Jump to content
TGHusker

Trump Domestic Policy - Budgets, etc

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

Huh. Cue my shocked face.

 

 

Wisc Gov Scott Walker's face right now:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides tariffs - let's not forget that Trump wants to basically scrap NAFTA.   Another stroke of brilliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, last fall, he drastically increased the tariffs on Canadian lumber.  The construction industry is going to be interesting to watch.  Oh...yeah.....right when we are wanting to greatly rebuild our infrastructure.

 

I'm also keeping a close eye on agriculture products.  China is a huge user of soybeans.  Europe is a huge user of corn.  Both are upset and have claimed they are going to retaliate.  All these farmers that think they love Trump now......just wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well, last fall, he drastically increased the tariffs on Canadian lumber.  The construction industry is going to be interesting to watch.  Oh...yeah.....right when we are wanting to greatly rebuild our infrastructure.

 

I'm also keeping a close eye on agriculture products.  China is a huge user of soybeans.  Europe is a huge user of corn.  Both are upset and have claimed they are going to retaliate.  All these farmers that think they love Trump now......just wait.

 

 

Sometimes with politics it's a catch 22 situation where you want people to know the consequences of stupid actions, but if the actions ever take place the consequences are too disasterous.

 

I want people to know how bad this will be. I also want Trump to back down and change his mind so it never happens. But that will leave people ignorant.

 

I can understand thinking tariffs are good on the surface, and I do think there were times they would've been good, like back in the 80s when so much outsourcing began. But I think it's too late now. I also think if Trump had good advisers or was willing to let anyone penetrate his gigantic brain he would've realized it's a bad idea.

Edited by Moiraine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Here is an example of a good way to make policy. 

 

 

 

Sounds like the kind of stable genius we would all want to be in charge of the nukes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really curious how Fox News handles a story like this. Their pundits in particular have doubled-down on protecting, defending, and interpreting Trump for the conservative base.

 

But even conservatives like Orin Hatch are flummoxed and pissed about this tariff proposal. While it sounds America First at face value, it's a proven jobs killer and will hit American consumers in the pocket book. And that's not even counting the angry counter-measures our trade allies are proposing. 

 

And of course it's possible that Donald Trump didn't consult or even brief the people on the front lines of a trade issue like this.

 

When I say I'm curious how Fox News handles a story like this, I'm still not curious enough to watch Fox News. 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I'm really curious how Fox News handles a story like this.

 

Did you know that Hillary has been selling access to American government for decades and has personally become wealthy because of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Technically I did graze the news channels last night and paused just long enough on Fox to see Laura Ingram going all in on the Obama administration's culpability for the Florida shooting. 

 

CNN and MSNBC were both hosting breathless panels on Hope Hicks' deserting the Trump ship. CNN did take a break to discuss the tariff issue. 

 

Not sure anyone on TV is doing journalism at the moment. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Okay. Technically I did graze the news channels last night and paused just long enough on Fox to see Laura Ingram going all in on the Obama administration's culpability for the Florida shooting. 

 

CNN and MSNBC were both hosting breathless panels on Hope Hicks' deserting the Trump ship. CNN did take a break to discuss the tariff issue. 

 

Not sure anyone on TV is doing journalism at the moment. 

 

 

Prettt sure the tariffs and the cold war are more important than all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Okay. Technically I did graze the news channels last night and paused just long enough on Fox to see Laura Ingram going all in on the Obama administration's culpability for the Florida shooting. 

 

CNN and MSNBC were both hosting breathless panels on Hope Hicks' deserting the Trump ship. CNN did take a break to discuss the tariff issue. 

 

Not sure anyone on TV is doing journalism at the moment. 

I've been watching more TYT, which has been hiring journalists and investigative reporters. And their recent addition of a weekly show hosted by Dan Rather is really good.

 

But the main show is very progressive/liberal, which they openly admit, so you know their bias right off the bat, and they seem to do a good job of fact-checking.

