Discussion:
Tariffs And America And Canada
(too old to reply)
Greg Carr
2018-07-03 21:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Following a week filled with threats and counter-threats, there are ominous signs that a long era of free trade may be coming to an abrupt end.

In a transition that would have seemed astonishing only a few years ago, national strategies based on the advantages of open borders are being replaced by tactics not seen for decades.
Suddenly, countries are looking inward instead of outward. And it's contagious.

Self-destructive

Rather than seeking global or regional efficiency, countries  such as Canada are imposing protectionist measures to save their own domestic industries from the damaging effects of foreign protectionism, particularly from the Trump administration in the U.S.
For example, instead of trying to find the cheapest possible food for their people on global markets, countries are conceding that their citizens will have to pay more, leading to worries about food security not seen in decades.
For those schooled in the logic of free trade, including internationally respected trade economist Daniel Trefler, the whole process is nothing but self-destructive.

© Jason Lee/Reuters As China has become wealthier, people there have been eating more meat. 
"Everything that we're talking about with the Trump initiative is things that reduce our competitiveness vis-a-vis the rest of the world," says Trefler, a professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management who advises the Canadian government on investment and trade policy.
"All of this is not only going to make Canada and Mexico worse off, it's going to make the United States worse off as well."

Striking back where it hurts

And while he understands the damaging effect of escalating trade barriers, Trefler says if the U.S. were to seriously hurt the Canadian economy with, say, a 25 per cent duty on cars and car parts, Canada would have to strike back in a way that hurts the U.S. 
And he says that should include ending U.S. patent protection in this country on things such as pharmaceuticals.
When some of our strongest free trade advocates start taking positions like that it reminds you how far we have come from a few years ago when everyone, including Canada, the U.S. and China, were looking to benefit from the advantages of more open borders.

© Paulo Whitaker/Reuters Brazil is the world's largest exporter of soybeans, but it can't entirely replace the supply China imports from the U.S.
Now, those countries are taking punitive actions against each other that seem to fly in the face of their own self-interest. And one of the most important areas is food. And one of the most seriously affected could be China.
"Food security is a major issue for the Chinese," says Trefler, "so anything that destroys food security, they are going to make it a priority to find a solution, and as you know, when the Chinese have a priority to find a solution, they are pretty good at finding it."

Losing trust

Jennifer Clapp, a specialist in global economics and agriculture, and author of  Speculative Harvests , says a return to fears about food security harks back to the Great Depression.
The fact is, before the World Trade Organization era began in 1995, many countries, including China, rejected free trade in food for national security reasons.
"But since the mid-1990s, we've seen a liberalization of agricultural trade that's almost become like a religion," says Clapp, Canada Research Chair in global food security and sustainability at the University of Waterloo.
The theory was free trade in food and agriculture was more efficient, allowing the world to produce more food and feed more people. And food-producing countries, including the U.S., benefited from that change.
"But what is often not said is that the economic rationale for free trade in food and agriculture is based on an implicit assumption of political stability and predictability in terms of the actions of one's trading partners," she says. In the Trump era, she says, predictability is no longer assured.


As some U.S. trade partners buy less food, the U.S. has revived the Commodity Credit Corporation, created in 1933 to protect U.S. farmers from global competition and the Depression's collapse of market prices.
As China cuts back on U.S. soybeans — used mostly as feed for livestock to produce meat — it, too, must adjust to a new reality. Even increasing purchases from the world's biggest producer, Brazil, cannot replace the huge volumes China purchased from the U.S. 
One solution would be to buy more meat from places like Canada instead of growing it at home. But Clapp says China has also begun a campaign to encourage people to eat 50 per cent less meat, ostensibly for health and environmental reasons.

Wounds inflicted

Closer to home, the newly elected president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has advocated food self-sufficiency for his country.
Altering supply chains to avoid tariffs adds to costs, and the longer trade barriers stay in place, the more unlikely trade patterns will go back to the way they were before. Wounds inflicted on trade partners could take years to heal.
But the current global trade chaos may not be about efficiency in its traditional form. Instead, it may be about a realignment of world power, a perhaps not-fully-rational loathing for the way things are now.
And Clapp says the results may not be all bad, in agriculture at least. Large U.S. agro-industry may suffer from the changes, but smaller, local agriculture can find other kinds of efficiencies, supporting communities and providing healthier, more environmentally friendly food, she says.
"The broader benefits are not just about money."
Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/warning-signs-as-states-revive-depression-era-trade-tactics-don-pittis/ar-AAzw5Mq?ocid=spartandhp
b***@gmail.com
2018-07-03 23:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-7, Greg Carr wrote:
> Following a week filled with threats and counter-threats, there are ominous signs that a long era of free trade may be coming to an abrupt end.
[- - -]
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/warning-signs-as-states-revive-depression-era-trade-tactics-don-pittis/ar-AAzw5Mq?ocid=spartandhp

