FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > USA & EU agree terms
USA & EU agree terms
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *eroy1000 OP Man 40 weeks ago
milton keynes |
It nearly went to the wire but it appears that the USA and the EU have struck a deal concerning the threatened tariff increases. It was to be 30% but now agreed at 15%. It does not seem to have been warmly welcomed by the EU member states. The BBC article opening paragraphs:
Leaders from Europe's two largest economies have led a chorus of gloomy reactions to the trade deal struck between EU chief Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the agreement would "substantially damage" his nation's finances, while French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was tantamount to "submission
On the up side it provides some certainty for business but could they have achieved better? Should they have retaliated as they originally suggested? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"US trade tariffs on EU Goods are worth trillions to the US over the next few decades."
They won't last for a few decades. The tariffs will be dropped as soon as inflation gets too high. They certainly won't be kept by the next president. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The dollar has lost 10% of its value, add on 15% tariff,that's a huge increase on eu goods,for American consumers, I think defence and energy supply was a huge influence on getting a deal done here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"US trade tariffs on EU Goods are worth trillions to the US over the next few decades.
They won't last for a few decades. The tariffs will be dropped as soon as inflation gets too high. They certainly won't be kept by the next president."
I wouldn’t bet on it. There were tens of thousands of tariffs in place on US imports before Trump 2 so they aren’t exactly new. Anyone would think there were no tariffs on global trade pre Trump.
It’s also easy money for the government. Sure it has to be balanced against possible negative economic consequences but the US government is as desperate for cash as the UK government and the tariffs are increasing revenue collections. Possible that governments of any hue will get addicted to the cash.
According to data from the U.S. Treasury Department, tariff collections reached approximately $124.3 billion as of July 2025, representing a 130.8% increase compared to the same period in the previous year. June 2025 saw $27.2 billion in revenue, while May recorded $22.8 billion. Overall, customs levies have exceeded $100 billion for the year to date. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 40 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"EU clearly panicked/caved in after UK and Japan secured deals , US trade tariffs on EU Goods are worth trillions to the US over the next few decades.
"
Why didn't they just go for the same deal that the UK and Japan got with Trump, or was that not available? The EU is very large and in theory should carry more negotiating power so expected them to get a more favourable deal. It is however better than a full blown trade war with the US. It seems more energy in the form of gas will be supplied by the US as well which helps both sides at the cost to Russia |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 40 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"EU clearly panicked/caved in after UK and Japan secured deals , US trade tariffs on EU Goods are worth trillions to the US over the next few decades.
Why didn't they just go for the same deal that the UK and Japan got with Trump, or was that not available? The EU is very large and in theory should carry more negotiating power so expected them to get a more favourable deal. It is however better than a full blown trade war with the US. It seems more energy in the form of gas will be supplied by the US as well which helps both sides at the cost to Russia "
The EU negotiates as a bloc, but most of the surplus with the US comes from a few countries like Germany. That makes it harder to agree quickly, unlike the UK or Japan, and why you will hear Germany complaining. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think it’s significant that deals can be done so quickly when both sides want to. The ongoing negotiations that seem to last years sometimes are clearly just a way for the negotiators to keep themselves in a job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 40 weeks ago
Canterbury and France (26) |
"I think it’s significant that deals can be done so quickly when both sides want to. The ongoing negotiations that seem to last years sometimes are clearly just a way for the negotiators to keep themselves in a job. "
The terms agreed by Trump are simply framework agreements which then need to get fleshed out and eventually documented and signed.
I very much doubt if the deal with the EU will ever come into force as the EU will demand recompense for digital rights and Trump will again explode.
At least he is enjoying spending American tax payers money on his golfing trip in Scotland.
Hope he doesn't lose too many balls.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"I think it’s significant that deals can be done so quickly when both sides want to. The ongoing negotiations that seem to last years sometimes are clearly just a way for the negotiators to keep themselves in a job.
The terms agreed by Trump are simply framework agreements which then need to get fleshed out and eventually documented and signed.
I very much doubt if the deal with the EU will ever come into force as the EU will demand recompense for digital rights and Trump will again explode.
At least he is enjoying spending American tax payers money on his golfing trip in Scotland.
Hope he doesn't lose too many balls.. "
The EU has played a blinder in this negotiation.
They’ve deliberately allowed themselves to be totally humiliated on the world stage so they can lull Trump into a false sense of security in future negotiations.
Genius. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 40 weeks ago
Canterbury and France (26) |
"I think it’s significant that deals can be done so quickly when both sides want to. The ongoing negotiations that seem to last years sometimes are clearly just a way for the negotiators to keep themselves in a job.
The terms agreed by Trump are simply framework agreements which then need to get fleshed out and eventually documented and signed.
I very much doubt if the deal with the EU will ever come into force as the EU will demand recompense for digital rights and Trump will again explode.
At least he is enjoying spending American tax payers money on his golfing trip in Scotland.
Hope he doesn't lose too many balls..
The EU has played a blinder in this negotiation.
They’ve deliberately allowed themselves to be totally humiliated on the world stage so they can lull Trump into a false sense of security in future negotiations.
Genius."
You obviously have the inside track here and are fully aware of what is happening economically not just in the UK but globally.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 40 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"I think it’s significant that deals can be done so quickly when both sides want to. The ongoing negotiations that seem to last years sometimes are clearly just a way for the negotiators to keep themselves in a job.
The terms agreed by Trump are simply framework agreements which then need to get fleshed out and eventually documented and signed.
I very much doubt if the deal with the EU will ever come into force as the EU will demand recompense for digital rights and Trump will again explode.
At least he is enjoying spending American tax payers money on his golfing trip in Scotland.
Hope he doesn't lose too many balls..
The EU has played a blinder in this negotiation.
They’ve deliberately allowed themselves to be totally humiliated on the world stage so they can lull Trump into a false sense of security in future negotiations.
Genius."
Some major EU members seem to be feeling the same though they say submission rather than humiliation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 40 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"EU clearly panicked/caved in after UK and Japan secured deals , US trade tariffs on EU Goods are worth trillions to the US over the next few decades.
Why didn't they just go for the same deal that the UK and Japan got with Trump, or was that not available? The EU is very large and in theory should carry more negotiating power so expected them to get a more favourable deal. It is however better than a full blown trade war with the US. It seems more energy in the form of gas will be supplied by the US as well which helps both sides at the cost to Russia
The EU negotiates as a bloc, but most of the surplus with the US comes from a few countries like Germany. That makes it harder to agree quickly, unlike the UK or Japan, and why you will hear Germany complaining. "
I can appreciate negotiating for 27 countries, that have different angles on the subject, would take longer than a single country. However given the size of the EU and economic clout they have over others, I thought (wrongly) that they would get at least equal to what the UK and Japan managed. How long this lasts is anyone's guess. Trump may reduce the tariff rate during his presidency or it may be the next presidents decision to change or not. I could well be mistaken but I thought I read somewhere that Biden kept several tariffs that Trump introduced in his first term, so new president does not always mean changing tariffs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"UK US deal much better.
Another Brexit benefit.
 "
…..
Erm….. no so much… ish
The average UK product being exported to the US had a tariff of 2.8% on it…. Now it’s “supposedly” 10% and remember the US had a trade surplus on goods
The average EU product being exported to the US had a tariff of 5.4% on it…. Now it’s “supposedly” 15% and remember the EU had a trade surplus on goods
The reason I said “ish” is that you could look at it in 2 different ways
A) the flat rates… 10% vs 15%
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"UK US deal much better.
