Trump's proposed wine tariffs will hurt Americans, not the French

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

 

The longest post I have seen you put up, but it is still populist claptrap without any sound economic theory to support your arguments.

 

Do you think this is about wine? No it's about creating controversy to distract from the fact that Trump hasn't done anything for workers in this country.

Coal production? Down 45  % under Trump

Carrier factory? Moved to Mexico.

That Foxconn 13,000 jobs in Wisconsin? More like Fox-con.

Is unemployment down? Yes but who is getting ahead when wages are behind inflation?  3 million more uninsured under Trump? That's good declaring medical medical bankruptcy makes you smart!

Unemployment down.  Economic growth up.  ISIS defeated.  All things that Obama said would never happen in our lifetime.  Yet, it has.  Hate the man if you will, but give credit to the accomplishments.   Surely you can do that?

 

I thought coal was bad?  Wouldn't coal production going down be a good thing for us?

Edited January 14, 2020 by ALFKAD

[90DayFinancier 910]

27 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Unemployment down. 

 

Granted, and Obama also oversaw a dramatic drop. At least some of that was from a stimulus package.

 

 

27 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Economic growth up.

 

Yes, the US is  into multi year recovery and aside from stimulus from the tax bill, what did Trump do?

Tariffs and trade wars are a drag on the economy.

 

27 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

 

  ISIS defeated.  All things that Obama said would never happen in our lifetime.  Yet, it has.  Hate the man if you will, but give credit to the accomplishments.   Surely you can do that?

What accomplishments?

 

27 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

 

I thought coal was bad?   Wouldn't coal production going down be a good thing for us?

Yup coal needs to go, but we continue to see fluff about how those jobs need to come back and it is not time to be honest about retooling. Let's be fair, these people need Black Lung and Silicosis healthcare funding And a shot at new careers.

[laylalex 7,300]

2 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Yup coal needs to go, but we continue to see fluff about how those jobs need to come back and it is not time to be honest about retooling. Let's be fair, these people need Black Lung and Silicosis healthcare funding And a shot at new careers.

<insert comment about coding here>

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

So the US is in a "multi year recovery" but "tariffs and trade wars are a drag on the economy".. apparently the US is having a "recovery" and "drag" at the same time.  😂

 

Bottoms up!

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" F.S. Fitzgerald

 

 

 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,800]

5 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The big picture story would be that tariffs are generally passed on to the end consumer. 

Yes, I believe that is obvious.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

17 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The big picture story would be that tariffs are generally passed on to the end consumer. 

So are taxes, which all the Democrats are proposing rasing. Tarrifs unlike taxes give our producers a more level playing field which helps the US economy instead of those of foreign govts.

 

This isnt rocket science 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

So are taxes, which all the Democrats are proposing rasing. Tarrifs unlike taxes give our producers a more level playing field which helps the US economy instead of those of foreign govts.

 

This isnt rocket science 

 

   

 

   Foreign governments don't enter the equation. Foreign governments are not selling wine, foreign businesses do. I'm not a big wine buyer myself, but I think the traditional Republican mantra should apply here. The government does not need to be involved. I'm all for leveling the playing field. Start that off by making better wine in the US and then you can charge more for it.  

 

  This may not be rocket science, but some of you still aren't getting it. A tariff is a direct source of revenue for the government paid for by the consumer.  There are legitimate reasons for tariffs, but leveling the playing field between inferior products and quality products is not one of them.

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

[laylalex 7,300]

I was listening to KPCC this morning (local NPR station) and a local wine importer and supplier was interviewed briefly. He specializes in French wine, and he said the 100% tariff will kill his business -- people won't buy a completely legal product they enjoy because it's now double the price. On top of that, he said that this will affect local restaurants, local liquor stores, local bars, etc. who all make profits from French wine. If you have a French restaurant, people aren't coming to you to buy Australian Shiraz to go with their steak frites or boeuf bourguignon. Bottom line is (as others have said over and over) consumers pay, and France won't feel it very much.

 

There may be a legitimate beef with France but this just isn't good for American business. OMG I sound like a member of the chamber of commerce when I say that.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I was listening to KPCC this morning (local NPR station) and a local wine importer and supplier was interviewed briefly. He specializes in French wine, and he said the 100% tariff will kill his business -- people won't buy a completely legal product they enjoy because it's now double the price. On top of that, he said that this will affect local restaurants, local liquor stores, local bars, etc. who all make profits from French wine. If you have a French restaurant, people aren't coming to you to buy Australian Shiraz to go with their steak frites or boeuf bourguignon. Bottom line is (as others have said over and over) consumers pay, and France won't feel it very much.

