11 ms·

The EU subsidized Airbus, which hurt the American company, Boeing. Therefore, all Americans have to pay 25% more for european wines, cheeses, and whiskey. How d

The EU subsidized Airbus, which hurt the American company, Boeing. Therefore, all Americans have to pay 25% more for european wines, cheeses, and whiskey. How does this make any sense?

leeoniya 7y ago
i was wondering this, too. :/
shantly 7y ago
Drops demand for same items, hurting the producers and the countries they're based in, while maybe also diverting consumer money to domestic alternatives (or at least other countries that aren't quite so tariff'd). Right? Not siding with the tariffs, but that's the idea, no?
- phs318u 7y ago
  In theory yes, however you have now possibly hurt foreign consumers of your products such that even in the absence of formal retaliatory tariffs, you may have harmed your export market.
- lettergram 7y ago
  That’s actually what happens when tariffs are imposed yes.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    The only thing we can be certain of, when tariffs are imposed, is that the price of those goods / services go up.
- corodra 7y ago
  I'm no expert, but I'd assume it's to make good on other trade negotiations the public isn't privy to. In regards to the like of the extra $9b free up for US exporters to Japan, mostly ag. Complete and utter hidden... on the front page of the ustr.gov site. Takes a real investigative journalist expert to find. I mean, who would ever look on the same site on China trade deals to find negotiations opening up with other countries... https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2019/september/fact-sheet-agriculture%E2%80%90related https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-s... Hurting Scotch means a better chance for the Japanese whiskey market in the USA. Total random speculation on that. There are lots of other products without Japanese replacement. Especially since scotch is really one of the smallest mattering products in that list. Parmesan, I argue, is a far bigger deal and we'll see that effect more. At least for me. But, to be fair, after looking into trade relations for a while, Trump isn't as insane as CNN and BBC makes him out to be. I don't understand why everyone makes it seem like he's throwing dice and making decisions in a bubble. I'm starting to think he's making short term pains for long term gains. Which, to be honest, is the thing we should always be doing. Losing in the short term for mid to long term gains is not insane, stupid or crazy. Just... you know, sucks for a while. On top of that, everyone seems to be a trade-deal expert suddenly because they've obviously negotiated with foreign govs all the time. I'm not and don't claim to be like others on HN and reddit. I just see there's more going on than just China and things don't look as one sided as it's being made out to be. But then again, BBC and CNN, and social media agreed, thought China would dump $1+ trillion in US bonds for pennies on the dollar and lose out on the loan leveraging they get to "punish the US"...by bankrupting themselves? Which never happened anyways. Such great "economic experts" who can't figure out supply/demand market dynamics taught in macro econ 101 textbooks. Same folks are commenting on the trade war. So whatever...
  - wahern 7y ago
    > But then again, BBC and CNN, and social media agreed, thought China would dump $1+ trillion in US bonds for pennies on the dollar and lose out on the loan leveraging they get to "punish the US"...by bankrupting themselves? Which never happened anyways. There's plenty of hyperbole out there, but hyperbole doesn't negate reality. China is buying fewer treasury bonds, and this is one reason why the bottom fell out of the market for purchasing U.S. treasury bonds, requiring Federal Reserve intervention. It's one, small reason, but it will become increasingly more important as Chinese purchases drop while U.S. deficits continue their upward climb. The reason you know Trump isn't crazy like a fox is because his policies are inconsistent and erratic. Demanding your investment managers to buy high, sell low doesn't make you Warren Buffett. Starting a trade war with the expectation that the other guy will flinch before you doesn't make you a cunning strategist; it just makes you dangerous.
    - corodra 7y ago
      I dont know, maybe the baby bird needs to be pushed out of the nest too. It's a good way to quit relying on one large source for the bond market. That's inherently unsustainable. Every service provider knows your biggest customer is your riskiest one. If they leave, it hurts. Thus, speed that up in a controllable manner. A few broken eggs sure, but you still keep the hens and the hen house.
      - wahern 7y ago
        "Starve the beast" has been the Republican strategy for decades to kill entitlements. The thinking was that by refusing to raise enough revenue to cover spending, Congress would be politically forced to reduce spending. Of course, what happened and continues to happen is that revenues drop, spending stays the same or grows, and the gap is covered using increasing amounts of debt. If you're suggesting that the pain of losing Chinese money will force the U.S. to reduce its deficits, that has manifestly not been the case for decades. For treasuries, instead what will happen is exactly what we've seen happen the past few weeks--something or someone will fill the gap before the whole house of cards collapses, which will sustain the status quo but ultimately put us on a more perilous path. You can't bluff and cajole your way to smarter fiscal and industrial policy. Republicans have tried that and failed because it turns out you can't avoid making hard, considered decisions; nor avoid compromise. There's no avoiding the fundamental dynamics at play, which are complex and merciless. Entitlements exist for a reason. Trade with China exists for a reason. You can't address those things without addressing the underlying reasons they exist. Doubling and tripling down on a failed strategy with the world's worst bluffer isn't going to work any better.