These are the key issues from that article:

1. countries such as Canada are imposing protectionist measures to save their own domestic industries from the damaging effects of foreign protectionism

2. Trefler says if the U.S. were to seriously hurt the Canadian economy with, say, a 25 per cent duty on cars and car parts, Canada would have to strike back in a way that hurts the U.S.

And he says that should include ending U.S. patent protection in this country on things such as pharmaceuticals.

3. "Food security is a major issue for the Chinese," says Trefler, "so anything that destroys food security, they are going to make it a priority to find a solution, and as you know, when the Chinese have a priority to find a solution, they are pretty good at finding it."

4. The fact is, before the World Trade Organization era began in 1995, many countries, including China, rejected free trade in food for national security reasons.

5. As some U.S. trade partners buy less food, the U.S. has revived the Commodity Credit Corporation, created in 1933 to protect U.S. farmers from global competition and the Depression's collapse of market prices. <<==

6. Closer to home, the newly elected president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has advocated food self-sufficiency for his country.

7. And Clapp says the results may not be all bad, in agriculture at least. Large U.S. agro-industry may suffer from the changes, but smaller, local agriculture can find other kinds of efficiencies, supporting communities and providing healthier, more environmentally friendly food, she says.

"The broader benefits are not just about money."
______________________________________________________

Imagine using our land to produce foods for our own country's people . . . what a concept!

And think what would happen if the U.S. pharmaceutical companies lost their patents in Canada. Those drugs would fall to being generically priced if the Americans wanted to retain Canadian customers at all. Still another reason why Canada was stupid to sell our pharmaceutical companies to the U.S. in the past.

Now if we can also extend that concept to the production of oil and gas for the consumption of our own country's people - instead of shipping it offshore for profit - we might really be onto something.

Trump didn't mean to make us think "Canada First", but we sure as hell now have reason to think that way.
Dhu on Gate
2018-07-04 00:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 16:10:14 -0700, brewnoser2 wrote:

> 1. countries such as Canada are imposing protectionist measures to save
> their own domestic industries from the damaging effects of foreign
> protectionism

We have a different physical environment.
Our Milk wells can freeze up in winter, unlike Virginia.

Dhu


--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
b***@gmail.com
2018-07-04 00:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 16:10:14 -0700, brewnoser2 wrote:
>
> > 1. countries such as Canada are imposing protectionist measures to save
> > their own domestic industries from the damaging effects of foreign
> > protectionism

On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-7, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> We have a different physical environment.
> Our Milk wells can freeze up in winter, unlike Virginia.


No kidding? Is all the milk that you buy in Canada frozen, John?
Dhu on Gate
2018-07-04 18:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 17:55:07 -0700, brewnoser2 wrote:

>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 16:10:14 -0700, brewnoser2 wrote:
>>
>> > 1. countries such as Canada are imposing protectionist measures to save
>> > their own domestic industries from the damaging effects of foreign
>> > protectionism
>
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-7, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> We have a different physical environment.
>> Our Milk wells can freeze up in winter, unlike Virginia.
>
>
> No kidding? Is all the milk that you buy in Canada frozen, John?

F* you're an idiot.