 

There may be a legitimate beef with France but this just isn't good for American business. OMG I sound like a member of the chamber of commerce when I say that.  

 

   The US and Japan just wrapped up a trade deal that left automobile tariffs  up in the air. People may be able to get over wine, but see how they feel when they have to pay 25% more for their Toyota and Honda's.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Steeleballz

[Dashinka 24,800]

15 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I was listening to KPCC this morning (local NPR station) and a local wine importer and supplier was interviewed briefly. He specializes in French wine, and he said the 100% tariff will kill his business -- people won't buy a completely legal product they enjoy because it's now double the price. On top of that, he said that this will affect local restaurants, local liquor stores, local bars, etc. who all make profits from French wine. If you have a French restaurant, people aren't coming to you to buy Australian Shiraz to go with their steak frites or boeuf bourguignon. Bottom line is (as others have said over and over) consumers pay, and France won't feel it very much.

 

There may be a legitimate beef with France but this just isn't good for American business. OMG I sound like a member of the chamber of commerce when I say that.  

So you are saying restaurants will not be able to charge 200% for a bottle of wine now?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So you are saying restaurants will not be able to charge 200% for a bottle of wine now?

 

   They seem to be saying arbitrarily charging double for something will likely diminish sales of the product. It doesn't guarantee that people will switch to buying the inferior product.  Many probably will not. I would have a glass of water before I would drink cheap wine.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

41 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

Foreign governments don't enter the equation. Foreign governments are not selling wine, foreign businesses do. I'm not a big wine buyer myself, but I think the traditional Republican mantra should apply here. The government does not need to be involved. I'm all for leveling the playing field. Start that off by making better wine in the US and then you can charge more for it.  

 

  This may not be rocket science, but some of you still aren't getting it. A tariff is a direct source of revenue for the government paid for by the consumer.  There are legitimate reasons for tariffs, but leveling the playing field between inferior products and quality products is not one of them. 

Indeed, it should apply here, but little do you know, the "traditional Republican" that spawned from the northern/western Whigs/Free Soil, were in favor of high tariffs, and were for over a century before the supply-side Reaganette neocons that you conflate for "traditional Republicans" came along. The traditional Republicans were unequivocally for high tariffs. It was the southern Democrats who were for lower tariffs.

 

After their formation, Abraham Lincoln likened tariffs to a family having a meal, pointing out the necessity of saving domestic jobs. 

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:330.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

 

The Republican platform of 1860:

http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html

Quote

At the 1860 Republican National Convention, Abraham Lincoln became the Presidential nominee. The Republican platform specifically pledged not to extend slavery and called for enactment of free-homestead legislation, prompt establishment of a daily mail service, a transcontinental railroad and support of the protective tariff.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-republicans-have-a-long-history-of-protectionism-2018-06-14

Quote

From Hoover and Nixon to Bush and Trump, the GOP has loved tariffs

 

Quote

True, in recent decades Republican politicians have tended to embrace free trade more willingly than Democrats. But during most of the first century after its founding in 1854, the Republican Party was protectionist in both word and deed. Like their predecessors, the Whigs, Republicans favored high import tariffs in order to advance the economic interests of manufacturers in the Northeast who feared competition from Europe.

 

The Democrats, by contrast, represented agriculture-exporting states, and thus favored trade. As Douglas Irwin makes clear in his history of U.S. trade policy, “Clashing Over Commerce,” farmers recognized — even without training in trade theory or targeted retaliation by foreign trading partners — that import barriers were bad for them economically.

From the Civil War until the eve of World War I, Republicans largely dominated the U.S. government, so average tariffs were set as high as 50%. Some elections during this period were fought largely over the tariff issue. The “Great Tariff Debate” of 1888 ended in victory for the Republicans, who then enacted the McKinley Tariff of 1890.

 

 

Forget rocket science or economics, start with getting basic history right, first.

 

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   They seem to be saying arbitrarily charging double for something will likely diminish sales of the product. It doesn't guarantee that people will switch to buying the inferior product.  Many probably will not. I would have a glass of water before I would drink cheap wine.

The French wine market already deals with a 100-300% markup. This market is not known for its price sensitivity. 

 

Next, it isn't the US President's job to worry about the sales volume and revenue of foreign wine makers. 

 

President of the United States => worried about United States wine makers and wine production. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,800]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   They seem to be saying arbitrarily charging double for something will likely diminish sales of the product. It doesn't guarantee that people will switch to buying the inferior product.  Many probably will not. I would have a glass of water before I would drink cheap wine.

Kind of like arbitrarily raising the minimum wage?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Kind of like arbitrarily raising the minimum wage?

 

     Changing the subject?