undefined3840 7y ago
He wants to target farmers because it’s an emotional play against a specific country’s exports... It’s more tangible than adding a tariff to some obscure machine part because it becomes a pride thing. Also politicians of every country are acutely sensitive to the needs of their farmers.
- JamesSchriver 7y ago
  >“Politicians of every country…” That is far more the exception in non-white countries. There Chinese kill and displaced their farmers all the time. The black Africans of South Africa are literally committing genocide against the farmers because they’re whites, in spite of the fact that they are a tiny minority and the ones that feed the whole unsustainable population of blacks. Yet the LARPing black politicians playing whites man government can’t even feign concern for their farmers that feed them, any more than they have the basic capacity to comprehend something as simple as that they’re on a direct path towards turning into Zimbabwe. They seem to figure there will always be more goofy white folks who can be emotionally played and manipulated into “helping” them when their own doing leads to “totally unforeseen outcomes and emergencies” … that sane people saw from the very start and from miles away.
lettergram 7y ago
This is essentially a WTO fine, per the article... the US won a case dating back to 2005. Regarding the effective price increase, it would likely be shared between consumer and producer. Truly, most of us will just switch from scotch to bourbon until this is cleared up (which is the purpose).
- meddlepal 7y ago
  > Truly, most of us will just switch from scotch to bourbon until this is cleared up (which is the purpose). I'm gonna pass on that, bourbon is too sweet and tastes gross to me. I suspect if you like Scotch then Bourbon is probably a bad fit.
  - molmalo 7y ago
    This. It just happens to be a very specific market where I would dare to say (and this is just my opinion) most consumers are willing to pay a little more for the real deal, that is, the imported goods instead of looking for "local substitutes"... Both the taste preference and the "perceived value" are super important in the market for alcoholic beverages.
  - jnwatson 7y ago
    There is plenty of nice American non-bourbon whiskey. Japanese whiskey is also excellent. At the same time, if you like the burning hospital taste, there’s no substitute for Islay Scotch.
    - thawaway1837 7y ago
      You’re probably better off going the Japanese route IMO.
rndgermandude 7y ago
It gets worse. Boing got (indirect) subsidies[1] to the tune of at least $23bln, says the EU (but denies it subsidizes Airbus and most allegations it subsidized Airbus in the past). And the US even used the Echelon system to spy on European companies including Airbus and gave the information to US competitors including Boing (the EU parliament investigation concluded economic/industrial espionage happened, and former CIA director James Woolsey later admitted to abusing Echolon to spy on European companies). So both companies are claimed to have received substantial "illegal" subsidies. This isn't Trump's making btw. This legal battle over subsidies started I think in about 2004, so Trump is the third president involved. But of course, he was eager to jump on it and announce those tariffs now, even before the WTO ruling was finalized. [1] https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc_146484.pdf https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc...
anonytrary 7y ago
It's a pretty simple theory -- if Americans have to pay 25% more for certain European goods, then they will be incentivized to purchase those goods elsewhere, therefore hurting Europe. Of course, this assumes the goods are fungible; this could backfire if no suitable substitute exists for those goods.
- myrandomcomment 7y ago
  Single Malt Whisky starts out at a high price point. I do not think that anyone that normally would spend $ on this is going to care. Not quite the correct item to tax. Find something that is not a luxury with an equivalent US product.
  - anonytrary 7y ago
    This reasoning is only correct if the number of sales from rich people far exceeds those from poor/middle-class people. Since the latter group far outnumbers the former, I can't be sure that what you said is true.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > Single Malt Whisky starts out at a high price point. I do not think that anyone that normally would spend $ on this is going to care. Many high quality single malts are $40-50. Expensive for a daily drink, but within reach as an indulgence. The new tariffs will raise the price of the bottle by $10. That's not terribly significant on it's own, but knowing that buying a bottle contributes $10 on a needless trade war to feed a maniac's ego is pretty irritating.
    - cobookman 7y ago
      WTO authorized the tariffs. This started way before trump. Read the article before blaming trump as sole cause
- _ph_ 7y ago
  And considering Scotch whisky, it comes at a very peculiar time. The EU might be stopping to export Scotch whisky in 4 weeks from now :p. Not sure how this applies to Irish whisky though. As a consequence of the whisky boom of the recent years, the Irish whisky industry had a rebirth.
rurban 7y ago
Easy to explain, someone even made a movie about Trump's special beef with Scotland. http://www.youvebeentrumped.com/youvebeentrumped.com/ABOUT_THE_FILM.html http://www.youvebeentrumped.com/youvebeentrumped.com/ABOUT_T... It involves a Trump golf course project.

