Study: Tariffs on metals will cost U.S. agriculture billions

[TU Curmudgeon]

From United Press International

Study: Tariffs on metals will cost U.S. agriculture billions
​

EVANSVILLE, Ind., Jan. 24 (UPI) -- United States tariffs on steel and aluminum will cost the nation nearly $2 billion in agricultural exports each year -- even if a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada is ratified, according to a study from Purdue University.

Purdue economists said the trade deal would increase food exports to those countries by about $454 million annually. But if the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum -- and the associated retaliatory tariffs on American agricultural products -- remain in place, exports to those countries will decrease by $1.8 billion.

"In terms of exports, it is relatively sizable when compared to the relative benefits we would get from the new trade deal," said Maksym Chepeliev, a research economist at Purdue, who was one of the authors of the study released Wednesday.

In the face of those losses, dozens of national agricultural groups joined together to ask the Trump administration to lift the tariffs on steel and aluminum.

COMMENT:-

So what if food ends up costing more it's vital to America's national interests that American steel and aluminum companies reap huge profits by excluding less expensive steel and aluminum from the American economy - right?
​

 

[jdog21]

From United Press International

Study: Tariffs on metals will cost U.S. agriculture billions
​

EVANSVILLE, Ind., Jan. 24 (UPI) -- United States tariffs on steel and aluminum will cost the nation nearly $2 billion in agricultural exports each year -- even if a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada is ratified, according to a study from Purdue University.

Purdue economists said the trade deal would increase food exports to those countries by about $454 million annually. But if the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum -- and the associated retaliatory tariffs on American agricultural products -- remain in place, exports to those countries will decrease by $1.8 billion.

"In terms of exports, it is relatively sizable when compared to the relative benefits we would get from the new trade deal," said Maksym Chepeliev, a research economist at Purdue, who was one of the authors of the study released Wednesday.

In the face of those losses, dozens of national agricultural groups joined together to ask the Trump administration to lift the tariffs on steel and aluminum.

COMMENT:-

So what if food ends up costing more it's vital to America's national interests that American steel and aluminum companies reap huge profits by excluding less expensive steel and aluminum from the American economy - right?
​

So the new trade deal with Mexico and Canada would be a good thing?
And If China drops those tariffs on our agriculture it would be a good thing?

Trump would agree with that.

 

[Mycroft]

From United Press International

Study: Tariffs on metals will cost U.S. agriculture billions
​

EVANSVILLE, Ind., Jan. 24 (UPI) -- United States tariffs on steel and aluminum will cost the nation nearly $2 billion in agricultural exports each year -- even if a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada is ratified, according to a study from Purdue University.

Purdue economists said the trade deal would increase food exports to those countries by about $454 million annually. But if the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum -- and the associated retaliatory tariffs on American agricultural products -- remain in place, exports to those countries will decrease by $1.8 billion.

"In terms of exports, it is relatively sizable when compared to the relative benefits we would get from the new trade deal," said Maksym Chepeliev, a research economist at Purdue, who was one of the authors of the study released Wednesday.

In the face of those losses, dozens of national agricultural groups joined together to ask the Trump administration to lift the tariffs on steel and aluminum.

COMMENT:-

So what if food ends up costing more it's vital to America's national interests that American steel and aluminum companies reap huge profits by excluding less expensive steel and aluminum from the American economy - right?
​

What makes anyone think the metal tariffs will remain in place after the USMCA is ratified?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So the new trade deal with Mexico and Canada would be a good thing?
And If China drops those tariffs on our agriculture it would be a good thing?

Trump would agree with that.

You did realize that the tariffs on steel and aluminum are NOT affected by NAFTA 2.0, didn't you?

NAFTA 2.0 does NOT prohibit countries from taking actions based on "national security", it only deals with "normal trade".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

What makes anyone think the metal tariffs will remain in place after the USMCA is ratified?

See my response to "jdog21".

IF the tariffs are justified by legitimate "national security" concerns, then NAFTA 2.0 doesn't impact them at all.

IF the tariffs are NOT justified by legitimate "national security" concerns, then they are a violation of BOTH NAFTA and NAFTA 2.0 and, thereby, expose the US government to whacking huge "damage" awards (which, of course, end up being - ultimately - paid for by the same taxpayers who have to pay the increased costs associated with the increased prices caused by the tariffs).

 

[Mycroft]

See my response to "jdog21".

IF the tariffs are justified by legitimate "national security" concerns, then NAFTA 2.0 doesn't impact them at all.

IF the tariffs are NOT justified by legitimate "national security" concerns, then they are a violation of BOTH NAFTA and NAFTA 2.0 and, thereby, expose the US government to whacking huge "damage" awards (which, of course, end up being - ultimately - paid for by the same taxpayers who have to pay the increased costs associated with the increased prices caused by the tariffs).

And, who determines the legitimate national security concerns?

It would be very easy, once the USMCA is ratified, for Trump to say that Mexico and Canada are no longer security concerns in regard to steel and aluminum...therefore, those tariffs no longer apply to those countries. Actually, the fact that the agreement has not been ratified...ie, not enforceable as yet...is a valid reason to keep those tariffs in place until the agreement is ratified.

Which brings us back to this: What makes anyone think the metal tariffs will remain in place after the USMCA is ratified?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And, who determines the legitimate national security concerns?