Another Brexit benefit.
…..
Erm….. no so much… ish
The average UK product being exported to the US had a tariff of 2.8% on it…. Now it’s “supposedly” 10% and remember the US had a trade surplus on goods
The average EU product being exported to the US had a tariff of 5.4% on it…. Now it’s “supposedly” 15% and remember the EU had a trade surplus on goods
The reason I said “ish” is that you could look at it in 2 different ways
A) the flat rates… 10% vs 15%
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate"
I’ve no doubt others would have been able to make more of the freedoms that Brexit has brought than the hapless Starmer and his gang of incompetents.
Let’s see what pro EU nutjob Guy Verhofstadt (former Belgium PM and EU MEP) thinks about the EU’s “deal”:
“The EU - US deal is scandalous …. a disaster … with not one concession from the American side … badly negotiated”.
EU economic performance has been dismal since 2008 compared to the US. The EU continues to be the global economic laggard. No surprise that the socialist technocrats’ desperation has made its way into their “deal” with the US.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK US deal much better.
Another Brexit benefit.
…..
Erm….. no so much… ish
The average UK product being exported to the US had a tariff of 2.8% on it…. Now it’s “supposedly” 10% and remember the US had a trade surplus on goods
The average EU product being exported to the US had a tariff of 5.4% on it…. Now it’s “supposedly” 15% and remember the EU had a trade surplus on goods
The reason I said “ish” is that you could look at it in 2 different ways
A) the flat rates… 10% vs 15%
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
I’ve no doubt others would have been able to make more of the freedoms that Brexit has brought than the hapless Starmer and his gang of incompetents.
Let’s see what pro EU nutjob Guy Verhofstadt (former Belgium PM and EU MEP) thinks about the EU’s “deal”:
“The EU - US deal is scandalous …. a disaster … with not one concession from the American side … badly negotiated”.
EU economic performance has been dismal since 2008 compared to the US. The EU continues to be the global economic laggard. No surprise that the socialist technocrats’ desperation has made its way into their “deal” with the US.
"
What do you expect when the EU is headed by the most useless politician since Kathy Ashton?
She was a complete disaster as German defence minister, the broomsticks episode being just one of her cock ups.
Merkel shipped her off to Brussels to get rid of her and the Germans don't want "Flinten Ushi" back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
Isn't the difference more important than the factor?"
Again… the answer is… ish
Were we not told one of the whole points of Brexit was to get the unicorn that was the comprehensive free trade agreement with the US?
That is now dead under Trump!
He complained about trade imbalances… so what did he do with every single country the US had a trade surplus over… he slapped an extra 10% on them
That’s not sound economic policy, that’s a cash grab
FTA aren’t FTA’s anymore if it’s really FTA plus 10%, and the whole point is taking down barriers to trade, so if you are already at a level of zero percentage, you don’t have anything to give away… so the option really is “sit there and take it” or “retaliate”
He doesn’t use tariffs as a business tool, he uses them to badger other countries political policy (which is sailing very closely to legality)
For example…. He complained about Europe and Japan not buying enough US built cars… bloody huge cars are really suitable for our roads, aren’t as fuel efficient ect ect
With Australia it’s beef … doesn’t take into consideration that they already produce more than enough for their own consumption which is why they export, also they can export but they have to provide proof it’s not mixed in with Canadian or Mexican breeding herds… they don’t like that rule!
We… the UK aren’t big enough to “retaliate” so we just sit there and take it and limit the damage
China and the EU are big enough to “retaliate” so let’s see if the EU in kind slap a 15% tariff on in response
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 40 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
Isn't the difference more important than the factor?
Again… the answer is… ish
Were we not told one of the whole points of Brexit was to get the unicorn that was the comprehensive free trade agreement with the US?
That is now dead under Trump!
He complained about trade imbalances… so what did he do with every single country the US had a trade surplus over… he slapped an extra 10% on them
That’s not sound economic policy, that’s a cash grab
FTA aren’t FTA’s anymore if it’s really FTA plus 10%, and the whole point is taking down barriers to trade, so if you are already at a level of zero percentage, you don’t have anything to give away… so the option really is “sit there and take it” or “retaliate”
He doesn’t use tariffs as a business tool, he uses them to badger other countries political policy (which is sailing very closely to legality)
For example…. He complained about Europe and Japan not buying enough US built cars… bloody huge cars are really suitable for our roads, aren’t as fuel efficient ect ect
With Australia it’s beef … doesn’t take into consideration that they already produce more than enough for their own consumption which is why they export, also they can export but they have to provide proof it’s not mixed in with Canadian or Mexican breeding herds… they don’t like that rule!
We… the UK aren’t big enough to “retaliate” so we just sit there and take it and limit the damage
China and the EU are big enough to “retaliate” so let’s see if the EU in kind slap a 15% tariff on in response
"
I was a bit surprised that the EU did not retaliate and as far as I understand now seem to have ruled that out. Before they were saying they would retaliate and were talking tough. It does not seem to have helped given the weaker UK and Japan got a better end rate. I assume if still in the EU and with a surplus of goods between US and UK in the favour of the US, the UK would be facing 15%. The main losers are likely the American public with higher prices. Adidas have announced price rises for American customers due to the extra costs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
Isn't the difference more important than the factor?
Again… the answer is… ish
Were we not told one of the whole points of Brexit was to get the unicorn that was the comprehensive free trade agreement with the US?
That is now dead under Trump!
He complained about trade imbalances… so what did he do with every single country the US had a trade surplus over… he slapped an extra 10% on them
That’s not sound economic policy, that’s a cash grab
FTA aren’t FTA’s anymore if it’s really FTA plus 10%, and the whole point is taking down barriers to trade, so if you are already at a level of zero percentage, you don’t have anything to give away… so the option really is “sit there and take it” or “retaliate”
He doesn’t use tariffs as a business tool, he uses them to badger other countries political policy (which is sailing very closely to legality)
For example…. He complained about Europe and Japan not buying enough US built cars… bloody huge cars are really suitable for our roads, aren’t as fuel efficient ect ect
With Australia it’s beef … doesn’t take into consideration that they already produce more than enough for their own consumption which is why they export, also they can export but they have to provide proof it’s not mixed in with Canadian or Mexican breeding herds… they don’t like that rule!
We… the UK aren’t big enough to “retaliate” so we just sit there and take it and limit the damage
China and the EU are big enough to “retaliate” so let’s see if the EU in kind slap a 15% tariff on in response
I was a bit surprised that the EU did not retaliate and as far as I understand now seem to have ruled that out. Before they were saying they would retaliate and were talking tough. It does not seem to have helped given the weaker UK and Japan got a better end rate. I assume if still in the EU and with a surplus of goods between US and UK in the favour of the US, the UK would be facing 15%. The main losers are likely the American public with higher prices. Adidas have announced price rises for American customers due to the extra costs"
Possibly. Though that’s what the market does, finds a way to provide cheaper goods that people will buy. The market isn’t static. There are always winners and losers from any change.
My Japanese car cost me more because of higher tariffs on Japanese imports. I still bought it. I don’t recall anyone complaining about the EU making non EU products more expensive to buy. It seems to be a complaint that has only surfaced since Trump became President.
