Trump’s Free Trade Suggestion remains Unheard

During European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker’s visit to Washington D.C, Donald Trump once again suggested a tariff-and subsidy-free trade area between the European Union and the United States. Yet, the American president continues to fall on deaf ears, for reasons that tell more about the EU than it does about ominous ‘Trumpism’.

The meeting in Washington seemed to have a positive announcement within, as both parties agreed on an end to tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and subsidies on non-auto related industries. In a joint press conference, both parties announced that the European Union would increase imports on liquified natural gas (LNG), as well as American soybeans.

The European Union Commission returned to Brussels in a self-congratulatory manner, claiming to have avoided a trade war. And yet, with the exception of free trade no non-auto industrial goods, as well as vague promises on avoiding retaliatory trade measures triggered by tariffs on steel and aluminium, the meeting was unproductive. The import of soybeans cannot be increased simply through a Commission president statement: there are no EU tariffs on soybeans, and if companies in Europe don’t magically decide to buy them, then literally is expected to change. On LNG, the story is comparable: the European Union has already been promoting LNG for years, and the press conference just reiterated that point.

Politico Europe conveniently called the whole process “The art of no deal“.

Juncker’s effort to charm Trump into believing that he scored a victory is sad, in comparison to the actual opportunity that President Trump presented to the EU. Not only did Trump repeat during Juncker’s visit in D.C that he’d prefer a free trade deal with Europe that’d exclude all kinds of tariff-barriers, he also repeated the said statement in a tweet on Thursday:

However, if Juncker were to actually claim to walk in the footsteps of statesmen such as Robert Schuman, he’d embrace full free trade. In trade between rich and poor countries, both sides benefit, because they pay less for products, capital goods (machines, computers, etc.), and highly specialised labor. While it is true that job losses can occur when competition increases, it is important to account for increases in exports through free trade. The German car producer Mercedes might not like the competition of Italian cars on the German market, but since many Italians purchase his product, it’s manifestly more profitable to freely trade.

Protectionism is purely ideological because it is based on sentimental beliefs. If we were to take nationalism out of the picture, it would be difficult to argue that international free trade would be disadvantageous while domestic free trade (say, between cantons or provinces) is advantageous. This is particularly true in large trading blocs such as the European Union or, for that matter, the United States.

Tariffs are nothing more than a useful tool for the reactionary extremes of the right and left wings of the political spectrum. This is all the more visible in the sense that whenever Trump addresses the idea of freeing trade relations from all government intervention, nobody bothers to even address it.

Trump’s free trade suggestions remain unheard, because the solutions of subsidising or protecting through standards are immediate and popular. The European Union doesn’t follow an ideological line on free trade, it merely pretends to do so for the efficacy of political point-scoring.

The solution on trade isn’t “somewhere in the middle”. The idea that we’ll import some American products here and there, in order to get temporary concessions on some of our goods, is unproductive and hurts consumers. The only answer Jean-Claude Juncker should give when Donald Trump suggest completely free trade between the two continents is “yes please”.

How the Carolinas could suffer from Trump’s tariffs

In the last election and on the global stage, President Donald Trump talked tough on trade. It’s us versus them and we’re losing, he says. Put simply, he views the current trade deficit, when we import more from a country than we export to it, as detrimental to American jobs. Since January, that trade deficit is $264.4 billion.

Our biggest trading partners, China, Canada, Mexico, and Japan have been able to sell more to us than we’ve sold to them, and that has left us worse off, says Trump. Tariffs, taxes placed on specific products that enter our country, will help balance that.

But that isn’t true.

To begin, tariffs raise costs for foreign firms, but that means that American businesses that rely on imports to source their products will themselves face higher costs. And that gets passed on to the consumer.

What’s more, globalization has made the cost of sourcing products from foreign markets much cheaper. Supply chains are now global, and that’s a good thing. It’s made products cheaper for consumers and producers alike.

In response, countries may retaliate. Then, we’re looking at all-out trade war. Kentucky bourbon, Harley Davidson motorcycles, cigars, and even peanut butter exported to the 28 European Union countries will have additional tariffs beginning Friday. Canada and China have threatened more.