Edited by RedDenver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Wisc Gov Scott Walker's face right now:eek:

The tariffs are not a surprise move.  They are part of the platform that helped Trump win the northern states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

 

Tariffs are not a stand alone proposition.  Coupled with deregulation, the possibility would be that the U S. is able to return to more of a producer status than a consumer status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheSker said:

The tariffs are not a surprise move.  They are part of the platform that helped Trump win the northern states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

 

Tariffs are not a stand alone proposition.  Coupled with deregulation, the possibility would be that the U S. is able to return to more of a producer status than a consumer status.



I think everyone posting here understands the argument for tariffs.

But the president needs to be smart enough, be surrounded by smart enough people, to also understand the downfalls and consequences of such a plan, and it's unlikely Trump does, especially given his tweet about trade wars.

Also, returning to manufacturing is easy to talk about, but a lot harder to do. Even if we were suddenly the cheapest producer of steel, it doesn't mean we have the capability of producing enough. It might take years to become capable. I don't know the state of steel manufacturing, but there are other examples where we might not be even close to having the ability to output enough at this time. We lost that a long time ago with some products. You don't just snap your fingers and get it back. And a tariff (especially a big one like this) when we're not ready to produce the raw materials, might be a terrible idea. I'm not too knowledgeable about all this, but those are some of my thoughts.

My view of a lot of Trump voters in those states is that they're pining for the old days and want a bunch of plants to magically and instantly open up again and provide jobs. They're clinging to something we might never see again. The time for tariffs was immediately when some of these raw materials started being outsourced - before businesses started to leave.

The convo piqued my interest so here's a link with info on steel producers.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steel_producers

 

The U.S. has the 12th and 24th ranked steel producers by volume in 2016.

China has the 2nd, 3rd, 6th ,7th, 9th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 22nd

 

Another good link:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production

 

 

In 2013 we produced 87 million metric tons of steel. We imported 30.3. We exported 12.5. Using simple math (although I know it's not that simple) if these countries find someone else to buy their steel, we're at an 18 million metric ton shortfall.

 

Top steel exporters in 2013[19]
Rank Country Mt
1 China 61.5
2 Japan 42.5
- European Union[20] 38.7
3 South Korea 50.7
4 Ukraine 24.7
4 Germany 24.3
6 Russia 23.6
7 Turkey 17.3
8 Italy 16.9
9 France 14.2
10 Belgium 13.9
11 United States 12.5
12 Taiwan 11.6
13 India 10.1
14 Spain 9.3
15 Netherlands 8.8
Top steel net exporters in 2013[19]
Rank Country Mt
1 China 46.8
2 Japan 37.1
3 Ukraine 23.0
4 Russia 17.1
5 South Korea 9.9
- European Union[20] 7.9
6 Brazil 4.4
7 Taiwan 3.8
7 Belgium 3.8
9 Austria 3.7
10 Turkey 2.8
11 Netherlands 2.6
11 Slovakia 2.6
13 India 2.3
 

Imports

net: imports - exports

Top steel importers in 2013[19]
Rank Country Volume
- European Union[20] 30.8
1 United States 30.3
2 Germany 22.1
3 South Korea 19.0
4 Thailand 15.9
5 Italy 15.6
6 China 14.8
7 Turkey 14.5
8 France 13.2
9 Indonesia 12.3
10 Belgium 10.1
11 Vietnam 10.0
12 Canada 8.9
13 Poland 8.1
14 Taiwan 7.8
15 Mexico 7.7
Top steel net importers in 2013[19]
Rank Country Volume
1 United States 17.8
2 Thailand 14.4
3 Indonesia 11.6
4 Vietnam 8.6
5 Saudi Arabia 6.4
6 United Arab Emirates 5.3
7 Algeria 5.1
8 Philippines 4.8
9 Iraq 4.5
10 Egypt 3.9
10 Singapore 3.9
12 Hong Kong 3.2
13 Canada 3.1
13 Poland 3.1
15 Iran 2.7
 


Another ('nother) interesting thing. Our steel production isn't that much less than in 1967, if you check the 2nd link. So, it's pretty clear things are a lot more automated now. Those pining people may not get what they want even if we double it. This applies to most types of plants, I'm guessing.