I’m not sure there is any law that requires Americans to buy Adidas products. Personally I don’t think I’ve bought anything from Adidas for over forty years. My life didn’t end the day I decided to stop buying it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 40 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
Trump is doing what he believes is right for the US. He has delivered on many of his promises so far, pushing Europe to increase NATO spending, tackling the trade deficit, and boosting US borrowing capacity. A key benefit of this approach is that it lets him fund spending without raising taxes, at least for now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trump is doing what he believes is right for the US. He has delivered on many of his promises so far, pushing Europe to increase NATO spending, tackling the trade deficit, and boosting US borrowing capacity. A key benefit of this approach is that it lets him fund spending without raising taxes, at least for now."
The US balance of trade deficit is $71 billion which is about the same as it was during the Biden years. It looks like it's improved if you look at a short term view but that's because it got really bad when Trump came in (reaching $138 billion in March) but has recovered.
US borrowing capacity hasn't improved either with 10 year bond yields currently at 4.4%. This time last year they were 4.2%. Yes there was a spike to about 4.9% in October 2023 but if you go back before then they were around 3% or lower.
The dollar is losing value so I guess in future the figures might look much better though as US goods and services are becoming more affordable abroad and the tariffs will make imports more expensive.
But this could backfire with an increase in inflation, although the US economy is pretty resilient on inflation so maybe it will only cause problems in certain sectors.
Tariffs are a tax on imports. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"Trump is doing what he believes is right for the US.
"
Wait what, why would have after being president for four years and now another 6 months or so, suddenly pivot 180 and do what he believes is right for the US?
I find this an extremely bold claim.
"
He has delivered on many of his promises so far, pushing Europe to increase NATO spending, tackling the trade deficit, and boosting US borrowing capacity.
"
This completely contradicts your above claim.
"
A key benefit of this approach is that it lets him fund spending without raising taxes, at least for now.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
It’s pretty laughable that the Leftists in this thread are very concerned about Trump’s tariffs making consumer goods more expensive for US consumers and potentially having an inflationary impact on the US economy.
But apparently have zero concerns about UK government tariffs on goods imported to the UK making consumer goods more expensive for UK consumers and potentially having an inflationary impact on the UK economy.
But it’s good that Trump is turning UK Leftists into zero tariff free marketeers and low tax adherents. People infected with TDS will contort themselves to say anything as long as they can say they are “disagreeing with Trump”.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I looked at the White House "fact sheet" and had to chuckle.
"As part of President Trump’s strategy to establish balanced trade, the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15%, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. However, the sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper will remain unchanged—the EU will continue to pay 50% and the parties will discuss securing supply chains for these products. This new tariff regime will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue annually and help to close the longstanding trade imbalance between the United States and Europe by encouraging local sourcing, reshoring production, and ensuring that foreign producers contribute their fair share to the American economy."
Apparently the EU will be paying the tariffs, not US citizens and businesses.
I can see that some people might argue that taxes on imports (or consumption taxes like VAT) aren't paid for by the consumer but that's only true if the producer absorbs 100% of the tax. Some producers might absorb some of the tax but generally it's viewed as an increase in costs so the price increases and the consumer is hit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s pretty laughable that the Leftists in this thread are very concerned about Trump’s tariffs making consumer goods more expensive for US consumers and potentially having an inflationary impact on the US economy.
But apparently have zero concerns about UK government tariffs on goods imported to the UK making consumer goods more expensive for UK consumers and potentially having an inflationary impact on the UK economy.
But it’s good that Trump is turning UK Leftists into zero tariff free marketeers and low tax adherents. People infected with TDS will contort themselves to say anything as long as they can say they are “disagreeing with Trump”."
It is possible to be on the left and still be a capatilist and for free trade.
I think tariffs are a very blunt instrument and should be avoided as much as possible whoever is imposing them.
Tariffs, at least theoretically, lead to a decrease in efficiency as they cause artificial biases in trade. There's rarely any advantage in producing something at home that in net terms costs us more than buying it from abroad. There are exceptions in critical sectors of course. We might want to be able to produce certain critical things in house, so sometimes tariffs make sense, especially if they are time limited and their purpose is to allow for market adjustment.
Also if Trump derails the US economy it will have knock on effects for the rest of the world. The devaluation of the dollar is already affecting me. As is reputational damage to the US because I sell internationally through a US outlet and some people outside the US have been boycotting the US and my sales dropped significantly the moment he started talking BS about taking over Canada and Greenland. Fortunately things are recovering a bit now as such sentiments wear off over time. But having a maniac in the WH isn't good for anybody. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 40 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"I looked at the White House "fact sheet" and had to chuckle.
As part of President Trump’s strategy to establish balanced trade, the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15%, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors. However, the sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper will remain unchanged—the EU will continue to pay 50% and the parties will discuss securing supply chains for these products. This new tariff regime will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue annually and help to close the longstanding trade imbalance between the United States and Europe by encouraging local sourcing, reshoring production, and ensuring that foreign producers contribute their fair share to the American economy.
Apparently the EU will be paying the tariffs, not US citizens and businesses.
I can see that some people might argue that taxes on imports (or consumption taxes like VAT) aren't paid for by the consumer but that's only true if the producer absorbs 100% of the tax. Some producers might absorb some of the tax but generally it's viewed as an increase in costs so the price increases and the consumer is hit.
"
Indeed and Adidas have announced price rises for that reason. Americans will end up paying more for the same products. If they decide to switch to products either from countries with lower tariffs or American products then it could impact the amount of sales made by European companies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
Isn't the difference more important than the factor?
Again… the answer is… ish
Were we not told one of the whole points of Brexit was to get the unicorn that was the comprehensive free trade agreement with the US?
That is now dead under Trump!
He complained about trade imbalances… so what did he do with every single country the US had a trade surplus over… he slapped an extra 10% on them
That’s not sound economic policy, that’s a cash grab
FTA aren’t FTA’s anymore if it’s really FTA plus 10%, and the whole point is taking down barriers to trade, so if you are already at a level of zero percentage, you don’t have anything to give away… so the option really is “sit there and take it” or “retaliate”
He doesn’t use tariffs as a business tool, he uses them to badger other countries political policy (which is sailing very closely to legality)
For example…. He complained about Europe and Japan not buying enough US built cars… bloody huge cars are really suitable for our roads, aren’t as fuel efficient ect ect
With Australia it’s beef … doesn’t take into consideration that they already produce more than enough for their own consumption which is why they export, also they can export but they have to provide proof it’s not mixed in with Canadian or Mexican breeding herds… they don’t like that rule!
We… the UK aren’t big enough to “retaliate” so we just sit there and take it and limit the damage
China and the EU are big enough to “retaliate” so let’s see if the EU in kind slap a 15% tariff on in response
I was a bit surprised that the EU did not retaliate and as far as I understand now seem to have ruled that out. Before they were saying they would retaliate and were talking tough. It does not seem to have helped given the weaker UK and Japan got a better end rate. I assume if still in the EU and with a surplus of goods between US and UK in the favour of the US, the UK would be facing 15%. The main losers are likely the American public with higher prices. Adidas have announced price rises for American customers due to the extra costs
Possibly. Though that’s what the market does, finds a way to provide cheaper goods that people will buy. The market isn’t static. There are always winners and losers from any change.
My Japanese car cost me more because of higher tariffs on Japanese imports. I still bought it. I don’t recall anyone complaining about the EU making non EU products more expensive to buy. It seems to be a complaint that has only surfaced since Trump became President.