That’s bad news for both workers and consumers, regardless of who fired the first shot.

North Carolina exports $32.6 billion of goods and services, according to the International Trade Administration. Over 150,000 jobs directly rely on exports of chemicals, transportation equipment, machinery and more. More than 36 percent of those originate from the Charlotte area.

Who will be the most affected by tariffs? Think beer drinkers and employees at automobile assembly plants, as well as pork farmers and agricultural machine companies. And everyone who depends on these industries.

North Carolina brewers have warned that tariffs on aluminum and steel will affect their bottom line, potentially raising the price of beer for you and me.

Daimler and its subsidiary Mercedes-Benz project that retaliatory tariffs will hurt profits. That affects plants in Gastonia, Cleveland, High Point, and Mount Holly, and Charleston and Gaffney in South Carolina, which employ more than 6,500 people. Thousands more will be indirectly affected.

Both states voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Why would he punish those voters with tariffs that will hurt investment and affect jobs?

There are thousands of goods produced here that rely on parts, commodities and special technologies from abroad. And millions of consumers and workers depend on trade of those goods for their well-being.

The U.S. is the dominant economic power because of decades of free trade and free enterprise. Workers and consumers in North and South Carolina benefit when products flow freely across our borders, and we’re better off for it. Tariffs are a step backward.

Yaël Ossowski is a Charlotte-area native, economic journalist and deputy director at Consumer Choice Center.

Original link:

Les armes sournoises de l’Union européenne dans la « guerre commerciale »

En réalité, c’est l’Union européenne qui a ouvert les hostilités dans la « guerre commerciale » en pratiquant un protectionnisme déguisé.

L’Union européenne dit riposter aux nouvelles taxes douanières américaines sur l’acier et l’aluminium imposées par l’administration de Donald Trump. Après une première dérogation, le président américain semble maintenant plus déterminé à poursuivre sa tentative de protéger les industries américaines.

Grâce à un droit de douane de 25% sur l’acier et à un droit de douane de 10% sur l’aluminium, Trump entend protéger les producteurs américains de la concurrence étrangère et conserver des emplois aux Etats-Unis. Cela reste fidèle à la ligne générale de Trump, notamment sa taxation sur les avions de série C du constructeur canadien Bombardier (des avions partiellement produits au Royaume-Uni) et aux taxes sur les panneaux solaires et les machines à laver importés.

L’Union européenne a récemment annoncé des représailles contre ces droits d’importation. Elle a intenté une procédure devant l’OMC et veut contrer les mesures américaines en instaurant des taxes douanières sur les vêtements, les véhicules à moteur, le jus d’orange ou les cigarettes de provenance américaine.

L’Union européenne ne parvient pas à dépasser le mercantilisme de Donald Trump. Pourtant, avant son élection et durant ses premiers mois au pouvoir, les politiciens européens soutenaient le libre-échange. Là où Trump voulait moins de libre-échange, l’Europe a répondu par plus de coopération économique. En juillet 2017, nous avons vu des titres comme « L’UE et le Japon scellent un accord de libre-échange comme réponse à Trump. »

Là où Trump voulait moins de libre-échange, l'Europe a répondu par plus de coopération économique. En juillet 2017, nous avons vu des titres comme "L'UE et le Japon scellent un accord de libre-échange comme réponse à Trump."

« Bien que certains disent que le temps de l’isolationnisme et de la désintégration revient, nous démontrons que ce n’est pas le cas », a déclaré le président du Conseil européen Donald Tusk lors d’une conférence de presse avec le Premier ministre japonais Shinzo Abe.

Plus tard, cependant, le président de la Commission européenne, Jean-Claude Juncker, a complètement renversé ce retour aux principes économiques. Dans une citation désormais légendaire, Juncker a déclaré à Hambourg :

« Alors maintenant, nous allons également imposer des taxes sur les importations. Il s’agit, fondamentalement, d’un processus stupide, le fait que nous devions faire cela. Mais nous devons le faire. Nous allons maintenant imposer des taxes sur les Harley Davidson, sur les jeans Levis, sur le bourbon. Nous pouvons aussi agir stupidement. Nous devons aussi être aussi stupides. »

L’épisode s’est terminé par une exemption d’un mois concédée par Trump à l’Union européenne. Ce délai est maintenant expiré et aucun accord n’a été conclu. [NDLR : Dans cette guerre commerciale, il est un sujet rarement évoqué : celui de la propriété intellectuelle. Notre spécialiste vous dévoile ce qui se trame et surtout vous livre ici une idée d’investissement ultra-profitable pour exploiter ce thème.]