Dhu


--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt
TomP
2018-07-04 17:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 03/07/2018 6:10 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:34:31 PM UTC-7, Greg Carr wrote:
>> Following a week filled with threats and counter-threats, there are ominous signs that a long era of free trade may be coming to an abrupt end.
> [- - -]
>> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/warning-signs-as-states-revive-depression-era-trade-tactics-don-pittis/ar-AAzw5Mq?ocid=spartandhp
>
> These are the key issues from that article:
>
> 1. countries such as Canada are imposing protectionist measures to save their own domestic industries from the damaging effects of foreign protectionism
>
> 2. Trefler says if the U.S. were to seriously hurt the Canadian economy with, say, a 25 per cent duty on cars and car parts, Canada would have to strike back in a way that hurts the U.S.
>
> And he says that should include ending U.S. patent protection in this country on things such as pharmaceuticals.
>
> 3. "Food security is a major issue for the Chinese," says Trefler, "so anything that destroys food security, they are going to make it a priority to find a solution, and as you know, when the Chinese have a priority to find a solution, they are pretty good at finding it."
>
> 4. The fact is, before the World Trade Organization era began in 1995, many countries, including China, rejected free trade in food for national security reasons.
>
> 5. As some U.S. trade partners buy less food, the U.S. has revived the Commodity Credit Corporation, created in 1933 to protect U.S. farmers from global competition and the Depression's collapse of market prices. <<==
>
> 6. Closer to home, the newly elected president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has advocated food self-sufficiency for his country.
>
> 7. And Clapp says the results may not be all bad, in agriculture at least. Large U.S. agro-industry may suffer from the changes, but smaller, local agriculture can find other kinds of efficiencies, supporting communities and providing healthier, more environmentally friendly food, she says.
>
> "The broader benefits are not just about money."
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Imagine using our land to produce foods for our own country's people . . . what a concept!
>
> And think what would happen if the U.S. pharmaceutical companies lost their patents in Canada. Those drugs would fall to being generically priced if the Americans wanted to retain Canadian customers at all. Still another reason why Canada was stupid to sell our pharmaceutical companies to the U.S. in the past.
>
> Now if we can also extend that concept to the production of oil and gas for the consumption of our own country's people - instead of shipping it offshore for profit - we might really be onto something.
>
> Trump didn't mean to make us think "Canada First", but we sure as hell now have reason to think that way.
>

Prior to NAFTA, Canadians had a good standard of living. Today's jobs in
Canada pay minimum or slightly above minimum wage and companies that
Canadians work for can close down taking pensions with them.
I think the biggest fears of the globalists and NAFTA supporters is that
with the collapse of these trade agreements, the people of these
countries will see their standard of living go up. A good example of
that is the Harley Davidson motorcycle plant that announced they were
opening a plant in Europe because of tariffs. I'm sure many users of
steel are looking at relocating their operations to parts of the world
where steel and aluminum mare cheaper.
Once the benefits of bringing these jobs home are realized, it will be
harder for the multinationals to impose their will on our governments.
Greg Carr
2018-07-04 18:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Millions of Canadians own shares in the multinationals.
M.I.Wakefield
2018-07-04 19:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"TomP" wrote in message news:phiv3q$7vi$***@adenine.netfront.net...

> Prior to NAFTA, Canadians had a good standard of living. Today's jobs in
> Canada pay minimum or slightly above minimum wage and companies that
> Canadians work for can close down taking pensions with them.

In 1993, the CPP Maximum Pensionable Earning (which is based on the average
industrial wage) was $33,400; today it is $55,900, an increase of over 67%,
and about 10% more than inflation over the same period.

> I think the biggest fears of the globalists and NAFTA supporters is that
> with the collapse of these trade agreements, the people of these countries
> will see their standard of living go up. A good example of that is the
> Harley Davidson motorcycle plant that announced they were opening a plant
> in Europe because of tariffs.

So much wrong in so few sentences. Trade deals keep tariffs down, and
create a stable business environment that encourages investment. Harley is
moving production out of the US because the EU has slapped an extra 25%
tariff on some US products in retaliation for Trump's idiotic and
unjustified tariffs.

The EU's tariffs were targeted to hurt specific industries in specific
locations; Harley is based in Wisconsin, where House Speaker Paul Ryan is
from ... a lot of bourbon comes from Kentucky, where Senate Leader Mitch
McConnell is from.

----------
TomP is chief spokesperson for the Canadian Buggy Whip Manufacturers
Association.
Greg Carr
2018-07-04 22:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
> ----------
> TomP is chief spokesperson for the Canadian Buggy Whip Manufacturers
> Association.

LOL!
TomP
2018-07-04 22:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/07/2018 2:55 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "TomP"  wrote in message news:phiv3q$7vi$***@adenine.netfront.net...
>
>> Prior to NAFTA, Canadians had a good standard of living. Today's jobs
>> in Canada pay minimum or slightly above minimum wage and companies
>> that Canadians work for can close down taking pensions with them.
>
> In 1993, the CPP Maximum Pensionable Earning (which is based on the
> average industrial wage) was $33,400; today it is $55,900, an increase
> of over 67%, and about 10% more than inflation over the same period.

https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/01/20/will-16000-sears-canada-retirees-see-their-pensions.html

>
>> I think the biggest fears of the globalists and NAFTA supporters is
>> that with the collapse of these trade agreements, the people of these
>> countries will see their standard of living go up. A good example of
>> that is the Harley Davidson motorcycle plant that announced they were
>> opening a plant in Europe because of tariffs.
>
> So much wrong in so few sentences.  Trade deals keep tariffs down, and
> create a stable business environment that encourages investment.  Harley
> is moving production out of the US because the EU has slapped an extra
> 25% tariff on some US products in retaliation for Trump's idiotic and
> unjustified tariffs.