It would be very easy, once the USMCA is ratified, for Trump to say that Mexico and Canada are no longer security concerns in regard to steel and aluminum...therefore, those tariffs no longer apply to those countries. Actually, the fact that the agreement has not been ratified...ie, not enforceable as yet...is a valid reason to keep those tariffs in place until the agreement is ratified.

Which brings us back to this: What makes anyone think the metal tariffs will remain in place after the USMCA is ratified?

Because if Mr. Trump were to declare that Canada and Mexico were NOT "threats to national security" then

1. the US would be liable for massive penalties for Mr. Trump's breaches of NAFTA;
2. Mr. Trump would realize that he looks like a doofus by reversing field so completely; and
3. the profits of American steel and aluminum manufacturers would be threatened.

 

[Mycroft]

Because if Mr. Trump were to declare that Canada and Mexico were NOT "threats to national security" then

1. the US would be liable for massive penalties for Mr. Trump's breaches of NAFTA;
2. Mr. Trump would realize that he looks like a doofus by reversing field so completely; and
3. the profits of American steel and aluminum manufacturers would be threatened.

???

What "breaches of NAFTA"?

 

[Praxas]

What makes anyone think the metal tariffs will remain in place after the USMCA is ratified?

Because you are assuming 2/3 of the senate are going to ratify it.

 

[Mycroft]

Because you are assuming 2/3 of the senate are going to ratify it.

Of course they will.

What happens if they don't? We revert to pre-NAFTA trade agreements.

Believe me...NOBODY wants that.

 

[Thoreau72]

And, who determines the legitimate national security concerns?

It would be very easy, once the USMCA is ratified, for Trump to say that Mexico and Canada are no longer security concerns in regard to steel and aluminum...therefore, those tariffs no longer apply to those countries. Actually, the fact that the agreement has not been ratified...ie, not enforceable as yet...is a valid reason to keep those tariffs in place until the agreement is ratified.

Which brings us back to this: What makes anyone think the metal tariffs will remain in place after the USMCA is ratified?

It's no surprise to me that today "national security" means whatever they say it means. Things are crazy. The first time the term was invoked in court by the government was in 1953 in US v. Reynolds 345US1
and that was under deception. The formal recognition by the Court of what became known as State Secrets Privilege was brought under fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds

 

[Mycroft]

It's no surprise to me that today "national security" means whatever they say it means. Things are crazy. The first time the term was invoked in court by the government was in 1953 in US v. Reynolds 345US1
and that was under deception. The formal recognition by the Court of what became known as State Secrets Privilege was brought under fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds

shrug...

If Trump's use of "national security" gives you heartburn, take it up with the WTO. After all, it's THEIR rules that have allowed Trump to do this.

 

[Thoreau72]

shrug...

If Trump's use of "national security" gives you heartburn, take it up with the WTO. After all, it's THEIR rules that have allowed Trump to do this.

LOL, no it doesn't give me heartburn. Like you, it makes me shrug, but I still find it interesting how NS has become an excuse or rationale for any actions the government might take.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding so much?

 

[Mycroft]

LOL, no it doesn't give me heartburn. Like you, it makes me shrug, but I still find it interesting how NS has become an excuse or rationale for any actions the government might take.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding so much?

Trump isn't hiding anything. He has made his case about threats to our national security...very clearly.

You really shouldn't resort to hyperbole and lies. It doesn't do your credibility any favors.

 

[Thoreau72]

Trump isn't hiding anything. He has made his case about threats to our national security...very clearly.

You really shouldn't resort to hyperbole and lies. It doesn't do your credibility any favors.

I'm not worried about my credibility. As Dresden James noted, when a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.

A person saying Trump has nothing to hide could also be perceived as a raving lunatic.

Trump has done the country no favor with his tariffs, and the government has been abusing the NS idea for decades. NS is the web of lies that has been sold to the gullible public.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not worried about my credibility. As Dresden James noted, when a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.

And sometimes, the speaker IS just a raving lunatic.

A person saying Trump has nothing to hide could also be perceived as a raving lunatic.

I didn't say he has nothing to hide. I said he isn't hiding anything.

Trump has done the country no favor with his tariffs, and the government has been abusing the NS idea for decades. NS is the web of lies that has been sold to the gullible public.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts don't support your opinion.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

???

What "breaches of NAFTA"?

Start with "Determination of Country of Origin for the Purposes of Marking Goods (NAFTA Countries) Regulations (SOR/94-23)" and work backwards.

You might also want to take a look at the US "batting average" when its tariffs have been challenged.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Of course they will.

What happens if they don't? We revert to pre-NAFTA trade agreements.

Believe me...NOBODY wants that.

Canada and Mexico can live with it.

Mr. Trump, on the other hand, would end up with one hell of a lot of egg on his face if it happened.

 

[Helix]

let's hope that the ag industry remember this and tosses their red Trump hats in the trash. this guy is not your friend.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And sometimes, the speaker IS just a raving lunatic.



I didn't say he has nothing to hide. I said he isn't hiding anything.



You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts don't support your opinion.

Sometimes people "don't have anything to hide" NOT because they aren't doing anything that isn't aboveboard but because the actually do NOT have "anything".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

let's hope that the ag industry remember this and tosses their red Trump hats in the trash. this guy is not your friend.

Oh HOGWASH!!

Mr. Trump knows exactly where the food on his table comes from - it comes from the kitchen.