A Bruxelles, les législateurs sont en désaccord, alors que Washington ne semble pas y voir une priorité de négociation. Même Donald Trump ne semble pas impressionné par les menaces venant de l’UE. Contrairement à la dernière fois, nous n’avons pas été exposés aux tweets sur les voitures allemandes, mais nous avons reçu une réaction à la décision de l’UE de lancer un appel à l’OMC :


Les sournoises barrières de l’Union européenne

Les médias diffusent que l’Union européenne est désormais obligée de « répondre » à une guerre commerciale initiée par les Etats-Unis. Mais Donald Trump a-t-il raison de dire que les produits américains sont traités injustement en Europe ? La réponse est : oui, absolument.

Voici des exemples de taxes imposées par les Etats-Unis sur un certain nombre de biens (chiffres tirés de la Commission du commerce international des Etats-Unis) :

  • Voiture diesel : 2,5%
  • T-shirt : 16,5%
  • Parapluies : sans taxes douanières
  • Huile d’olives : 5 cents/kilo (5 $/100 kg)
  • Biscuits : sans taxes douanières
  • Cigarettes : 1,05 $/kg + 2,3%
  • Sucre de canne : 1,24 $/tonne
  • Jus d’orange : 7,85 $/100 litres

Voici les taxes de la Commission européenne pour un certain nombre de biens (chiffres tirés de la Commission européenne) :

  • Voiture diesel : 16%
  • T-shirt : 8%
  • Parapluies : 4,7%
  • Huile d’olives : 134 €/100 kg (156 $/100 kg)
  • Biscuits : 9% EA (taxe additionnelle agriculture), 24,2% ADSZ (taxe additionnelle sur le sucre)
  • Cigarettes : 57,6%
  • Sucre de canne : 4,6 €/100 kg (5,37 $/100 kg, 53,7 $/tonne)
  • Jus d’orange : 12,2%

Cette sélection aléatoire montre que l’Union européenne taxe déjà fortement les importations en provenance des Etats-Unis.

La preuve par le jus d’orange

En fait, alors que l’UE menace d’introduire des droits sur les produits qu’elle n’a pas encore taxés (comme le bourbon), elle veut également augmenter les taxes sur des choses comme le jus d’orange, qui sont déjà lourdement pénalisées. Aux taxes, s’ajoutent des barrières non-tarifaires : la réglementation de la qualité des aliments ainsi que d’autres normes de sécurité et enfin les subventions agricoles.

Pour exporter vers l’Union européenne ou l’un de ses membres associés, un producteur de jus d’orange américain doit se conformer à la directive 2001/112 / CE du Conseil de l’Union européenne sur les jus de fruits (amendée en 2009 et 2012 pour renforcer les exigences sur l’étiquetage et le contenu des jus). Cette directive décrit par le menu les modalités de contrôle sanitaire (législation alimentaire, pesticides), de contrôle phytosanitaire, et fixe les normes de commercialisation.

Notre producteur est obligé de tout savoir sur le règlement (CE) numéro 852/2004 relatif à l’hygiène des denrées alimentaires, ainsi que le règlement (CE) numéro 2073/2005 concernant les critères microbiologiques applicables aux denrées alimentaires et le règlement (CE) numéro 466/2001 du 8 mars 2001 fixant des teneurs maximales pour certains contaminants dans les denrées alimentaires.

En réalité, incapable de comprendre tous ces règlements lui-même, il paie des intermédiaires pour l’aider à se rendre conforme. S’il ne respecte pas ces réglementations, les distributeurs vont abandonner ses produits car selon le droit de l’UE, l’importateur est responsable des produits importés.