The EU subsidized Airbus, which hurt the American company, Boeing. Therefore, all Americans have to pay 25% more for european wines, cheeses, and whiskey. How does this make any sense?

leeoniya 7y ago

i was wondering this, too. :/

shantly 7y ago

Drops demand for same items, hurting the producers and the countries they're based in, while maybe also diverting consumer money to domestic alternatives (or at least other countries that aren't quite so tariff'd). Right? Not siding with the tariffs, but that's the idea, no?

phs318u 7y ago
In theory yes, however you have now possibly hurt foreign consumers of your products such that even in the absence of formal retaliatory tariffs, you may have harmed your export market.
lettergram 7y ago
That’s actually what happens when tariffs are imposed yes.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  The only thing we can be certain of, when tariffs are imposed, is that the price of those goods / services go up.
corodra 7y ago
I'm no expert, but I'd assume it's to make good on other trade negotiations the public isn't privy to. In regards to the like of the extra $9b free up for US exporters to Japan, mostly ag. Complete and utter hidden... on the front page of the ustr.gov site. Takes a real investigative journalist expert to find. I mean, who would ever look on the same site on China trade deals to find negotiations opening up with other countries... https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2019/september/fact-sheet-agriculture%E2%80%90related https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-s... Hurting Scotch means a better chance for the Japanese whiskey market in the USA. Total random speculation on that. There are lots of other products without Japanese replacement. Especially since scotch is really one of the smallest mattering products in that list. Parmesan, I argue, is a far bigger deal and we'll see that effect more. At least for me. But, to be fair, after looking into trade relations for a while, Trump isn't as insane as CNN and BBC makes him out to be. I don't understand why everyone makes it seem like he's throwing dice and making decisions in a bubble. I'm starting to think he's making short term pains for long term gains. Which, to be honest, is the thing we should always be doing. Losing in the short term for mid to long term gains is not insane, stupid or crazy. Just... you know, sucks for a while. On top of that, everyone seems to be a trade-deal expert suddenly because they've obviously negotiated with foreign govs all the time. I'm not and don't claim to be like others on HN and reddit. I just see there's more going on than just China and things don't look as one sided as it's being made out to be. But then again, BBC and CNN, and social media agreed, thought China would dump $1+ trillion in US bonds for pennies on the dollar and lose out on the loan leveraging they get to "punish the US"...by bankrupting themselves? Which never happened anyways. Such great "economic experts" who can't figure out supply/demand market dynamics taught in macro econ 101 textbooks. Same folks are commenting on the trade war. So whatever...
- wahern 7y ago
  > But then again, BBC and CNN, and social media agreed, thought China would dump $1+ trillion in US bonds for pennies on the dollar and lose out on the loan leveraging they get to "punish the US"...by bankrupting themselves? Which never happened anyways. There's plenty of hyperbole out there, but hyperbole doesn't negate reality. China is buying fewer treasury bonds, and this is one reason why the bottom fell out of the market for purchasing U.S. treasury bonds, requiring Federal Reserve intervention. It's one, small reason, but it will become increasingly more important as Chinese purchases drop while U.S. deficits continue their upward climb. The reason you know Trump isn't crazy like a fox is because his policies are inconsistent and erratic. Demanding your investment managers to buy high, sell low doesn't make you Warren Buffett. Starting a trade war with the expectation that the other guy will flinch before you doesn't make you a cunning strategist; it just makes you dangerous.
  - corodra 7y ago
    I dont know, maybe the baby bird needs to be pushed out of the nest too. It's a good way to quit relying on one large source for the bond market. That's inherently unsustainable. Every service provider knows your biggest customer is your riskiest one. If they leave, it hurts. Thus, speed that up in a controllable manner. A few broken eggs sure, but you still keep the hens and the hen house.
    - wahern 7y ago
      "Starve the beast" has been the Republican strategy for decades to kill entitlements. The thinking was that by refusing to raise enough revenue to cover spending, Congress would be politically forced to reduce spending. Of course, what happened and continues to happen is that revenues drop, spending stays the same or grows, and the gap is covered using increasing amounts of debt. If you're suggesting that the pain of losing Chinese money will force the U.S. to reduce its deficits, that has manifestly not been the case for decades. For treasuries, instead what will happen is exactly what we've seen happen the past few weeks--something or someone will fill the gap before the whole house of cards collapses, which will sustain the status quo but ultimately put us on a more perilous path. You can't bluff and cajole your way to smarter fiscal and industrial policy. Republicans have tried that and failed because it turns out you can't avoid making hard, considered decisions; nor avoid compromise. There's no avoiding the fundamental dynamics at play, which are complex and merciless. Entitlements exist for a reason. Trade with China exists for a reason. You can't address those things without addressing the underlying reasons they exist. Doubling and tripling down on a failed strategy with the world's worst bluffer isn't going to work any better.

undefined3840 7y ago

He wants to target farmers because it’s an emotional play against a specific country’s exports... It’s more tangible than adding a tariff to some obscure machine part because it becomes a pride thing. Also politicians of every country are acutely sensitive to the needs of their farmers.