You're saying exactly what I said. The tariffs prompted Harley Davidson
to move their operations and jobs to Europe. Once there they will buy
their materials and services locally creating even more jobs.
That is my point. NAFTA has hurt Canadians by sending Canadian jobs
South.
That's exactly what happened when NAFTA was created. Hundreds of
companies shut down their Canadian operations to bolster their American
plants.
Now, because of the tariffs, those plants may return as companies
realize that if they want access to the Canadian market, they have to
become part of the Canadian economy.
How is that a bad thing?


https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/01/20/will-16000-sears-canada-retirees-see-their-pensions.html

Will 16,000 Sears Canada retirees see their pensions?

Sears Canada pensioners saw it coming.

In 2013 they predicted that Sears Canada would go out of business,
stranding them with an enormous deficit in the pension plan they had
been contributing to for most of their working lives.

A deficit would mean reduced pension payouts in retirement – reductions
many of them could ill afford.

They saw it coming and they tried to fix it.

They wrote to Sears Canada CEO Calvin McDonald in 2013, they met with
Sears Canada chairman Brandon Stranzl in 2016. They communicated
repeatedly with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).
They wrote to Premier Kathleen Wynne and to every Ontario MPP. They met
with representatives from Ontario’s finance ministry.

In all, the list of actions taken by members of the Sears Store and
Catalogue Retiree Group (SCRG) runs across three pages of an affidavit
filed in court that lists 41 steps taken to address the shortfall, as
well as some of the responses – and those are just the steps taken since
2012.

They had begun expressing concern as far back as 2009.

And yet, when Sears Canada applied for protection from creditors on June
22 last year, the deficit in the defined benefit pension plan was $266.8
million. Sears Canada pensioners – 16,000 of them – now face the
prospect of reduced pension incomes.

Their health and welfare fund, which helped them pay for things like
prescription drugs, has been wiped out.

It wasn’t for lack of trying that they failed.

“We knew then that it was wrong. If the Ontario government had taken
action in 2014 or 2015, we wouldn’t be here, the pension plan would have
been wound up, the deficit issue would have been addressed,” said Ken
Eady, a spokesman for SCRG, and one of three court-appointed
representatives in the insolvency.

The Sears Canada failure once again exposed problems with defined
benefit pensions, pension regulations and weaknesses in the federal acts
governing bankruptcies and creditor protection applications that could
affect more Canadians if fixes aren’t made.

In fact, pensioners are asking why fixes haven’t been made yet, after
the financial collapse of Nortel in 2009 left 20,000 pensioners in the
lurch.

“The legal and regulatory backdrop has not changed one whit,” said
Michael Campbell, vice-president Nortel Retirees and former employees
Protection Canada (NRPC), and court-appointed representative for the
Nortel Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) legal proceedings.

Campbell points to one improvement: The monthly maximum payment under
Ontario’s existing Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (PBGF) is slated to
increase to $1,500 from $1,000 a month.

The PBGF is a special fund that was established by the Government of
Ontario to cover pension shortfalls for certain defined benefit pension
plans, in the event of a company insolvency. But Campbell also points
out that the fund only covers workers in Ontario, and is not adjusted
for inflation.

The Nortel case is in its ninth year before the courts. Nortel
pensioners in Ontario had their pensions reduced by 30 per cent – not
indexed to inflation. The original plan had an indexing provision.

There is hope they may get another 10 per cent after all the assets of
the estate are distributed, according to Campbell.

Nortel employees in other provinces saw their pensions drop by half –
Ontario workers are better off because they are protected by the PBGF.

A recent report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found
that many of Canada’s largest companies had defined benefit pension
plans in a deficit position in 2016.

And it’s likely that the practice of underfunding pensions is more
advanced at private companies, operating without the same scrutiny as
their publicly traded counterparts, according to the report.

(A defined benefit pension plan promises a specified pension payment
based on a formula that typically includes employee earnings, years of
service and age.)