En plus de cela, il devra payer un droit d’importation de 12,2%.

Après avoir respecté toutes ces règles, il sera ensuite en concurrence sur un marché européen dans lequel les producteurs espagnols de jus d’orange reçoivent des subventions agricoles (qui représentent 40% du budget annuel de l’UE) et peuvent donc vendre beaucoup moins cher.

Les barrières non-tarifaires ont autant d’importance que les barrières tarifaires, même si elles sont plus difficiles à mesurer. Comment l’Union européenne prétend-elle soutenir le libre-échange en tant que valeur, avec ces restrictions ?

Et si on faisait une course vers le bas ?

Le président Trump exagère lorsqu’il affirme qu’il existe de fait un droit de douane de 100%, mais il n’a pas tort de dénoncer le double jeu de l’UE. Alors que l’Union européenne est pour le libre-échange à l’intérieur de ses propres frontières, c’est un bloc protectionniste pour quiconque souhaite commercer avec elle.

L’Europe est le plus grand partenaire commercial des Etats-Unis. Le commerce des biens et services des Etats-Unis avec l’UE a totalisé près de 1 100 milliards de dollars en 2016. Les exportations se montaient à 501 milliards de dollars ; les importations ont totalisé 592 milliards de dollars.

Ce sont les consommateurs qui font les frais de cette guerre. Ce sont les consommateurs qui paient les droits de douane et les augmentations de prix des producteurs locaux protégés de la concurrence internationale.

Bien sûr, pointer du doigt « qui a commencé » ne résout pas le problème fondamental. Ni Bruxelles, ni Trump ne soutiennent des relations commerciales transparentes. Une réaction de l’Union européenne allant dans l’intérêt de tous ses ressortissants serait réduire les droits de douane sur les importations américaines. Cela signifierait que la valeur du libre-échange en Europe prime, peu importe que Trump utilise le mercantilisme à des fins politiques.

S’il y a une guerre commerciale, ce devrait être celle consistant à voir qui peut le plus abaisser ses barrières tarifaires.

Original link:

When it comes to Canadian dairy, Trump is right

In most circumstances, President Trump is wrong about trade, but he is right to call Canada’s supply management system a “disgrace.”

Canada’s supply management system for chicken, turkey, eggs, and milk is a highly protectionist set of policies that insulate Canadian producers from foreign competition, including American farmers, despite the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump has made it clear that he wants supply management to end in NAFTA renegotiation. Both Americans and Canadians would benefit substantially from a deal that would end supply management tariffs and avert escalating trade war.

Abolishing supply management would open up an additional market of 36 million people to American farmers, which is approximately equivalent to adding another California to their consumer base. If supply management is dropped, it will substantially alleviate the pain of dairy glut that American farmers are currently experiencing. When there is an oversupply of any product, a simple solution is to expand the consumer base, and this is exactly what abolishing supply management will accomplish.

However, ending supply management is not just a win for American farmers, it is also a major win for Canadian consumers. The artificial burden created by supply management pushes as many as 189,000 Canadians below the poverty line every single year, according to award winning research from economists at the University of Manitoba. This research demonstrates that supply management has a tremendously regressive impact on Canadian consumers, especially poor working-class families. Canada’s supply management system inflates prices by upwards of $500 per year for each Canadian family. For low-income Canadians, this policy costs 2.3 per cent of their income. If Trump and his negotiating team hold their ground on supply management, it will allow American farmers to compete fairly in Canada while providing tremendous financial relief for low-income Canadians.

Protectionist supply management policies also cause an enormous amount of waste on both sides of the border. If a Canadian farmer produces more than their quota allows, they have to throw out perfectly good excess product. This means dumping extra eggs and milk, and for chicken and turkey, it means killing and dumping animals prohibited by supply management regulations from being sold. American dairy farmers end up wasting excess milk because Canadian tariffs make it impossible to export American milk.