Edited by Moiraine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Moiraine said:



I think everyone posting here understands the argument for tariffs.

But the president needs to be smart enough, be surrounded by smart enough people, to also understand the downfalls and consequences of such a plan, and it's unlikely Trump does, especially given his tweet about trade wars.

Also, returning to manufacturing is easy to talk about, but a lot harder to do. Even if we were suddenly the cheapest producer of steel, it doesn't mean we have the capability of producing enough. It might take years to become capable. I don't know the state of steel manufacturing, but there are other examples where we might not be even close to having the ability to output enough at this time. We lost that a long time ago with some products. You don't just snap your fingers and get it back. And a tariff (especially a big one like this) when we're not ready to produce the raw materials, might be a terrible idea. I'm not too knowledgeable about all this, but those are some of my thoughts.

My view of a lot of Trump voters in those states is that they're pining for the old days and want a bunch of plants to magically and instantly open up again and provide jobs. They're clinging to something we might never see again. The time for tariffs was immediately when some of these raw materials started being outsourced - before businesses started to leave.

The convo piqued my interest so here's a link with info on steel producers.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steel_producers

 

The U.S. has the 12th and 24th ranked steel producers by volume in 2016.

China has the 2nd, 3rd, 6th ,7th, 9th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 22nd

 

Another good link:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production

 

 

In 2013 we produced 87 million metric tons of steel. We imported 30.3. We exported 12.5. Using simple math (although I know it's not that simple) if these countries find someone else to buy their steel, we're at an 18 million metric ton shortfall.

 

Top steel exporters in 2013[19]
Rank Country Mt
1 China 61.5
2 Japan 42.5
- European Union[20] 38.7
3 South Korea 50.7
4 Ukraine 24.7
4 Germany 24.3
6 Russia 23.6
7 Turkey 17.3
8 Italy 16.9
9 France 14.2
10 Belgium 13.9
11 United States 12.5
12 Taiwan 11.6
13 India 10.1
14 Spain 9.3
15 Netherlands 8.8
Top steel net exporters in 2013[19]
Rank Country Mt
1 China 46.8
2 Japan 37.1
3 Ukraine 23.0
4 Russia 17.1
5 South Korea 9.9
- European Union[20] 7.9
6 Brazil 4.4
7 Taiwan 3.8
7 Belgium 3.8
9 Austria 3.7
10 Turkey 2.8
11 Netherlands 2.6
11 Slovakia 2.6
13 India 2.3
 

Imports

net: imports - exports

Top steel importers in 2013[19]
Rank Country Volume
- European Union[20] 30.8
1 United States 30.3
2 Germany 22.1
3 South Korea 19.0
4 Thailand 15.9
5 Italy 15.6
6 China 14.8
7 Turkey 14.5
8 France 13.2
9 Indonesia 12.3
10 Belgium 10.1
11 Vietnam 10.0
12 Canada 8.9
13 Poland 8.1
14 Taiwan 7.8
15 Mexico 7.7
Top steel net importers in 2013[19]
Rank Country Volume
1 United States 17.8
2 Thailand 14.4
3 Indonesia 11.6
4 Vietnam 8.6
5 Saudi Arabia 6.4
6 United Arab Emirates 5.3
7 Algeria 5.1
8 Philippines 4.8
9 Iraq 4.5
10 Egypt 3.9
10 Singapore 3.9
12 Hong Kong 3.2
13 Canada 3.1
13 Poland 3.1
15 Iran 2.7
 


Another ('nother) interesting thing. Our steel production isn't that much less than in 1967, if you check the 2nd link. So, it's pretty clear things are a lot more automated now. Those pining people may not get what they want even if we double it. This applies to most types of plants, I'm guessing.

It means we are a consumer.

 

A global consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheSker said:

It means we are a consumer.

 

A global consumer.

 

 

Not sure what your point with this reply is, or what part you're replying to, agreeing/disagreeing with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Not sure what your point with this reply is, or what part you're replying to, agreeing/disagreeing with.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing.