For decades, joining the Sears defined benefit pension plan was a
mandatory condition of employment as it was at many companies booming in
an era of postwar prosperity fuelled by population growth.

Robust pension plans were a way of attracting and keeping good
employees. The Sears plan offered a guaranteed retirement income,
benefits, an employee discount in retirement and spousal continuance of
the pension.

Sears had a philosophy of looking after employees who would in turn care
about the company and take care of customers, according to an affidavit
filed in court by William Turner, a long-time employee of Sears Canada,
on behalf of the pensioners.

...
Dave Smith
2018-07-04 23:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-04 6:49 PM, TomP wrote:
> On 04/07/2018 2:55 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>> "TomP"  wrote in message news:phiv3q$7vi$***@adenine.netfront.net...
>>
>>> Prior to NAFTA, Canadians had a good standard of living. Today's jobs
>>> in Canada pay minimum or slightly above minimum wage and companies
>>> that Canadians work for can close down taking pensions with them.
>>
>> In 1993, the CPP Maximum Pensionable Earning (which is based on the
>> average industrial wage) was $33,400; today it is $55,900, an increase
>> of over 67%, and about 10% more than inflation over the same period.
>
Meanwhile, the basic exemption for income taxes has remained about the
same and the higher income has put us into higher tax brackets so we pay
a lot more income tax.
M.I.Wakefield
2018-07-05 03:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"TomP" wrote in message news:phjiun$25a0$***@adenine.netfront.net...

> On 04/07/2018 2:55 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:

> https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/01/20/will-16000-sears-canada-retirees-see-their-pensions.html

Yep. Sears was run by idiots, and the workers got screwed.

> > So much wrong in so few sentences. Trade deals keep tariffs down, and
> > create a stable business environment that encourages investment. Harley
> > is moving production out of the US because the EU has slapped an extra
> > 25% tariff on some US products in retaliation for Trump's idiotic and
> > unjustified tariffs.

> You're saying exactly what I said.

No, I didn't.

> The tariffs prompted Harley Davidson to move their operations and jobs to
> Europe.

They're not starting up a plant in Europe, they're moving production to a
non-US facility to avoid tariffs. This move has nothing to do with jobs in
Europe, and everything to do with screwing workers in Wisconsin to cause
pain for Republicans in that state

The kind of protectionism you're preaching has been tried before. It did
not end well.
b***@gmail.com
2018-07-05 21:00:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 8:18:31 PM UTC-7, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> They're not starting up a plant in Europe, they're moving production to a
> non-US facility to avoid tariffs. This move has nothing to do with jobs in
> Europe, and everything to do with screwing workers in Wisconsin to cause
> pain for Republicans in that state

They are indeed "starting up a plant in Europe". They currently do not have a plant in Europe. It will take 9 to 18 months to build one in Europe.

Your cynical attitude comes through again with the interpretation of why Harley-Davidson would take their manufacturing offshore. No company plays politics just to 'screw American workers and Republicans'. Their end game is always profits.
Only petty, stupid people like you and Trump play at malice and revenge.

And the move has a whole lot to do with creating jobs in Europe - unless you think H-D is going to move people from the U.S. to work in the new European plant?

> The kind of protectionism you're preaching has been tried before. It did
> not end well.

Protectionism is the term politicians use to counter their endorsement of trade agreements. We did very well without them for generations. The only ones who benefit from trade agreements are corporations. The rest of us pay the same prices for cheaply-made overseas-manufactured goods as we once paid for Canadian made goods. The profits go only to the corporations.

Bleat all you like, 'Wakefield' . . . . you're one of the many who are wrong about trade agreements. But then, you've established a record for being wrong on a whole lot of issues, haven't you?
Greg Carr
2018-07-05 21:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I remember Kim Dobranski do you usually wrong Karen Eileen Gordon.
M.I.Wakefield
2018-07-05 22:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Karen Gordon" wrote in message
news:7ddd964c-04b9-4492-81ef-***@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 8:18:31 PM UTC-7, M.I.Wakefield wrote:

> > They're not starting up a plant in Europe, they're moving production to
> > a non-US facility to avoid tariffs. This move has nothing to do with
> > jobs in Europe, and everything to do with screwing workers in Wisconsin
> > to cause pain for Republicans in that state

> They are indeed "starting up a plant in Europe".

No, they'll move production to one of their exist overseas plants, probably
Indonesia, but possibly India, or Brazil.