Those who lobby for supply management, like the Dairy Farmers of Canada, and Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer, argue that getting rid of supply management could cripple the Canadian dairy industry. Luckily for farmers, there isn’t any evidence to suggest this is true. In fact, research in the Canadian Journal of Economics strongly suggests that getting rid of supply management would be a boon for Canadian supply managed farmers. If you are a Canadian chicken, turkey, egg, or milk farmer, the elimination of supply management means you no longer have government protection, but it also increases your consumer base by 325 million Americans. We already know what this type of trade relationship will look like when we compare how Canadians and Americans trade beef. Canadian beef ends up on American shelves, and vice versa for American beef on Canadian shelves.

As former member of Parliament Martha Hall Findlay noted, the dairy lobby in Canada is as powerful, if not more powerful, than the National Rifle Association in the United States. That control is the reason why Canadian policy-makers are holding up NAFTA to maintain selective benefits for only 13,500 farmers.

Canadians and Americans have the second largest trading relationship in the world. Each year over $650 billion in trade crosses the US-Canada border. Canada is the USA’s largest oil supplier, while the USA is the most popular tourist destination for Canadians. It is a major understatement to say the trading relationship between our two nations is important.

As a result of inability to compromise on NAFTA negotiations, the Trump administration retaliated by imposing tariffs on Canadian metal producers with 25 per cent for steel and 10 per cent for aluminum, which will devastate these industries. Calls to escalate this trade war have already begun, but Canada should resist this urge and offer an end to supply management to save NAFTA.

Removing supply management would help keep NAFTA intact, while benefiting farmers on both sides of the border, and providing financial relief for low income Canadians. If ever there was a time for President Trump to stand his ground, and for Canadian policy-makers to enact change, it is now. Luckily for both Canadians and Americans, change could be forced upon the Canada’s political system via President Trump and his NAFTA renegotiation team.

David Clement is the North American Affairs Manager for the Consumer Choice Center and a native of Toronto. Kyle Walker is the Senior Director of International Programs at Students For Liberty and native to a dairy producing town in Western New York state.

Original link:

The European Union Started This Trade War

Within the next 30 days, the European Union wants to respond to new US tariffs on steel and aluminum, which were imposed by the Trump administration. After an initial exemption, the president now seems to be more determined to follow through with his attempt to “protect American industries.” With a trade war seemingly about to begin, let’s throw light on who started it in the first place.

The EU’s Retaliation

Through a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum, President Trump intends to shield American producers from foreign competition and keep jobs inside the United States. This is in line with Trump’s general tendency towards economic protectionism, demonstrated by his support for tariffs on the Canadian manufacturer Bombardier’s C-series jets (planes which are partially produced in the UK as well) and for tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines.

The European Union recently announced its retaliation against those import duties. It has launched legal proceedings against the measure and plans on additional taxes on American imports in Europe, including things like clothing, motor vehicles, orange juice, or cigarettes.

It is certainly strange the European Union doesn’t manage to rise above the mercantilism of Donald Trump. Before his election, and during his first months in office, European politicians made positive signals for free trade. Where Trump wanted less free trade, Europe responded with more economic cooperation. Back in July 2017, we saw headlines like “EU, Japan seal free trade deal in signal to Trump.”

“Although some are saying that the time of isolationism and disintegration is coming again, we are demonstrating that this is not the case,” European Council President Donald Tusk said during a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

In a follow-up speech, however, EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker completely overturned this return to economic principles and to the moral high ground. In a now legendary quote, Juncker said in a speech in Hamburg, Germany:

So now we will also impose import tariffs. This is basically a stupid process, the fact that we have to do this. But we have to do it. We will now impose tariffs on motorcycles, Harley Davidson, on blue jeans, Levis, on Bourbon. We can also do stupid. We also have to be this stupid.

The episode ended with Trump granting an exemption to the European Union. That deadline has now expired, with no deal having been reached. In Brussels, lawmakers are up in arms about the measures, while Washington does not seem to see this as a priority.

Even Donald Trump seems unimpressed by threats coming from the EU. Unlike last time, we weren’t showered in tweets about German cars, but we did get a standard exclamation by the president, which was probably a reaction to the EU’s decision to launch an appeal at the World Trade Organization (WTO):

The EU Started the Trade War

The general media narrative is that the European Union is now forced to “respond” to a trade war initiated by the United States. But is Donald Trump right about the fact that American products get treated unfairly in Europe? The answer is: yes, absolutely.