 

The information you posted is just that....it's information.

 

But it shows in regard to steel in those charts that we wrote a lot of checks and China and Japan cashed a lot of checks.

 

Some of them might have been ours......

 

Edited by TheSker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was enough to make the local news last night.

 

It's pretty lame companies just use these shell companies to bid on federal jobs like this. Then again, this company sounds like they're after Trump's own heart with their practices.

This stinks kind of like that Whitefish contract for Puerto Rico. Whitefish had two employees & were from Sec of the Interior Zinke's hometown. One of Zinke's kids worked a summer construction job for the head guy at Whitefish.

 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TheSker said:

It means we are a consumer.

 

A global consumer.

Which also means that since a tariff on steel will hurt the companies that consume steel, the net effect on the US economy of a steel tariff is very likely to be negative. At least for the foreseeable future.

 

Mark Blyth talks about this in the opening minutes of this podcast:

 

Edited by RedDenver
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Which also means that since a tariff on steel will hurt the companies that consume steel, the net effect on the US economy of a steel tariff is very likely to be negative. At least for the foreseeable future.

 

Mark Blyth talks about this in the opening minutes of this podcast:

 

Yes, that is possible, even probable, especially in the short term.

 

But maybe a longer term perspective will move us toward a producer role?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheSker said:

Yes, that is possible, even probable, especially in the short term.

 

But maybe a longer term perspective will move us toward a producer role?

That's fine, but we'd need an actual plan to get there. (Blyth mentions this in the linked podcast.) If Trump and team came out with a plan to get back to steel manufacturing in 10 or 20 years, then that would be different than the silly reactionary actions he's taking now.

 

But, as someone already mentioned, bringing back steel manufacturing doesn't necessarily bring back jobs. How much of the returning industry is automated? And those jobs might not pay much since US workers' pay has been stagnant since the 1970's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

That's fine, but we'd need an actual plan to get there. (Blyth mentions this in the linked podcast.) If Trump and team came out with a plan to get back to steel manufacturing in 10 or 20 years, then that would be different than the silly reactionary actions he's taking now.

 

But, as someone already mentioned, bringing back steel manufacturing doesn't necessarily bring back jobs. How much of the returning industry is automated? And those jobs might not pay much since US workers' pay has been stagnant since the 1970's.

The actions he is taking are not reactionary.  They are part of his campaign promises.

 

The tariffs are also not stand alone policies.  They are coupled with deregulation to make aggressive growth possible.

 

I totally understand that it's fun to make it seem like this is reactionary, but it's not.  If there is one thing Trump is doing it's pushing forward on his campaign points, especially the ones to promote business growth and income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheSker said:

The actions he is taking are not reactionary.  They are part of his campaign promises.

 

The tariffs are also not stand alone policies.  They are coupled with deregulation to make aggressive growth possible.

 

I totally understand that it's fun to make it seem like this is reactionary, but it's not.  If there is one thing Trump is doing it's pushing forward on his campaign points, especially the ones to promote business growth and income.

They are campaign promises, but so what? It's reactionary in the sense that it's a reaction to the steel industry declining, but it doesn't make the full attempt to restore the steel industry. Deregulation doesn't help the steel industry return. So saying tariffs and deregulation are coupled doesn't really make sense. In fact, as I pointed out before, the steel tariffs are likely to shrink the economy because the US economy is a far bigger consumer than producer of steel, which means the "aggressive growth" narrative doesn't make logical sense. And that's before considering the effects of reciprocal tariffs by other nations.

 

If the goal is to restore the steel industry, then there needs to be a comprehensive plan over some time horizon. And then we can judge if that plan makes sense or not, since it might lead to more steel jobs (or might not depending on automation), but may result in loss of jobs in other sectors due to reciprocal tariffs.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mention of reciprocal tariffs is a good point, @RedDenver. This is why you rarely see tariffs utilized anymore. Any nation that decides to impose tariffs is going to get hit back by both individual countries via the WTO (think the Canadian lumber tariffs) but also by large markets like the EU, who is reportedly ready to impose equivalent tariffs on Kentucky bourbon, Wisconsin motorcycles/dairy products & Levi's jeans in California as a shot at the home states of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy.