I’m not sure there is any law that requires Americans to buy Adidas products. Personally I don’t think I’ve bought anything from Adidas for over forty years. My life didn’t end the day I decided to stop buying it."
But the whole point is that clothes, for example, like school wear or toys, are so cheap that they are not made in the us, or would be so expensive if they were made in the United States it would not be worth it…
Like the Apple iPhone argument that was made, are you looking at the chips for the phones being made in the US, which is probably doable if you bring that back… build factory.. long term
Or.. are you looking at the manual stuff like fixing in the screws! Which is never going to be worth it!
Then you are looking at things that are not produced in the states… let’s take coffee, last I checked the us couldn’t grow pineapples or coconuts,
You talk about winners and losers… if the congressional budget office says your tariffs are likely to cost the average us consumer better 1200 and 2000 dollars a year extra… it ain’t them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
So basically Trump has sent out general letters to 60 countries today
They generally fall into 2 separate groups
Those countries the US has a trade surplus with got hit with a 10% tariff on goods
Those countries the US has a trade deficit with got hit with a 15% tariff on goods
Now we know this… the “deal” the UK got…. Not really that special! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
Isn't the difference more important than the factor?
Again… the answer is… ish
Were we not told one of the whole points of Brexit was to get the unicorn that was the comprehensive free trade agreement with the US?
That is now dead under Trump!
He complained about trade imbalances… so what did he do with every single country the US had a trade surplus over… he slapped an extra 10% on them
That’s not sound economic policy, that’s a cash grab
FTA aren’t FTA’s anymore if it’s really FTA plus 10%, and the whole point is taking down barriers to trade, so if you are already at a level of zero percentage, you don’t have anything to give away… so the option really is “sit there and take it” or “retaliate”
He doesn’t use tariffs as a business tool, he uses them to badger other countries political policy (which is sailing very closely to legality)
For example…. He complained about Europe and Japan not buying enough US built cars… bloody huge cars are really suitable for our roads, aren’t as fuel efficient ect ect
With Australia it’s beef … doesn’t take into consideration that they already produce more than enough for their own consumption which is why they export, also they can export but they have to provide proof it’s not mixed in with Canadian or Mexican breeding herds… they don’t like that rule!
We… the UK aren’t big enough to “retaliate” so we just sit there and take it and limit the damage
China and the EU are big enough to “retaliate” so let’s see if the EU in kind slap a 15% tariff on in response
I was a bit surprised that the EU did not retaliate and as far as I understand now seem to have ruled that out. Before they were saying they would retaliate and were talking tough. It does not seem to have helped given the weaker UK and Japan got a better end rate. I assume if still in the EU and with a surplus of goods between US and UK in the favour of the US, the UK would be facing 15%. The main losers are likely the American public with higher prices. Adidas have announced price rises for American customers due to the extra costs
Possibly. Though that’s what the market does, finds a way to provide cheaper goods that people will buy. The market isn’t static. There are always winners and losers from any change.
My Japanese car cost me more because of higher tariffs on Japanese imports. I still bought it. I don’t recall anyone complaining about the EU making non EU products more expensive to buy. It seems to be a complaint that has only surfaced since Trump became President.
I’m not sure there is any law that requires Americans to buy Adidas products. Personally I don’t think I’ve bought anything from Adidas for over forty years. My life didn’t end the day I decided to stop buying it.
But the whole point is that clothes, for example, like school wear or toys, are so cheap that they are not made in the us, or would be so expensive if they were made in the United States it would not be worth it…
Like the Apple iPhone argument that was made, are you looking at the chips for the phones being made in the US, which is probably doable if you bring that back… build factory.. long term
Or.. are you looking at the manual stuff like fixing in the screws! Which is never going to be worth it!
Then you are looking at things that are not produced in the states… let’s take coffee, last I checked the us couldn’t grow pineapples or coconuts,
You talk about winners and losers… if the congressional budget office says your tariffs are likely to cost the average us consumer better 1200 and 2000 dollars a year extra… it ain’t them"
You seem very concerned about tariffs into the US, where you don’t live.
The UK and EU impose thousands of tariffs on imported goods. What’s your view on those? Are you against them?
Or are you only against tariffs when Trump imposes them? Is it pure TDS? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 40 weeks ago
Canterbury and France (26) |
"
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
Isn't the difference more important than the factor?
Again… the answer is… ish
Were we not told one of the whole points of Brexit was to get the unicorn that was the comprehensive free trade agreement with the US?
That is now dead under Trump!
He complained about trade imbalances… so what did he do with every single country the US had a trade surplus over… he slapped an extra 10% on them
That’s not sound economic policy, that’s a cash grab
FTA aren’t FTA’s anymore if it’s really FTA plus 10%, and the whole point is taking down barriers to trade, so if you are already at a level of zero percentage, you don’t have anything to give away… so the option really is “sit there and take it” or “retaliate”
He doesn’t use tariffs as a business tool, he uses them to badger other countries political policy (which is sailing very closely to legality)
For example…. He complained about Europe and Japan not buying enough US built cars… bloody huge cars are really suitable for our roads, aren’t as fuel efficient ect ect
With Australia it’s beef … doesn’t take into consideration that they already produce more than enough for their own consumption which is why they export, also they can export but they have to provide proof it’s not mixed in with Canadian or Mexican breeding herds… they don’t like that rule!
We… the UK aren’t big enough to “retaliate” so we just sit there and take it and limit the damage
China and the EU are big enough to “retaliate” so let’s see if the EU in kind slap a 15% tariff on in response
I was a bit surprised that the EU did not retaliate and as far as I understand now seem to have ruled that out. Before they were saying they would retaliate and were talking tough. It does not seem to have helped given the weaker UK and Japan got a better end rate. I assume if still in the EU and with a surplus of goods between US and UK in the favour of the US, the UK would be facing 15%. The main losers are likely the American public with higher prices. Adidas have announced price rises for American customers due to the extra costs
Possibly. Though that’s what the market does, finds a way to provide cheaper goods that people will buy. The market isn’t static. There are always winners and losers from any change.
My Japanese car cost me more because of higher tariffs on Japanese imports. I still bought it. I don’t recall anyone complaining about the EU making non EU products more expensive to buy. It seems to be a complaint that has only surfaced since Trump became President.
I’m not sure there is any law that requires Americans to buy Adidas products. Personally I don’t think I’ve bought anything from Adidas for over forty years. My life didn’t end the day I decided to stop buying it.
But the whole point is that clothes, for example, like school wear or toys, are so cheap that they are not made in the us, or would be so expensive if they were made in the United States it would not be worth it…
Like the Apple iPhone argument that was made, are you looking at the chips for the phones being made in the US, which is probably doable if you bring that back… build factory.. long term
Or.. are you looking at the manual stuff like fixing in the screws! Which is never going to be worth it!
Then you are looking at things that are not produced in the states… let’s take coffee, last I checked the us couldn’t grow pineapples or coconuts,
You talk about winners and losers… if the congressional budget office says your tariffs are likely to cost the average us consumer better 1200 and 2000 dollars a year extra… it ain’t them
You seem very concerned about tariffs into the US, where you don’t live.
The UK and EU impose thousands of tariffs on imported goods. What’s your view on those? Are you against them?
Or are you only against tariffs when Trump imposes them? Is it pure TDS?"
You also seem very concerned about all things in the EU where you don't live! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
"
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
Isn't the difference more important than the factor?
Again… the answer is… ish
Were we not told one of the whole points of Brexit was to get the unicorn that was the comprehensive free trade agreement with the US?