Here are the tariff rates imposed on Europe by the United States on a number of goods (numbers taken from the United States International Trade Commission):

  • New Diesel car: 2.5 percent
  • T-shirt: 16.5 percent
  • Umbrella: Tariff-free
  • Olive oil: 5 cents/kilogram ($5/100 kg)
  • Biscuits: Tariff-free
  • Regular cigarettes: $1.05/kg + 2.3 percent
  • Orange juice: 7.85 cents/liter
  • Sugarcane: $1.24/ton

Here are the tariff rates imposed by the European Union on a number of goods (numbers taken from the European Commission):

    • New Diesel car: 16 percent
    • T-shirt: 8 percent
    • Umbrella: 4.7 percent
    • Olive oil: €134/100 kg ($156/100 kg)
    • Biscuits: 9 percent EA (additional “agricultural component” duty), 24.2 percent ADSZ (additional duty on sugar contents)
    • Regular cigarettes: 57.6 percent

Orange juice: 12.2 percent

  • Sugarcane: €4.6/100 kg ($5.37/100 kg, $53.7/ton)

Just on a random selection, it turns out that the European Union is already heavily taxing imports from the United States. In fact, while the EU is threatening to introduce duties on products it hasn’t been taxing yet (such as bourbon), it also wants to increase taxes on things like orange juice, which are already heavily taxed. On top of that, you also need to add two components of non-tariff barriers: food quality and other product safety standards, as well as agricultural subsidies.

In practice, this means that in order to export to the European Union or any of its associated members, an American orange juice producer needs to abide by the European Union Council Directive 2001/112/EC on fruit juices (this one was amended in both 2009 and 2012 to tighten requirements on labelling and content of the juices): Health control (food law, hygiene, microbiological criteria, contaminants, pesticides), Plant health control (harmful organisms), Marketing standards. This makes him obligated to know everything about Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs as well as Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Since the regular producer is unable to figure all of these regulations out by himself, he’ll have to pay compliance costs for firms to figure them out for him, because if he doesn’t, retailers will quickly drop his products because according to EU law the importer is responsible for the import.

On top of that, he will have to pay a 12.2 percent import duty.

After complying with all of these rules, he will then compete on a European market in which Spanish orange juice producers receive agricultural subsidies (which make up 40 percent of the EU’s annual budget), and can, therefore, sell for much cheaper.

Non-tariff barriers matter just as much as tariff barriers, even though they more difficult to measure. How exactly the European Union, given all of these restrictions, pretends to claim to hold free trade as a value is questionable.

What about a Race to the Bottom?

President Trump is clearly hyperbolic in his claim that there is such a thing as a 100 percent customs duty, but he isn’t wrong in bemoaning the EU’s trade policy. While the European Union might practice free trade within its own borders, it is a protectionist bloc for anyone who wishes to trade with it.

This is particularly frustrating given the important of Euro-American trade relations. Europe is the United State’s largest trading partner. US goods and services trade with the EU totaled nearly $1.1 trillion in 2016. Exports totaled $501 billion; imports totaled $592 billion.

The ones suffering from all of it are the consumers. It’s the consumers who pick up the tab when customs duties have to be paid, and when local producers can increase prices when they’re shielded from international competition. As low-income producers spend most of their income on consumption goods, they are suffering from it the most.

Of course, pointing fingers at “who started it” doesn’t resolve the fundamental problem. Neither Brussels nor Trump have an understanding of how trade relations work. If the European Union wants to appropriately respond to new tariffs on steel and aluminum, it should actually reduce tariffs on US imports. This would send a clear sign that the belief in free trade in Europe is consistent, no matter how much Trump uses mercantilism for political point-scoring with his base.

If there is to be a trade war, it should be a trade war to see who can slash tariff barriers the most.

Full article

Boeing proves protectionism doesn’t pay

A stinging rebuke by the U.S. International Trade Commission last month was a hard defeat for Boeing.