 

They're a neutral move because you wind up getting hit back for what you put tariffs on. Thus, you hurt your own exporters & make the items you put tariffs on more expensive.

 

A beer tax isn't going to make very many Americans very happy.

 

Besides, it was most definitely reactionary. Trump announced tariffs because he had a terrible week in the news & inside the White House. So he decided to play to his base (again) & try to claim he was finally doing something for steel workers.

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why it's relevant whether it was a campaign promise. He still seems to have done it out of the blue.

 

The number one problem with democracy imho is the leader's goal isn't necessarily to do what's best for the country. It's to do what helps him get re-elected.

At the same time... being beholden to voters is good. But if an action is going to hurt the country, even if it breaks a campaign promise, you should still not do it.

Edited by Moiraine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

I'm not sure why it's relevant whether it was a campaign promise.

That is possibly the most relevant thing since he's already announced intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheSker said:

That is possibly the most relevant thing since he's already announced intention.

 

 

Ya, I'm not getting the logic here. There is a lot of time after a campaign promise to get more information to find out the affects of enacting said promise, or to find out it's a stupid idea. I find it unlikely Trump did that. The last bit is probably where we differ.

 

There's a little evidence for why I don't think he did that though.

 

Quote

But the public show of confidence belies the fact that Trump's policy maneuver, which may ultimately harm U.S. companies and American consumers, was announced without any internal review by government lawyers or his own staff, according to a review of an internal White House document.

According to two officials, Trump's decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.

 

If the above is true, that's not how you make a decision, and whether he made a campaign promise on it is irrelevant.

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Ya, I'm not getting the logic here. There is a lot of time after a campaign promise to get more information to find out the affects of enacting said promise, or to find out it's a stupid idea. I find it unlikely Trump did that. The last bit is probably where we differ.

 

There's a little evidence for why I don't think he did that though.

 

 

If the above is true, that's not how you make a decision, and whether he made a campaign promise on it is irrelevant.

I get it.  You think it's irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

To be fair, Hillary was suggesting it as a reaction to currency manipulation. If Trump was tying his tariffs to specific currency manipulations, then it'd be more comparable. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2018 at 11:27 AM, TGHusker said:

Besides tariffs - let's not forget that Trump wants to basically scrap NAFTA.   Another stroke of brilliance.

To follow up on the above, Trump goes on a tweet rant about NAFTA

 

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-canada-mexico-tariffs/2018/03/05/id/846755/

 

Quote

President Donald Trump on Monday took a swat at Canada for not treating U.S. farmers better and Mexico for allowing too many drugs to flow across the border while also tying tariffs to a new NAFTA agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2018 at 12:47 PM, BigRedBuster said:

Here is an example of a good way to make policy. 

 

 

Pretty amazing.  Sounds like an admin out of control, disorganized and moveable only by the whims of Trump's emotions.  This alone is an Amendment 25 concern.  The guy is emotionally unstable, the staff seems to be very 'brittle' - afraid to step on egg shells.   As Fru said and this guy has his finger on the nuke button. :ahhhhhhhh

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any businesses come out in support of the tariffs?

 

We could probably do a 5% tariff  on each and would've benefitted both industries without causing a lot of damage or uproar. 25% is pretty damn close to a ban because it's unaffordable.

Edited by Moiraine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Pretty amazing.  Sounds like an admin out of control, disorganized and moveable only by the whims of Trump's emotions.  This alone is an Amendment 25 concern.  

 

Frankly, this sounds less like the President and more like the post-90s GOP as a whole. 

 

If anyone wants to start a moderate third party, now is the perfect time to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Frankly, this sounds less like the President and more like the post-90s GOP as a whole. 

 

If anyone wants to start a moderate third party, now is the perfect time to do it. 

Please explain the bold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Have any businesses come out in support of the tariffs?