"No production will be moving to Europe as a result of the tariffs,
according to the company. "
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/trump-tariffs-backfire-on-harley-davidson-after-eu-retaliates.html

> They currently do not have a plant in Europe.

There's a reason for that; the cost of shipping to Europe is less than the
incremental wage cost.

> It will take 9 to 18 months to build one in Europe.

No, Harley is "shifting targeted production from the U.S. to international
facilities" and that process "could take at least nine to 18 months to be
completed". Learn to read for comprehension, you imbecile.

> Your cynical attitude comes through again with the interpretation of why
> Harley-Davidson would take their manufacturing offshore. No company plays
> politics just to 'screw American workers and Republicans'.

Oh, FFS.

It's not Harley Davidson who set out to 'screw American workers and
Republicans', it was the European Union.

The EU targeted their retaliatory sanctions to hurt businesses in places
with ties to the Republican leadership: House Speaker Paul Ryan is a
congressman from Wisconsin ... Harley Davidson is based in Wisconsin ...
some Harley workers live in Paul Ryan's district.

> Their end game is always profits.

That's why Harley is off-shoring some production; they can't make a profit
on, or even sell, bikes in Europe that are made in the US that are subject
to a 31% tariff instead of a 6% tariff.

> Only petty, stupid people like you and Trump play at malice and revenge.

And the EU, apparently. And so far it's working: Jobs will disappear in
Wisconsin ... the question is how long will it take Trump to feel the
blow-back.

> And the move has a whole lot to do with creating jobs in Europe - unless
> you think H-D is going to move people from the U.S. to work in the new
> European plant?

See above, Bozo.

I swear, if intellect were fuse wire, you wouldn't have enough to circumcise
a fucking canary.

> > The kind of protectionism you're preaching has been tried before. It
> > did not end well.

> Protectionism is the term politicians use to counter their endorsement of
> trade agreements. We did very well without them for generations. The
> only ones who benefit from trade agreements are corporations. The rest of
> us pay the same prices for cheaply-made overseas-manufactured goods as we
> once paid for Canadian made goods. The profits go only to the
> corporations.
>
> Bleat all you like, 'Wakefield' . . . . you're one of the many who are
> wrong about trade agreements. But then, you've established a record for
> being wrong on a whole lot of issues, haven't you?

<snicker>
b***@gmail.com
2018-07-06 00:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 8:18:31 PM UTC-7, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>
> > > They're not starting up a plant in Europe, they're moving production to
> > > a non-US facility to avoid tariffs. This move has nothing to do with
> > > jobs in Europe, and everything to do with screwing workers in Wisconsin
> > > to cause pain for Republicans in that state

me:
> > They are indeed "starting up a plant in Europe".

'Wakefield' again:
> No, they'll move production to one of their exist overseas plants, probably
> Indonesia, but possibly India, or Brazil.

me:
Doesn't sound like Europe to me. And I doubt it would take 9 to 18 months to just 'move' to an existing plant.

> "No production will be moving to Europe as a result of the tariffs,
> according to the company. "
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/trump-tariffs-backfire-on-harley-davidson-after-eu-retaliates.html

me:
Hmmm. . . .

Harley-Davison HOG, -0.19% made its first foray outside the U.S. near the end of the Clinton administration in 1999 when it opened a plant in Brazil. The company later acquired a parts maker in Australia during the Bush years. It opened a plant in India in 2011 when Barack Obama was president. And shortly after Trump took office in 2017, Harley-Davidson said it would build a plant in Thailand.

Europe is the next frontier. The Milwaukee-based motorcycle maker on Monday said it would build bikes in Europe for the first time ever, blaming retaliatory tariffs by the European Union. The EU raised its tariff on motorcycles to 31% from 6% in response to White House duties on foreign steel.

It was probably inevitable that Harley-Davidson would plant a flag in Europe, however. Sales are slowing in the U.S. because of demographic shifts and they are growing in Europe, the company’s second-largest market. The tariffs may have simply sped up the decision by Harley to shift more production to the continent so it can be closer to its customers.

The earlier shift to Asia was undertaken for the same reason, but there’s a big difference. Countries such as China, India and Thailand have huge and unfair tariffs that force companies wanting to do business to relocate there — exactly what Trump is complaining about.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/harley-davidson-isnt-riding-off-to-europe-simply-because-of-the-trump-tariffs-2018-06-26
_____________________
me:
> > They currently do not have a plant in Europe.