The American aircraft manufacturer brought a case to the U.S. Department of Commerce last fall in hopes of sinking a deal with their Canadian competitor Bombardier to build narrow-body jets for Delta Airlines.

Agreeing with Boeing’s claims that Bombardier was “dumping” the planes in the U.S. at a cheaper price, the Department of Commerce promptly slapped a 300 percent tariff on the C-Series jets. But that decision was overturned by the ITC last month.

That was a cause for celebration in Canada as well as the United Kingdom, considering parts of the aircraft are fabricated in Belfast and upwards of 4,000 British jobs depend on the C-series jet project. In the U.S., thousands of consumers and travellers will soon benefit from a new fleet of aircraft.

On Feb. 13, we’ll learn the commission’s justifications for overturning the tariffs, which could prompt Boeing to take another approach to tackle its Montreal-based rival.

Beyond that report, what is clear now is that Boeing will have to compete if it wants to outperform the competition. Protectionism, though the mantra in Trump’s D.C., won’t pay. Crony capitalism cannot, in itself, be the main tool used by an international firm that wants to compete in today’s global economy. Entering the arena of politics can have serious blowback.

That’s a lesson the Chicago-based firm will certainly learn after causing flare-ups in London, Washington, and Ottawa. It even put Prime Minister Theresa May’s coalition government with the Democratic Unionist Party, who vowed to protest those Belfast jobs, on shaky ground.

What’s more, the company’s protectionist play has put its lucrative defence contracts in harm’s way. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau threatened to pull Boeing’s military contracts, and UK Defence Minister Michael Fallon said their actions “could jeopardise” Britain’s £500 million relationship with the aircraft firm to supply attack helicopters and aircraft.

For a company that relies on government contracts for a large chunk of its profits, this news is concerning.

If Boeing wants to stand its ground, it’ll have to work on rectifying these relationships. Putting jobs at risk in order to stake a monopoly isn’t a good look for business, and it is toxic in politics.

This will certainly serve as a warning to dozens of other multinational firms who hope to leverage trade by seeking government monopolies and tariffs targeted at their fierce competitors.

What this affair has proven, in due time, is that waging trade wars isn’t to anyone’s benefit, surely not consumers, workers, and citizens who have the most at stake.

Full article

Workers can’t afford tariffs or a trade war, President Trump

To the Trump protectionist hammer, every product imported looks like a nail.

On Monday, we learned that President Trump’s trade enforcer, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, announced new tariffs on solar panels and washing machines assembled outside the U.S.

For washers and dryers from companies such as Samsung and LG, steep tariffs as high as 50 percent will be applied while solar panels assembled abroad face a duty of 30 percent for the next year. These tariffs act as taxes on foreign companies who wish to do business in the U.S.

To the casual observer, the biggest losers of these tariffs appear to be India, Korea, and, most of all, China.

But considering that millions of American consumers depend on imports for dozens of their appliances and goods at home, these measures end up hurting them the most instead.

Nearly 95 percent of Americans shopped at a Walmart in 2016, a retailer which offers low prices by a vastly robust supply chain with links all over the world. Is it really inconceivable that prices would have to rise in order to overcome the import barrier imposed on the various actors in that supply chain?

Without question, targeted tariffs may benefit one particular American company by increasing the costs of doing business for its foreign competitors. But that means prices for ordinary consumers and businesses that depend on those imports must rise, making them less affordable.

An analysis by the Wall Street Journal on the effect of steel tariffs in 2014 demonstrated that the higher cost of imported steel raised prices as much as 60 percent on products which use steel as a base metal. Domestic steelmakers such as U.S. Steel may have gained in trade volume and stock price, but companies that rely on cheap steel for their products were forced to raise prices and restrict supply – and that was bad for American consumers.

When the Department of Commerce announced a 300 percent tax on imported jets from Canada, domestic airlines balked. And with good reason. Now they will have to pay a premium to source their fleets, causing the price of air travel to rise for ordinary consumers.

The fact that China subsidizes its various industries is no doubt a concern for American manufacturers, and it should be.

A look at the United States International Trade Commission’s website finds dozens of China’s alleged manipulations: aluminum and steel tubing, wooden cabinets, paper products, and fluorescent lights.