Yes, there is support from the obvious....U.S. steel companies, labor unions and Democrats Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Please explain the bold

I'm not VV, but I think he means that the GOP has been changing from supporting free trade to the opposite - supporting protectionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he was stating the GOP has been careening in an unsuitable direction pretty much ever since Gipper stepped down & it's harming the country.

 

Could be wrong though. We could probably just wait for Victor to come back :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Yes, there is support from the obvious....U.S. steel companies, labor unions and Democrats Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.

 

I feel like the issue is either way someone is going to be ticked off. Manufacturing & the American steel industry have long felt like they've been getting screwed.

 

But a lot of their problems are not ones that can be solved with tariffs. And the vast majority of people lose with these tariffs.

 

Basically, if you support steel/aluminum manufacturing or labor unions (like Brown or Casey do) you like this. But we're really just choosing winners & losers and deciding who to tick off with a move like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

But a lot of their problems are not ones that can be solved with tariffs.

What are a lot of their problems?

 

The three products that made the news from the EU were Harley Davidson motorcycles (American Steel?), Levis and bourbon.

 

Sales of those products might very well decrease in the EU, but I wonder if it's possible steel workers would be an interested market in the U.S. for those products?

 

I certainly agree with your line of questioning.  I also think it's ok for the U.S. to look at ways of being more productive.  We are huge consumers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the issue of not enough domestic supply (for aluminum at least):

The tariffs can't fix a problem with there being not enough domestic supply to meet demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

There's also the issue of not enough domestic supply (for aluminum at least):

The tariffs can't fix a problem with there being not enough domestic supply to meet demands.

The supply question is valid, especially in the short term.  

 

I live in Golden CO and have acquaintances at the Coors facility in Golden and with Ball Corporation who has a large aluminum can manufacturing plant in Golden.

 

It will be interesting to get their thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheSker said:

The supply question is valid, especially in the short term.  

 

I live in Golden CO and have acquaintances at the Coors facility in Golden and with Ball Corporation who has a large aluminum can manufacturing plant in Golden.

 

It will be interesting to get their thoughts.

Your beer just went up in price -- :cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Have any businesses come out in support of the tariffs?

Obviously the domestic steel companies came out immediately and loved the idea.  Problem is, (going from memory) there is only something like 150,000 US workers in the steel and aluminum industry.  Meanwhile, there is something like 6.5 million in industries that use steel.  So, you are disrupting 6.5 million jobs to maybe increase the number of steel workers from 150,000.

 

I also just watched a story on CNBC where they were reporting from a  steel plant.  They were saying this is one of the most advanced steel plants in the world and the direction the industry is going.  It was all animated.

 

So....even if Drumpf would drastically increase the tons of domestic steel produced, the steel jobs aren't coming back.

 

We need to concentrate on the value added products.  Companies that bring in steel and turn them into actual products for consumers.  

Edited by BigRedBuster
  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Your beer just went up in price -- :cheers

That may be an assumption.

 

Ball Corp sends aluminum cans worldwide.  Perhaps their U.S. market share increases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheSker said:

That may be an assumption.

 

Ball Corp sends aluminum cans worldwide.  Perhaps their U.S. market share increases?

Ok so they aren't an importer of Alum?  I was reading it that they import alum for their cans - but if they don't then beer will remain the same  !!  So that would be a double :cheers:cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Obviously the domestic steel companies came out immediately and loved the idea.  Problem is, (going from memory) there is only something like 150,000 US workers in the steel and aluminum industry.  Meanwhile, there is something like 6.5 million in industries that use steel.  So, you are disrupting 6.5 million jobs to maybe increase the number of steel workers from 150,000.

 

I also just watched a story on CNBC where they were reporting from a  steel plant.  They were saying this is one of the most advanced steel plants in the world and the direction the industry is going.  It was all animated.

 

So....even if Drumpf would drastically increase the tons of domestic steel produced, the steel jobs aren't coming back.

 

 

 

I've seen at least one Steel company complaining about it because they also imported steel. I'm wondering if they were also a wholesaler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×