'Wakefield' obfuscates with:
> There's a reason for that; the cost of shipping to Europe is less than the
> incremental wage cost.

me:
Shipping *what* to Europe? . . . . they will be building in Europe to sell to Europeans. That will save them $2,200 per bike to avoid the EU tariffs and continue to sell to their 2nd largest market.

And wages will be lower than in the U.S., you can bet they will choose a country that provides good tax incentives AND low labour costs.

> > It will take 9 to 18 months to build one in Europe.

'Wakefield' again:
> No, Harley is "shifting targeted production from the U.S. to international
> facilities" and that process "could take at least nine to 18 months to be
> completed". Learn to read for comprehension, you imbecile.


I did. And posted it right above - for the real imbecile here to read. It doesn't take 9 to 18 months to just 'shift production'. It *would* take that long to negotiate with a new EU country and to build new facilities.

> > Your cynical attitude comes through again with the interpretation of why
> > Harley-Davidson would take their manufacturing offshore. No company plays
> > politics just to 'screw American workers and Republicans'.

'Wakefield' sputters:
> Oh, FFS.
> It's not Harley Davidson who set out to 'screw American workers and
> Republicans', it was the European Union.


The European Union is getting screwed by Trump, but it's not okay for the EU to impose retaliatory tariffs? You must be a Trump apprentice. And that means you're gonna get fired.

Wakefield again:
> The EU targeted their retaliatory sanctions to hurt businesses in places
> with ties to the Republican leadership: House Speaker Paul Ryan is a
> congressman from Wisconsin ... Harley Davidson is based in Wisconsin ...
> some Harley workers live in Paul Ryan's district.

me:
So? Canada is doing exactly the same thing with our retaliatory tariffs. You don't try to kick someone in the ass when kicking them in the balls is so much more effective.

> > Their end game is always profits.

'Wakefield' again:
> That's why Harley is off-shoring some production; they can't make a profit
> on, or even sell, bikes in Europe that are made in the US that are subject
> to a 31% tariff instead of a 6% tariff.

me:
That's why they're building in Europe. Europe is their 2nd largest market. If they were going to ship to Europe from one of their plants in Asia, they wouldn't be still wouldn't be able to avoid EU tariffs - even if at a lower rate than what Trump did to them.

> > Only petty, stupid people like you and Trump play at malice and revenge.

'Wakefield' again:
> And the EU, apparently. And so far it's working: Jobs will disappear in
> Wisconsin ... the question is how long will it take Trump to feel the
> blow-back.

me:
> > And the move has a whole lot to do with creating jobs in Europe - unless
> > you think H-D is going to move people from the U.S. to work in the new
> > European plant?

'Wakefield' losing temper:
> See above, Bozo.
>
> I swear, if intellect were fuse wire, you wouldn't have enough to circumcise
> a fucking canary.


And I often wonder who ties your shoelaces for you, Wakefield.

'Wakefield' to TomP:
> > > The kind of protectionism you're preaching has been tried before. It
> > > did not end well.

me:
> > Protectionism is the term politicians use to defend their endorsement of
> > trade agreements. We did very well without them for generations. The
> > only ones who benefit from trade agreements are corporations. The rest of
> > us pay the same prices for cheaply-made overseas-manufactured goods as we
> > once paid for Canadian made goods. The profits go only to the
> > corporations.
> >
> > Bleat all you like, 'Wakefield' . . . . you're one of the many who are
> > wrong about trade agreements. But then, you've established a record for
> > being wrong on a whole lot of issues, haven't you?


> <snicker>

Actually, more like LOL.

And still another company is looking to leave the U.S.:

An iconic American music company is warning customers that it may move out of the US because of Trump's tariffs

Moog said the "tariffs will immediately and drastically increase the cost of building our instruments," and could lead to layoffs or offshoring of manufacturing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-china-tariff-moog-move-harley-davidson2018-7
M.I.Wakefield
2018-07-06 01:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Karen Gordon" wrote in message
news:1c6cc13f-7915-45ef-8202-***@googlegroups.com...

> me:
> > > They are indeed "starting up a plant in Europe".

> 'Wakefield' again:
> > No, they'll move production to one of their exist overseas plants,
> > probably Indonesia, but possibly India, or Brazil.

> me:
> Doesn't sound like Europe to me.

They're not; Brazil is a large country in South America, while Indonesia
and India are large countries in Asia.


> And I doubt it would take 9 to 18 months to just 'move' to an existing
> plant.

