain the primary source of the growth of world economy, contributing maybe 30-40% of the total world economic growth. Or maybe 2-3 times as much to world growth as either US or India.

The difference is the added demand from that growth will now be satisfied by japan, South Korea and Europe, rather than the US.

If the trade with China shuts down, that doesn’t mean america’s Overall trade imbalance will significantly improve.  Much of What China can sell to America at much lower prices than America can produce, others can also make much more cheaply than could the US.   And American demand for those would not reduce, so Aamerica’s Trade deficit with India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other countries somewhat behind China on the industrialization curve will now balloon to replace the trade deficit with China.

What is more, having been pissed off by the US, European countries, which are not strategic competition with China as the US is, will now likely relax the restrictions on sharing sensitive military technologies with China which the Europeans had wanted to do since 2005 in order for their native arm industries to profit from Chinese military buildup.   Previously European countries have kept those restrictions in place out of  solidarity with the US.  Now that solidarity is gone with the wind.

It’s not every day when a country can make not one, not two, but three large holes in its own foot with one shot.

[Angrboda]

Asked if Melania Trump’s parents obtained citizenship through family-based immigration, sometimes called “chain migration,” their lawyer said, “I suppose."

[Amarok]

Alpha fails eternal state

And Trump's destiny

---

Yep, as they have for 40 years for the bottom half of earners.

If we limit immigration and encourage people to consider certain trades instead of pursuing expensive but useless college degrees, maybe that would change.

Yeah that the worst economic plan ever.That's literally something that someone who knows nothing about meta economics would say.

---

Why didn't anyone complain about other countries' tariffs on US goods before Trump started his?

America has always had tariffs and subsidizes industries and thus it hypocritical for him to complain about tariffs and even more so to then put more up . 

Seems like Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Nope as no such syndrome exists

[Amarok]

One more observation isn't it funny how Alpha Fail  chides people for supposedly supporting an outdated industry when he supports a president who want to keep dying industry alive at the cost of other ones . Of course he's only doing it to defend his failure president.

Trump Defense Derangement Syndrome?

[Angrboda]

While the U.S. has longstanding arguments about the market distortion caused by  government’s  role  in  Canada’s  softwood  lumber  industry,  the  justifications  it now considers as valid for claims of Canadian subsidization of newsprint are much broader and more creative. They include government programs to help the industry manage pine beetle infestations, provincial school tax-credit programs, local  municipal  revitalization  programs  and  even  the  construction  and  repair  of  public  access roads and bridges. It is hard to see how many of the dozens of programs identified by  the  Americans  as  subsidies  fit  the  traditional  definition.  If  these  are  now  considered  subsidies, then suffice it to say that there is scarcely a Canadian export that could not be accused of enjoying subsidies and become subject to trade disputes and tariffs.

. . . . . . .

One of the key provisions in the WTO and in regional trade agreements (RTAs) like NAFTA are trade remedies or escape clauses that are designed and in place to address unfair trade practices among trading partners. There are several different types of these trade remedies, but countervailing duties (used when a trading partner’s government is accused of subsidizing exports) and anti-dumping duties (employed when firms are accused of charging lower prices in a foreign market than in the domestic market) have become the two most widely used trade-remedy tools. The use of these tools can be part of a healthy trading relationship but they can also be part of a more pernicious protectionist agenda. The United States has significantly increased its use of these measures and has also expanded the breadth of the types of protectionist trade actions it has used. According to the WTO, the use of these and other practices as a form of trade protection is on the rise worldwide, and the U.S. is leading the way. It is important to note that the WTO does enforce discipline on the use of these tools in the form of dispute-settlement procedures. Moreover, a key provision of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) and the subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the Chapter 19 dispute-settlement provision, which also imposes discipline on the use of trade-remedy tools and protects all three countries from protectionist policies enacted by any of the other NAFTA members. In the current climate, Chapter 19 protects Canada and Mexico from some of the more aggressive forms of U.S. protectionism and the dispute-settlement mechanism in the CUSFTA and NAFTA include a vital tool for managing trade disputes within the discipline of the agreements. Although Chapter 19 is a mechanism
used by all three NAFTA members, the removal of these dispute-settlement provisions from NAFTA (i.e., Chapter 19) is one of the key U.S. objectives in the current NAFTA negotiations and is part of the increasingly protectionist U.S. trade agenda. Removal of Chapter 19 is a key objective of the U.S. negotiators and is considered a deal breaker for Canada and Mexico.

. . . . . . .

It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine the appropriate treatment of these programs in the alleged subsidy case, but it does seem to be an extreme stretch to argue that most of these programs fit within the specificity considerations. The WTO agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures — known as the SCM Agreement — applies to subsidies that are specifically provided to an enterprise or industry and defines both the term “subsidy” and the concept of “specificity.” Only a measure that is a “specific subsidy” within the agreement’s meaning is subject to multilateral disciplines and can be subject to countervailing measures. The WTO’s definition of subsidy by a member country contains three basic elements: “(i) a financial contribution (ii) by a government or any public body within the territory of a member (iii) which confers a benefit.” The basic principle of specificity is that if a subsidy is widely available within an economy, such a distortion in the allocation of resources is presumed not to occur. Thus, only “specific” subsidies are subject to the SCM Agreement disciplines. There are four types of “specificity” within the meaning of the SCM Agreement:

1. Enterprise-specificity: A government targets a particular company or companies for subsidization;
2. Industry-specificity: A government targets a particular sector or sectors for subsidization.
3. Regional specificity: A government targets producers in specified parts of its territory for subsidization.
4. Prohibited subsidies: A government targets export goods or goods using domestic inputs for subsidization.

It is clear from the list of programs that Commerce alleges are subsidies to Canadian exports that almost none of them are specific in nature with respect to types 1 and 4 listed above. Some of the subsidies are directed at the industry (type 2) and some are regional in nature (type 3). The concern here is that if these broad labour-adjustment programs and programs directed at adjustment from a beetle infestation or directed at innovation are viewed as subsidies, then it would be difficult to find Canadian exports that are not considered to be subsidized. This is a concern, and Canada needs to work to challenge this use of CVDs.

https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/u...aulieu.pdf