No. of Recommendations: 15
Lots of good arguments here have shown the insanity of many of its provisions. This article does a good job of explaining why the entire bill is a shit sandwich for the US (and the EU as well)
Trump announced a “trade deal” with the EU, and the pattern continues with lots of goals, targets, and promises with few specifics - except that American consumers will ultimately pay more for imported products. I read tons of articles and commentary from solid sources in Europe and US, so I begin this Bulletin with a breakdown of the various takes.
… NYT: “The EU and the US agreed on Sunday to a broad-brush trade deal that sets a 15% tariff on most EU goods, including cars and pharmaceuticals, averting what could have become a painful trade war with a bloc that is the US’ single biggest source of imports. Trump said that the EU had agreed to purchase $750 billion of American energy, which Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU’s executive branch, told reporters would be spread out over 3 years.”
… “Not all higher tariffs were eliminated. A senior US official said the 50% tariff the Trump admin had imposed on steel and aluminum globally was not part of the deal. Like many preliminary agreements Trump has announced, this one had few details. For some of the ‘deals’ that Trump reached, other govts have seemed to lack clarity on what exactly they agreed to, and it remains unclear which tariff rates will apply to which products as of Aug. 1.”
… Patrick Anderson, CEO of Anderson Economic Group, said the deal for autos could lead to “a cost penalty of thousands of dollars per vehicle for numerous models assembled in the US that use foreign parts. How can the admin square a 15% tariff on cars from Europe and Japan, while manufacturers in the US, Canada and Mexico are laboring under 25% tariffs?”
… Fox Business Analyst Charles Gasparino had Trump fans upset with his take on Fox & Friends: “The stuff they are buying from us they probably would have bought anyway. They’re cutting back on natural gas from Russia. They’re building out their military because of Russian expansionism. So they were going to do that anyway. And when you say we get 15%, true. But that means US consumers are paying 15% more too so it's kind of like a tax increase on US consumers.”
… Irritated Fox host Brian Kilmeade: “What about the 50% tariff on EU steel and aluminum. How is that going to affect all of us? Gasparino: If we need to buy steel from them. It's going to cost us more. Again, put this in context. Every penny we get from them is being passed to the US consumer. Kilmeade: Not necessarily. Gasparino: Yes necessarily. Companies don't report to president. They report to shareholders and they have a fiduciary responsibility for profit margins and at some point and that point is coming. You can see it. There are price increases on certain goods. Let’s be real clear here. Tariffs cost, they’re a tax. That tax often gets passed on to consumers.”
… Gasparino: “You do have to ask yourself why the rush to get a deal like this done? They didn’t agree to that much for us. Why did they go from DEFCON 1 to this? One reason is that there is a federal appeals court that is ruling on Trump’s use of the emergency power to impose tariffs and that court could rule against him. If it rules against him, the whole tariff scheme is up in the air.”
… Former Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore: ”We’re a little queasy about the Trump argument that tariffs don’t filter down like sand in an hourglass to consumer prices. Sure, some of the cost will be borne by the importers. But businesses with thin profit margins can’t eat the whole extra cost of taxes imposed on them.”
… Denmark MP Rasmus Jarlov: “There is nothing to celebrate. Moving from average tariffs of less than 2% on trade between the US and Europe to 15% under today’s deal will inevitably lead to inflation.Almost everything will become more expensive in both Europe and the US, and we will all be worse off. The economic illiteracy in the White House is doing serious damage to the West.”
Those last two sentences keep rolling around in my head. Why would anyone propose a deal that is doing serious damage to the west?
Certainly, stupidity would explain it. We all know that an avaricious Trump has established the pattern of dropping the gold coin in his hand in order to grasp for the mirage of a golden boulder. And perhaps he HAS insured that he will personally profit.
But “serious damage to the west”?
Qui Bono? Who profits?
And that question leads us back to RUSSIA! Russia! Russia!