But though slapping tariffs on every product deemed harmful to American industry may be well-intentioned, it has a demonstrated negative effect on the consumers Trump purports to help.

Low tariff rates since the 1980s have been a boon to shoppers and domestic manufacturers who rely on imports to sell to Americans.

No doubt, throughout the course of his campaign, President Trump pledged his support for American workers in manufacturing. But with advances in technology and streamlined processes, our economy is beginning to produce more engineers than part-assemblers. And that allows more and more Americans to raise their standard of living at a fraction of the cost.

It’s been 88 years since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff exacerbated the worst effects of the Great Depression, igniting an international trade war that made everyone worse off, as revealed in a 2003 paper by the New York Federal Reserve.

President Trump is still celebrating the victory he achieved with the massive tax overhaul in Congress, lowering taxes for entrepreneurs and workers across the country.

If Trump would like to help American workers, consumers, and companies, he’d be wise to not impose yet more government regulation and taxes on the imports that so many of us rely on.

A tariff, we should remember, is just another name for a tax.

Yaël Ossowski (@YaelOss) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center and a senior development officer at Students For Liberty.

Original link:

Tariffs on New Planes Won’t Cure Aviation’s Old Ills Read Newsmax

Last week, the US Department of Commerce released a statement in which it announced new tariffs on Canadian plane imports. The description Duty Determination on Imports of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft From Canada will sound oddly specific to most readers, but very familiar to people interested in civil aviation. One-hundred to 150-seat Canadian aircrafts are currently being produced by Bombardier — rivalling Boeing and Airbus on the U.S. market.

The American airline Delta, which has ordered 75 of Bombardier’s C-Series jets, will not be able to purchase the aircraft if the US tariff of 220 percent would be imposed. Delta has claimed that Boeing does not produce a comparable aircraft, which is why they decided in favour of the Canadian competitor.

It is notable that the imposition of this tariff could bring the Canadian producer into major financial difficulty, as it would triple the price of the C-series and endanger thousands of Canadian jobs. This also includes the UK’s Northern Irish region around Belfast, which produces the wings for the planes, which has lead British Prime Minister Theresa May to hint at a possible trade with with the U.S. over aircraft production.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau denounced “Boeing’s protectionist and baseless measures,” saying the Canadian government does not want to “do business with a company that is attacking us and wants to lay off tens of thousands of people.”

The U.S. government is clearly taking sides in the competition between major companies, and is making trade relations difficult with its closest partners. Both Canada and the UK will be majorly important in the establishment of mutually beneficial trading relationships, especially once Britain leaves the European Union.

Ruling in favour of crippling tariffs doesn’t reflect well on the Trump administration, as it neglects both the political and market consequences of the decision.

The participation of Bombardier on the market is a major asset for price competition and pushing for innovation. The U.S. has dominated the world economy because it was able to trade competitively and with innovative products. If the administration leaves aircraft productions in the hand of one company, then it lifts the burden of the search for the competitive advantage of the shoulders of this firm.

From a consumer position, barring Bombardier from the market can lead to higher costs, as airlines will either have to buy aircrafts it doesn’t want for the price one company has dictated or not buy a plane at all. As competition is being reduced, the choices for the consumer shrink simultaneously.

In an era of cheap aviation, the U.S. should support competitive and innovative markets, not dwell in the nostalgia of past technological achievements. American companies and consumers alike will profit from more, not less free trade.

Bill Wirtz is a political commentator currently based in France. Originally from Luxembourg, he writes columns about politics in Germany, France, and the U.K., as well as about policy emerging from the European Union. His articles have been published by Newsweek, The American Conservative, the Washington Examiner, and the Mises Institute. He is a Young Voices Advocate, a regular contributor for Rare Media and the Foundation for Economic Education, and works as a Policy Analyst for the Consumer Choice Center. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

Free Trade For Us is a single-issue campaign produced by the Consumer Choice Center and supported by partners to raise awareness about the positive impact of free trade and to show policymakers all over the world that the millennial generation is united against tariffs, trade barriers, and retaliatory measures that only hurt consumers and workers.