That is now dead under Trump!
He complained about trade imbalances… so what did he do with every single country the US had a trade surplus over… he slapped an extra 10% on them
That’s not sound economic policy, that’s a cash grab
FTA aren’t FTA’s anymore if it’s really FTA plus 10%, and the whole point is taking down barriers to trade, so if you are already at a level of zero percentage, you don’t have anything to give away… so the option really is “sit there and take it” or “retaliate”
He doesn’t use tariffs as a business tool, he uses them to badger other countries political policy (which is sailing very closely to legality)
For example…. He complained about Europe and Japan not buying enough US built cars… bloody huge cars are really suitable for our roads, aren’t as fuel efficient ect ect
With Australia it’s beef … doesn’t take into consideration that they already produce more than enough for their own consumption which is why they export, also they can export but they have to provide proof it’s not mixed in with Canadian or Mexican breeding herds… they don’t like that rule!
We… the UK aren’t big enough to “retaliate” so we just sit there and take it and limit the damage
China and the EU are big enough to “retaliate” so let’s see if the EU in kind slap a 15% tariff on in response
I was a bit surprised that the EU did not retaliate and as far as I understand now seem to have ruled that out. Before they were saying they would retaliate and were talking tough. It does not seem to have helped given the weaker UK and Japan got a better end rate. I assume if still in the EU and with a surplus of goods between US and UK in the favour of the US, the UK would be facing 15%. The main losers are likely the American public with higher prices. Adidas have announced price rises for American customers due to the extra costs
Possibly. Though that’s what the market does, finds a way to provide cheaper goods that people will buy. The market isn’t static. There are always winners and losers from any change.
My Japanese car cost me more because of higher tariffs on Japanese imports. I still bought it. I don’t recall anyone complaining about the EU making non EU products more expensive to buy. It seems to be a complaint that has only surfaced since Trump became President.
I’m not sure there is any law that requires Americans to buy Adidas products. Personally I don’t think I’ve bought anything from Adidas for over forty years. My life didn’t end the day I decided to stop buying it.
But the whole point is that clothes, for example, like school wear or toys, are so cheap that they are not made in the us, or would be so expensive if they were made in the United States it would not be worth it…
Like the Apple iPhone argument that was made, are you looking at the chips for the phones being made in the US, which is probably doable if you bring that back… build factory.. long term
Or.. are you looking at the manual stuff like fixing in the screws! Which is never going to be worth it!
Then you are looking at things that are not produced in the states… let’s take coffee, last I checked the us couldn’t grow pineapples or coconuts,
You talk about winners and losers… if the congressional budget office says your tariffs are likely to cost the average us consumer better 1200 and 2000 dollars a year extra… it ain’t them
You seem very concerned about tariffs into the US, where you don’t live.
The UK and EU impose thousands of tariffs on imported goods. What’s your view on those? Are you against them?
Or are you only against tariffs when Trump imposes them? Is it pure TDS?
You also seem very concerned about all things in the EU where you don't live!"
Because many UK tariffs have just been grandfathered along from the EU tariffs that the UK had to apply when it was a member. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
B) the ratio.. 4 times the old rate vs 3 times the old rate
Isn't the difference more important than the factor?
Again… the answer is… ish
Were we not told one of the whole points of Brexit was to get the unicorn that was the comprehensive free trade agreement with the US?
That is now dead under Trump!
He complained about trade imbalances… so what did he do with every single country the US had a trade surplus over… he slapped an extra 10% on them
That’s not sound economic policy, that’s a cash grab
FTA aren’t FTA’s anymore if it’s really FTA plus 10%, and the whole point is taking down barriers to trade, so if you are already at a level of zero percentage, you don’t have anything to give away… so the option really is “sit there and take it” or “retaliate”
He doesn’t use tariffs as a business tool, he uses them to badger other countries political policy (which is sailing very closely to legality)
For example…. He complained about Europe and Japan not buying enough US built cars… bloody huge cars are really suitable for our roads, aren’t as fuel efficient ect ect
With Australia it’s beef … doesn’t take into consideration that they already produce more than enough for their own consumption which is why they export, also they can export but they have to provide proof it’s not mixed in with Canadian or Mexican breeding herds… they don’t like that rule!
We… the UK aren’t big enough to “retaliate” so we just sit there and take it and limit the damage
China and the EU are big enough to “retaliate” so let’s see if the EU in kind slap a 15% tariff on in response
I was a bit surprised that the EU did not retaliate and as far as I understand now seem to have ruled that out. Before they were saying they would retaliate and were talking tough. It does not seem to have helped given the weaker UK and Japan got a better end rate. I assume if still in the EU and with a surplus of goods between US and UK in the favour of the US, the UK would be facing 15%. The main losers are likely the American public with higher prices. Adidas have announced price rises for American customers due to the extra costs
Possibly. Though that’s what the market does, finds a way to provide cheaper goods that people will buy. The market isn’t static. There are always winners and losers from any change.
My Japanese car cost me more because of higher tariffs on Japanese imports. I still bought it. I don’t recall anyone complaining about the EU making non EU products more expensive to buy. It seems to be a complaint that has only surfaced since Trump became President.
I’m not sure there is any law that requires Americans to buy Adidas products. Personally I don’t think I’ve bought anything from Adidas for over forty years. My life didn’t end the day I decided to stop buying it.
But the whole point is that clothes, for example, like school wear or toys, are so cheap that they are not made in the us, or would be so expensive if they were made in the United States it would not be worth it…
Like the Apple iPhone argument that was made, are you looking at the chips for the phones being made in the US, which is probably doable if you bring that back… build factory.. long term
Or.. are you looking at the manual stuff like fixing in the screws! Which is never going to be worth it!
Then you are looking at things that are not produced in the states… let’s take coffee, last I checked the us couldn’t grow pineapples or coconuts,
You talk about winners and losers… if the congressional budget office says your tariffs are likely to cost the average us consumer better 1200 and 2000 dollars a year extra… it ain’t them
You seem very concerned about tariffs into the US, where you don’t live.
The UK and EU impose thousands of tariffs on imported goods. What’s your view on those? Are you against them?
Or are you only against tariffs when Trump imposes them? Is it pure TDS?
You also seem very concerned about all things in the EU where you don't live!
Because many UK tariffs have just been grandfathered along from the EU tariffs that the UK had to apply when it was a member."
The who can comment police seem to be more and more active on here.
You don't live in the EU so not allowed to say anything about it.
I live in Spain and Germany so not allowed to comment about the UK.
The very same people though are quick to comment about the US where *THEY* don't live. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 40 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"So basically Trump has sent out general letters to 60 countries today
They generally fall into 2 separate groups
Those countries the US has a trade surplus with got hit with a 10% tariff on goods
Those countries the US has a trade deficit with got hit with a 15% tariff on goods
Now we know this… the “deal” the UK got…. Not really that special! "
Nobody has got a good deal and nobody has claimed a good deal - everyone loses from their original position. BBC reporting, Canada 25%, Thailand 19%, Brazil 50% with exceptions on certain products, Switzerland 39%, India 25%, Laos 40%, Canada 35% though many goods exempt under a previous agreement. If all other countries got 10 & 15 % depending on trade surplus or deficit then they need not have bothered negotiating in the first place. UK in the 10% trade surplus group could have had been in the 15% group if things had been different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"So basically Trump has sent out general letters to 60 countries today
They generally fall into 2 separate groups
Those countries the US has a trade surplus with got hit with a 10% tariff on goods
Those countries the US has a trade deficit with got hit with a 15% tariff on goods
Now we know this… the “deal” the UK got…. Not really that special!