Can you please detail your experience with supply-chain management? And
your knowledge of construction lead-times for plant expansion projects in
India, Brazil, and Indonesia?

And of course, by quoting the long delay, if Trump folds, and the EU
rescinds their tariffs, they can cancel their plans at little cost.


> > "No production will be moving to Europe as a result of the tariffs,
> > according to the company. "
> > https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/trump-tariffs-backfire-on-harley-davidson-after-eu-retaliates.html

> me:
> Hmmm. . . .
>
> Harley-Davison HOG, -0.19% made its first foray outside the U.S. near the
> end of the Clinton administration in 1999 when it opened a plant in
> Brazil. The company later acquired a parts maker in Australia during the
> Bush years. It opened a plant in India in 2011 when Barack Obama was
> president. And shortly after Trump took office in 2017, Harley-Davidson
> said it would build a plant in Thailand.
> Europe is the next frontier.

<snip>

> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/harley-davidson-isnt-riding-off-to-europe-simply-because-of-the-trump-tariffs-2018-06-26

Yeah ... that reporter made the same assumption that you did, instead of
paying attention to what Harley Davidson actually said, which was that no
production would be moving to Europe.

And note that motorcycle production in Europe was down 2/3 between 2001 and
2014.


> me:
> > > They currently do not have a plant in Europe.

> 'Wakefield' obfuscates with:
> > There's a reason for that; the cost of shipping to Europe is less than
> > the incremental wage cost.

> me:
> Shipping *what* to Europe? . . . . they will be building in Europe to sell
> to Europeans.

So says you ... Harley Davidson says otherwise ... who to believe, who to
believe ...

But I'll try to explain the concept again, using smaller words you're more
likely to understand:

They don't have a plant in Europe, and aren't planning to build one, because
it is cheaper to build bikes elsewhere, and ship them to Europe, than it is
to build them in Europe.


> That will save them $2,200 per bike to avoid the EU tariffs and continue
> to sell to their 2nd largest market.

The EU isn't slapping a tariff on Harley Davidson, they're slapping a tariff
on American-made motorcycles with engines of 500 cc and above: They'll save
$2,200 per bike avoiding the EU tariffs where ever the bikes are made, as
long as they're not made in the USA.


> And wages will be lower than in the U.S., you can bet they will choose a
> country that provides good tax incentives AND low labour costs.

And do you think the labour costs can be cheaper than Brazil, or India, or
Indonesia?


> 'Wakefield' again:
> > No, Harley is "shifting targeted production from the U.S. to
> > international facilities" and that process "could take at least nine to
> > 18 months to be completed". Learn to read for comprehension, you
> > imbecile.

> I did. And posted it right above - for the real imbecile here to read.
> It doesn't take 9 to 18 months to just 'shift production'. It *would*
> take that long to negotiate with a new EU country and to build new
> facilities.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Harley Davidson is saying you're wrong. So
there's that.

[Remainder of Karen's nonsensical blitherings deleted]
b***@gmail.com
2018-07-06 02:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 6:41:41 PM UTC-7, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> I'm not saying you're wrong, Harley Davidson is saying you're wrong. So
> there's that.
>
> [Remainder of Karen's nonsensical blitherings deleted]


And I'm saying you're wrong - again - 'Wakefield'. We'll just have to wait and see where Harley-Davidson builds their European plant, won't we?

PS: Has Doug Ford fired the CEO of Hydro One yet? That is something we're all waiting to see. (^▽^)
M.I.Wakefield
2018-07-06 02:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
wrote in message
news:6d36c52e-a7c7-486b-bd27-***@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 6:41:41 PM UTC-7, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> > I'm not saying you're wrong, Harley Davidson is saying you're wrong. So
> > there's that.
> >
> > [Remainder of Karen's nonsensical blitherings deleted]

> And I'm saying you're wrong - again - 'Wakefield'. We'll just have to
> wait and see where Harley-Davidson builds their European plant, won't we?

Karen: Harley Davidson is building a plant in Europe.

Harley Davidson: No, we're not.

Karen: Yes, you are.

H D: No, we're really not.

"No production will be moving to Europe as a result of the tariffs,
according to the company. "
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/trump-tariffs-backfire-on-harley-davidson-after-eu-retaliates.html

> PS: Has Doug Ford fired the CEO of Hydro One yet? That is something we're
> all waiting to see. (^▽^)

It's still Week 1 ... patience, Grasshopper.
Loading...