Trump announces tariffs: 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum | Hacker News Reader

Trump announces tariffs: 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum

washingtonpost.com

25 pointsenraged_camel13 comments

Two, maybe three, decades too late for aluminum. I don't think there is a single aluminum plant left in the Pacific NW when we used to have a fair number of them with Reynolds and Kaiser. Those plants aren't just going to come back online either, an entire generation of workers has moved on.

MillerCoors agrees:

"Like most brewers, we are selling an increasing amount of our beers in aluminum cans, and this action will cause aluminum prices to rise. It is likely to lead to job losses across the beer industry

We buy as much domestic can sheet aluminum as is available, however, there simply isn’t enough supply to satisfy the demands of American beverage makers like us. American workers and American consumers will suffer as a result of this misguided tariff"

https://twitter.com/MillerCoors/status/969312711371886594

This is happening because Trump and his supporters want to get the US back to the 50's when the country was a huge exporter.

The problem is the 50's were an aberration. That's because all the other major industrial powers had been devastated or at least impoverished by WWII. But they rebuilt, and new industrial powers like China arose, and so we got back to the normal state of affairs of lots of competition.

I was a supporter of Bernie and he planned to do the same thing, for basically the same reasons. He didn't pick this unilaterally either, the Commerce department recommended it.

Do you have links where we can read about this?

I can't find evidence that Bernie advocated tariffs at these levels. I know he spoke against "unfettered free trade" and new agreements like TPP, but I remember him talking more about taxing the import of labor (US companies using foreign labor) more than materials (US companies importing goods).

It also looks like the Commerce Dept was staunchly against this idea in 2016[1].

1. https://news.vice.com/article/trumps-views-on-trade-are-clos...

According to USA Today Bernie did say that

[1][His campaign says Sanders also would impose countervailing tariffs on imports from China and Japan “until they stop dumping steel into the United States and stop manipulating their currencies.”]

1.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016...

Good summary of positions here, though doesn’t note steel directly. http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Free...

Trump/Bernie very close on trade policy: http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/jul...

Both of them appealed strongly to blue collar workers because these positions on trade, Sanders would have won hands down against Trump if not for the rigged primaries.

IIRC, Biden has a similar mindset, and definitely can speak to Trump’s base in a way that Clinton (“deplorables”...) could not. Of the dem contenders so far, he’s the best chance of winning in 2020 imo.

I too was a supporter of Bernie and cringed at similar proposals. I guess I just figured all the other candidates were amenable to reason and when put in this position would make a more measured gesture.

Won't this just add costs to higher value manufacturers further up the supply chain?

Tariffs do increase costs. However, if China is actually dumping heavily subsidized steel on the market (supposedly via other countries) and driving prices below cost, and if this puts our steel mills at risk of closing (which seemingly it does), not imposing a tariff risks a supply shortage in the future when China cuts heavy subsidies and incentives. Steel mills take a very long time to build and scale to operation, and this would be devastating, more so than slightly increased prices now.

It can be argued that something similar is happening with oil, in which OPEC countries have massively increased their output, many at a loss, to prevent the U.S. shale oil industry from developing into a contender. The government has turned a blind eye to this for 2 reasons, I think

1) The supply glut has devastated the Russian economy and currency, and the enemy of my enemy etc. -- this hearkens back to Obama-era foreign policy of sanctions during the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, and cozying up to/improving our "alliance" with Saudi Arabia.

2) Imposing an oil tariff/intentionally raising oil prices in any way is a huge political no-no as the populace refuses to pay more at the pump. This is despite prices more than double the current level (considering inflation) being tolerated at the pump not long ago at all.

What authority does the president have for such tariffs?

Ambrose Bierce gave an accurate description of the ultimate end in this kind of trade barrier: TARIFF, n. A scale of taxes on imports, designed to protect the domestic producer against the greed of his customers.

Bush 2 tried this in 2002 and lifted it in 2003 because the unintended consequences were worse. Obama also tried targeted tariffs, they were lifted. This just a way to tax specific vertical industries and reward others, picking and choosing winners. And taxes are ultimately paid by American consumers.

Also, most steel imports come from Canada, Mexico and Brazil, not China.

In a normal administration, this would get lifted when the retaliation begins and it becomes clear the only way to win is not to play. But...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com