Nobody has got a good deal and nobody has claimed a good deal - everyone loses from their original position. BBC reporting, Canada 25%, Thailand 19%, Brazil 50% with exceptions on certain products, Switzerland 39%, India 25%, Laos 40%, Canada 35% though many goods exempt under a previous agreement. If all other countries got 10 & 15 % depending on trade surplus or deficit then they need not have bothered negotiating in the first place. UK in the 10% trade surplus group could have had been in the 15% group if things had been different."
Well the us has a trade surplus over the uk in the production of actual goods… so the 10% rate probably would have been applied
It’s interesting that you mention Switzerland, Canada and Brazil… because their tariffs rates have nothing to do with trade…. And probably will likely be found to be an illegal use of his IEEPA powers
Switzerland is to do with specific banking rules the us doesnt like
Brazil is to do with trump trying to keep his fellow right wing ex leader out of jail on coup charges
And the Canada latest excuse is that the us doesn’t like the position that Canada now is taking with regards to recognition of Palestine statehood
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
You seem very concerned about tariffs into the US, where you don’t live.
The UK and EU impose thousands of tariffs on imported goods. What’s your view on those? Are you against them?
Or are you only against tariffs when Trump imposes them? Is it pure TDS?"
I’ll show you some grace…. I’ll answer the questions and ignore the digs…
Tarriffs do have their place, but they are normally specifically targeted… I suggest if only for 5 minutes, go and have a look at one of the countless volumes of the WTO bible… interesting reading
So…. The accusation of TDS… well, lets have a look
Under the IEEPA (international economic emergency powers act) it gives him temporary powers in the case of a national emergency for a period of no longer than 150 days in which case you have to go to congress
It’s being argued in federal court at the moment that he is stretching the terms of his power of what is a national emergency (3 examples I gave to Leroy above…plus the general trade deficit excuse, where if the us has had a trade deficit for the last 60 years and people have been managing before (including thru his first term) then why is it an emergency now? What changed? Can you even use the trade deficit excuse if you have a trade surplus?
If he wanted to make them all permanent he could always ask congress to do it… after all the republicans are in charge of both houses of congress
But…. Buck… I am now going to surprise you… I will give you and an example of where he does have the power… and it kinda relates to something that happened here
Steel……. Notably high grade steel
Now remember when labour bailed out British steel and renationalised it citing national security
Well the us are basically doing the same thing with steel tariffs….. perfectly legal, been done in the past, have zero issue with them applying it as a last measure of resort
The reason why I say last measure of resort, is because the last time they did it, it came with an interesting secondary consequence
Story time!!!!!!
So lets go back to the 2016 election… trump vs Clinton, as one of his election pledges trump said he would put on a steel tariff for national security and to save steel working jobs
And so in 2017 he did…placed a tariff on steel imports… helped the high grade steel production industry … priced the foreign competition out of the marked, saved American jobs!
At the lower grade steel production end of the market… it also drove foreign competitors out, but the difference was so vast, it mean home producers could pocket the difference, still be cheaper
So lower grade steel prices domestically went up… so where jobs were saved in steel making, more jobs were loss in for example building and construction
It ended up being a net negative, which is why Biden removed most of them
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You seem very concerned about tariffs into the US, where you don’t live.
The UK and EU impose thousands of tariffs on imported goods. What’s your view on those? Are you against them?
Or are you only against tariffs when Trump imposes them? Is it pure TDS?
I’ll show you some grace…. I’ll answer the questions and ignore the digs…
Tarriffs do have their place, but they are normally specifically targeted… I suggest if only for 5 minutes, go and have a look at one of the countless volumes of the WTO bible… interesting reading
So…. The accusation of TDS… well, lets have a look
Under the IEEPA (international economic emergency powers act) it gives him temporary powers in the case of a national emergency for a period of no longer than 150 days in which case you have to go to congress
It’s being argued in federal court at the moment that he is stretching the terms of his power of what is a national emergency (3 examples I gave to Leroy above…plus the general trade deficit excuse, where if the us has had a trade deficit for the last 60 years and people have been managing before (including thru his first term) then why is it an emergency now? What changed? Can you even use the trade deficit excuse if you have a trade surplus?
If he wanted to make them all permanent he could always ask congress to do it… after all the republicans are in charge of both houses of congress
But…. Buck… I am now going to surprise you… I will give you and an example of where he does have the power… and it kinda relates to something that happened here
Steel……. Notably high grade steel
Now remember when labour bailed out British steel and renationalised it citing national security
Well the us are basically doing the same thing with steel tariffs….. perfectly legal, been done in the past, have zero issue with them applying it as a last measure of resort
The reason why I say last measure of resort, is because the last time they did it, it came with an interesting secondary consequence
Story time!!!!!!
So lets go back to the 2016 election… trump vs Clinton, as one of his election pledges trump said he would put on a steel tariff for national security and to save steel working jobs
And so in 2017 he did…placed a tariff on steel imports… helped the high grade steel production industry … priced the foreign competition out of the marked, saved American jobs!
At the lower grade steel production end of the market… it also drove foreign competitors out, but the difference was so vast, it mean home producers could pocket the difference, still be cheaper
So lower grade steel prices domestically went up… so where jobs were saved in steel making, more jobs were loss in for example building and construction
It ended up being a net negative, which is why Biden removed most of them
"
Sontoncut to the chase, as you appear to have a finger on the pulse.
Are people starting to realise what they have done by electing this idiot ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
You seem very concerned about tariffs into the US, where you don’t live.
The UK and EU impose thousands of tariffs on imported goods. What’s your view on those? Are you against them?
Or are you only against tariffs when Trump imposes them? Is it pure TDS?
I’ll show you some grace…. I’ll answer the questions and ignore the digs…
Tarriffs do have their place, but they are normally specifically targeted… I suggest if only for 5 minutes, go and have a look at one of the countless volumes of the WTO bible… interesting reading
So…. The accusation of TDS… well, lets have a look
Under the IEEPA (international economic emergency powers act) it gives him temporary powers in the case of a national emergency for a period of no longer than 150 days in which case you have to go to congress
It’s being argued in federal court at the moment that he is stretching the terms of his power of what is a national emergency (3 examples I gave to Leroy above…plus the general trade deficit excuse, where if the us has had a trade deficit for the last 60 years and people have been managing before (including thru his first term) then why is it an emergency now? What changed? Can you even use the trade deficit excuse if you have a trade surplus?
If he wanted to make them all permanent he could always ask congress to do it… after all the republicans are in charge of both houses of congress
But…. Buck… I am now going to surprise you… I will give you and an example of where he does have the power… and it kinda relates to something that happened here
Steel……. Notably high grade steel
Now remember when labour bailed out British steel and renationalised it citing national security
Well the us are basically doing the same thing with steel tariffs….. perfectly legal, been done in the past, have zero issue with them applying it as a last measure of resort
The reason why I say last measure of resort, is because the last time they did it, it came with an interesting secondary consequence
Story time!!!!!!
So lets go back to the 2016 election… trump vs Clinton, as one of his election pledges trump said he would put on a steel tariff for national security and to save steel working jobs
And so in 2017 he did…placed a tariff on steel imports… helped the high grade steel production industry … priced the foreign competition out of the marked, saved American jobs!