JamesSchriver 7y ago
>“Politicians of every country…” That is far more the exception in non-white countries. There Chinese kill and displaced their farmers all the time. The black Africans of South Africa are literally committing genocide against the farmers because they’re whites, in spite of the fact that they are a tiny minority and the ones that feed the whole unsustainable population of blacks. Yet the LARPing black politicians playing whites man government can’t even feign concern for their farmers that feed them, any more than they have the basic capacity to comprehend something as simple as that they’re on a direct path towards turning into Zimbabwe. They seem to figure there will always be more goofy white folks who can be emotionally played and manipulated into “helping” them when their own doing leads to “totally unforeseen outcomes and emergencies” … that sane people saw from the very start and from miles away.

lettergram 7y ago

This is essentially a WTO fine, per the article... the US won a case dating back to 2005. Regarding the effective price increase, it would likely be shared between consumer and producer. Truly, most of us will just switch from scotch to bourbon until this is cleared up (which is the purpose).

meddlepal 7y ago
> Truly, most of us will just switch from scotch to bourbon until this is cleared up (which is the purpose). I'm gonna pass on that, bourbon is too sweet and tastes gross to me. I suspect if you like Scotch then Bourbon is probably a bad fit.
- molmalo 7y ago
  This. It just happens to be a very specific market where I would dare to say (and this is just my opinion) most consumers are willing to pay a little more for the real deal, that is, the imported goods instead of looking for "local substitutes"... Both the taste preference and the "perceived value" are super important in the market for alcoholic beverages.
- jnwatson 7y ago
  There is plenty of nice American non-bourbon whiskey. Japanese whiskey is also excellent. At the same time, if you like the burning hospital taste, there’s no substitute for Islay Scotch.
  - thawaway1837 7y ago
    You’re probably better off going the Japanese route IMO.

rndgermandude 7y ago

It gets worse. Boing got (indirect) subsidies[1] to the tune of at least $23bln, says the EU (but denies it subsidizes Airbus and most allegations it subsidized Airbus in the past). And the US even used the Echelon system to spy on European companies including Airbus and gave the information to US competitors including Boing (the EU parliament investigation concluded economic/industrial espionage happened, and former CIA director James Woolsey later admitted to abusing Echolon to spy on European companies). So both companies are claimed to have received substantial "illegal" subsidies. This isn't Trump's making btw. This legal battle over subsidies started I think in about 2004, so Trump is the third president involved. But of course, he was eager to jump on it and announce those tariffs now, even before the WTO ruling was finalized. [1] https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc_146484.pdf https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc...

anonytrary 7y ago

It's a pretty simple theory -- if Americans have to pay 25% more for certain European goods, then they will be incentivized to purchase those goods elsewhere, therefore hurting Europe. Of course, this assumes the goods are fungible; this could backfire if no suitable substitute exists for those goods.

myrandomcomment 7y ago
Single Malt Whisky starts out at a high price point. I do not think that anyone that normally would spend $ on this is going to care. Not quite the correct item to tax. Find something that is not a luxury with an equivalent US product.
- anonytrary 7y ago
  This reasoning is only correct if the number of sales from rich people far exceeds those from poor/middle-class people. Since the latter group far outnumbers the former, I can't be sure that what you said is true.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > Single Malt Whisky starts out at a high price point. I do not think that anyone that normally would spend $ on this is going to care. Many high quality single malts are $40-50. Expensive for a daily drink, but within reach as an indulgence. The new tariffs will raise the price of the bottle by $10. That's not terribly significant on it's own, but knowing that buying a bottle contributes $10 on a needless trade war to feed a maniac's ego is pretty irritating.
  - cobookman 7y ago
    WTO authorized the tariffs. This started way before trump. Read the article before blaming trump as sole cause
_ph_ 7y ago
And considering Scotch whisky, it comes at a very peculiar time. The EU might be stopping to export Scotch whisky in 4 weeks from now :p. Not sure how this applies to Irish whisky though. As a consequence of the whisky boom of the recent years, the Irish whisky industry had a rebirth.

rurban 7y ago

Easy to explain, someone even made a movie about Trump's special beef with Scotland. http://www.youvebeentrumped.com/youvebeentrumped.com/ABOUT_THE_FILM.html http://www.youvebeentrumped.com/youvebeentrumped.com/ABOUT_T... It involves a Trump golf course project.