At the lower grade steel production end of the market… it also drove foreign competitors out, but the difference was so vast, it mean home producers could pocket the difference, still be cheaper
So lower grade steel prices domestically went up… so where jobs were saved in steel making, more jobs were loss in for example building and construction
It ended up being a net negative, which is why Biden removed most of them
Sontoncut to the chase, as you appear to have a finger on the pulse.
Are people starting to realise what they have done by electing this idiot ?"
With tarriffs it’s a battle over messaging….
Trumps administration is insistent in telling people that it’s other countries that are paying the tarriffs …. And are pressuring major businesses not to blame price rises on tariffs
Whereas the other side are pointing out the extra costs incurred from the importers paying are just going to end up being passed down the chain….
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are people starting to realise what they have done by electing this idiot ?"
According to Gallop his approval rating has fallen from 47% in January to 37% in July.
For comparison here are the numbers for other Presidents at this point in their terms - Biden 50%, Obama 57%, W 55%, Clinton 43%, HW 66%, Reagan 59%, Carter 65%, Nixon 61%, Kennedy 75%, Eisenhower 71%. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 40 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"So basically Trump has sent out general letters to 60 countries today
They generally fall into 2 separate groups
Those countries the US has a trade surplus with got hit with a 10% tariff on goods
Those countries the US has a trade deficit with got hit with a 15% tariff on goods
Now we know this… the “deal” the UK got…. Not really that special!
Nobody has got a good deal and nobody has claimed a good deal - everyone loses from their original position. BBC reporting, Canada 25%, Thailand 19%, Brazil 50% with exceptions on certain products, Switzerland 39%, India 25%, Laos 40%, Canada 35% though many goods exempt under a previous agreement. If all other countries got 10 & 15 % depending on trade surplus or deficit then they need not have bothered negotiating in the first place. UK in the 10% trade surplus group could have had been in the 15% group if things had been different.
Well the us has a trade surplus over the uk in the production of actual goods… so the 10% rate probably would have been applied
It’s interesting that you mention Switzerland, Canada and Brazil… because their tariffs rates have nothing to do with trade…. And probably will likely be found to be an illegal use of his IEEPA powers
Switzerland is to do with specific banking rules the us doesnt like
Brazil is to do with trump trying to keep his fellow right wing ex leader out of jail on coup charges
And the Canada latest excuse is that the us doesn’t like the position that Canada now is taking with regards to recognition of Palestine statehood
"
I don't think the 10% would have applied to the UK if they were still a member state and the US has a trade surplus, I suspect it would have been 15%. I only mentioned Switzerland Canada and Brazil as they were listed by the BBC. If it is illegal use if trumps powers, hopefully those tariffs won't apply |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Most of the major American pharmaceutical companies bought very large numbers of EU and Swiss diagnostic companies, I dread to think of the cost of laboratory diagnostic testing in the US for even the simplest things if full Tariffs are applied to those products. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Most of the major American pharmaceutical companies bought very large numbers of EU and Swiss diagnostic companies, I dread to think of the cost of laboratory diagnostic testing in the US for even the simplest things if full Tariffs are applied to those products."
It has actually been brought up as a byproduct of the tariffs… for example cancer treatment charges may go up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 40 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
It’s interesting that you mention Switzerland, Canada and Brazil… because their tariffs rates have nothing to do with trade…. And probably will likely be found to be an illegal use of his IEEPA powers
Switzerland is to do with specific banking rules the us doesnt like
Brazil is to do with trump trying to keep his fellow right wing ex leader out of jail on coup charges
And the Canada latest excuse is that the us doesn’t like the position that Canada now is taking with regards to recognition of Palestine statehood
I don't think the 10% would have applied to the UK if they were still a member state and the US has a trade surplus, I suspect it would have been 15%. I only mentioned Switzerland Canada and Brazil as they were listed by the BBC. If it is illegal use if trumps powers, hopefully those tariffs won't apply "
I cut the rest off at this point because there is a case that is going thru the court system at the moment brought by a couple of small businesses citing what he is doing was an overreach of his powers and therefore illegal
It was taken up by the federal court of international trade and they decided in favour of the small businesses … government appealed, it went up to the federal court of appeals last thursday (i actually listened to it… the government laywers were getting roasted) so should get a decision within the next few weeks… where now that a dozen democratic states have now co-signed onto the lawsuit, it will no doubt end up at the supreme court
This is… if they do win the case… every single tariff deal made is going to be invalidated |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
I don't think this as unbalanced as everyone thinks.
It's the US who's going to pay that 15%
Th EU still has free entry so no inflation.
Theirs issues it's signed up to a ridiculous amount of oil but it's so large it didn't even buy that from Russia.
Wind is at a point where it's cheaper than fossil so industry will make those decisions not government |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 39 weeks ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
"What do you expect when the EU is headed by the most useless politician since Kathy Ashton?
She was a complete disaster as German defence minister, the broomsticks episode being just one of her cock ups.
Merkel shipped her off to Brussels to get rid of her and the Germans don't want "Flinten Ushi" back"
Informed analysis...
I worked for twelve years with the Directorate-General for External Relations (DG RELEX, DG E VIII), four years each in Damascus, Santo Domingo and Sarajevo. Had things gone to plan and Javier Solana (one of the best, up there with Henry Kissinger) been succeeded by Tony Blair as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security policy, I would have stayed on.
But Baroness Ashton of Up Holland, for God’s sake…
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""What do you expect when the EU is headed by the most useless politician since Kathy Ashton?
She was a complete disaster as German defence minister, the broomsticks episode being just one of her cock ups.
Merkel shipped her off to Brussels to get rid of her and the Germans don't want "Flinten Ushi" back"
Informed analysis...
I worked for twelve years with the Directorate-General for External Relations (DG RELEX, DG E VIII), four years each in Damascus, Santo Domingo and Sarajevo. Had things gone to plan and Javier Solana (one of the best, up there with Henry Kissinger) been succeeded by Tony Blair as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security policy, I would have stayed on.
But Baroness Ashton of Up Holland, for God’s sake…
"
Believe me the world is still paying for Kathy Ashton.....In blood.
It was her with that other serial pillock (Guy Verhofstadt) who stood in the main square in Kiev egging on the mob with promises of EU and NATO membership that started all the shit that is still going on now.
Literally a few months after her grandstanding Putin annexed Crimea. You know the rest.
The most over promoted politician since 1945 and "Flinten Ushi" (that's what the Germans call Von der Leyen) isn't much better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 39 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"
It’s interesting that you mention Switzerland, Canada and Brazil… because their tariffs rates have nothing to do with trade…. And probably will likely be found to be an illegal use of his IEEPA powers
Switzerland is to do with specific banking rules the us doesnt like
Brazil is to do with trump trying to keep his fellow right wing ex leader out of jail on coup charges
And the Canada latest excuse is that the us doesn’t like the position that Canada now is taking with regards to recognition of Palestine statehood
I don't think the 10% would have applied to the UK if they were still a member state and the US has a trade surplus, I suspect it would have been 15%. I only mentioned Switzerland Canada and Brazil as they were listed by the BBC. If it is illegal use if trumps powers, hopefully those tariffs won't apply
I cut the rest off at this point because there is a case that is going thru the court system at the moment brought by a couple of small businesses citing what he is doing was an overreach of his powers and therefore illegal
It was taken up by the federal court of international trade and they decided in favour of the small businesses … government appealed, it went up to the federal court of appeals last thursday (i actually listened to it… the government laywers were getting roasted) so should get a decision within the next few weeks… where now that a dozen democratic states have now co-signed onto the lawsuit, it will no doubt end up at the supreme court
This is… if they do win the case… every single tariff deal made is going to be invalidated "
Seems trump has some sort of fetish with courts as many of his acts end up in them. If all deals get scrapped then great for everyone. Until then I suppose we are in the 10% group which is not ideal but better than 15% I guess |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 39 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
It’s interesting that you mention Switzerland, Canada and Brazil… because their tariffs rates have nothing to do with trade…. And probably will likely be found to be an illegal use of his IEEPA powers
Switzerland is to do with specific banking rules the us doesnt like
Brazil is to do with trump trying to keep his fellow right wing ex leader out of jail on coup charges
And the Canada latest excuse is that the us doesn’t like the position that Canada now is taking with regards to recognition of Palestine statehood
I don't think the 10% would have applied to the UK if they were still a member state and the US has a trade surplus, I suspect it would have been 15%. I only mentioned Switzerland Canada and Brazil as they were listed by the BBC. If it is illegal use if trumps powers, hopefully those tariffs won't apply
I cut the rest off at this point because there is a case that is going thru the court system at the moment brought by a couple of small businesses citing what he is doing was an overreach of his powers and therefore illegal
It was taken up by the federal court of international trade and they decided in favour of the small businesses … government appealed, it went up to the federal court of appeals last thursday (i actually listened to it… the government laywers were getting roasted) so should get a decision within the next few weeks… where now that a dozen democratic states have now co-signed onto the lawsuit, it will no doubt end up at the supreme court
This is… if they do win the case… every single tariff deal made is going to be invalidated
Seems trump has some sort of fetish with courts as many of his acts end up in them. If all deals get scrapped then great for everyone. Until then I suppose we are in the 10% group which is not ideal but better than 15% I guess "
So the question will become. When is a deal not a deal? When it is a framework!
So he gets is headline moment.. but no actual details so he can continue to actually threaten all and sundry with tariffs depending on his mood and whatever excuse he comes up with |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 39 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"
It’s interesting that you mention Switzerland, Canada and Brazil… because their tariffs rates have nothing to do with trade…. And probably will likely be found to be an illegal use of his IEEPA powers
Switzerland is to do with specific banking rules the us doesnt like
Brazil is to do with trump trying to keep his fellow right wing ex leader out of jail on coup charges
And the Canada latest excuse is that the us doesn’t like the position that Canada now is taking with regards to recognition of Palestine statehood
I don't think the 10% would have applied to the UK if they were still a member state and the US has a trade surplus, I suspect it would have been 15%. I only mentioned Switzerland Canada and Brazil as they were listed by the BBC. If it is illegal use if trumps powers, hopefully those tariffs won't apply
I cut the rest off at this point because there is a case that is going thru the court system at the moment brought by a couple of small businesses citing what he is doing was an overreach of his powers and therefore illegal
It was taken up by the federal court of international trade and they decided in favour of the small businesses … government appealed, it went up to the federal court of appeals last thursday (i actually listened to it… the government laywers were getting roasted) so should get a decision within the next few weeks… where now that a dozen democratic states have now co-signed onto the lawsuit, it will no doubt end up at the supreme court
This is… if they do win the case… every single tariff deal made is going to be invalidated
Seems trump has some sort of fetish with courts as many of his acts end up in them. If all deals get scrapped then great for everyone. Until then I suppose we are in the 10% group which is not ideal but better than 15% I guess
So the question will become. When is a deal not a deal? When it is a framework!
So he gets is headline moment.. but no actual details so he can continue to actually threaten all and sundry with tariffs depending on his mood and whatever excuse he comes up with "
I believe most countries are not finalised yet and still thrashing out certain points. The BBC had an article the other day showing the differences of how US and EU describe certain aspects of the deal. They are described quite startingly differently by each side. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 36 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
Anyway… in the Friday evening decision dump
The full federal court upholds the rulings of the federal court of international trade in that trump’s overstepped his power and rule that all tariffs done under the international economic emergency powers act (IEEPA) were illegal
Instead of it being a 3 judge panel, the trump administration asked for the full panel of 11 judges… they decided 8-3 against Trump
It’s like going to the Supreme Court
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 36 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"Anyway… in the Friday evening decision dump
The full federal court upholds the rulings of the federal court of international trade in that trump’s overstepped his power and rule that all tariffs done under the international economic emergency powers act (IEEPA) were illegal
Instead of it being a 3 judge panel, the trump administration asked for the full panel of 11 judges… they decided 8-3 against Trump
It’s like going to the Supreme Court
"
That's good news then, as long as it's not overturned all countries including the UK can go back to what they had before |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyway… in the Friday evening decision dump
The full federal court upholds the rulings of the federal court of international trade in that trump’s overstepped his power and rule that all tariffs done under the international economic emergency powers act (IEEPA) were illegal
Instead of it being a 3 judge panel, the trump administration asked for the full panel of 11 judges… they decided 8-3 against Trump
It’s like going to the Supreme Court
That's good news then, as long as it's not overturned all countries including the UK can go back to what they had before "
Except Trump put three justices on the supreme court and there's a 6-3 conservative majority - with "conservative" in the US these days mostly meaning "pro-Trump". There's a good chance they'll figure out how to give him what he wants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000 OP Man 36 weeks ago
milton keynes |
"Anyway… in the Friday evening decision dump
The full federal court upholds the rulings of the federal court of international trade in that trump’s overstepped his power and rule that all tariffs done under the international economic emergency powers act (IEEPA) were illegal
Instead of it being a 3 judge panel, the trump administration asked for the full panel of 11 judges… they decided 8-3 against Trump
It’s like going to the Supreme Court
That's good news then, as long as it's not overturned all countries including the UK can go back to what they had before
Except Trump put three justices on the supreme court and there's a 6-3 conservative majority - with "conservative" in the US these days mostly meaning "pro-Trump". There's a good chance they'll figure out how to give him what he wants."
Oh ok maybe not as good as hoped. For a minute there after reading the other posters post, it seemed these tariffs could go back to the start position. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 36 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Anyway… in the Friday evening decision dump
The full federal court upholds the rulings of the federal court of international trade in that trump’s overstepped his power and rule that all tariffs done under the international economic emergency powers act (IEEPA) were illegal
Instead of it being a 3 judge panel, the trump administration asked for the full panel of 11 judges… they decided 8-3 against Trump
It’s like going to the Supreme Court
That's good news then, as long as it's not overturned all countries including the UK can go back to what they had before
Except Trump put three justices on the supreme court and there's a 6-3 conservative majority - with "conservative" in the US these days mostly meaning "pro-Trump". There's a good chance they'll figure out how to give him what he wants."
They may be trump appointed, but a lot of them are constitutionalists in that how it was written then is how is should be applied now (basically that is how got to overturn roe vs wade as the constitution does not explicitly state abortion)
In this case to do that there will need to be a lot of twisting for 2 reasons
1) under IEEPA, any tariffs are supposed to be a temporary measure lasting no more then 150 days….. if longer it needs to go to congress
2) in the us constitution, literally almost on page 1 (section 1 part 8) it explicitly states that the power of the purse and any revenue raising matters is held by congress
If the best argument is trump can shout emergency and so be it … and its such a big amount it would be a burden to give it all back… they will get crushed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
