American audio industry may suffer a blow..

lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I'm aware of NAFTA, and it has never been straight up equal.
Straight up equal in what way? As a former customs broker my hate is the bullshit paperwork corporations can arm themselves with to play with the terms. It's not supposed to be particularly equal either since we're the richest country of the three. World customs/tariffs are not "fair" in so many ways....especially to the rich aggressive countries like the US.
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
I know stop with the facts that doesn't fit the "we are being walked all over" narrative. You got it.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Feel big thinking I'm still not right? I'm discussing NFTA and Canadian tariffs not acting like a 8 year old. Point out the us tariffs being equal with all of our trading partners. When you do you can reply, otherwise block me, as I'm not someone you care to have any reasonable discussion with.
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
Straight up equal in what way? As a former customs broker my hate is the bullshit paperwork corporations can arm themselves with to play with the terms. It's not supposed to be particularly equal either since we're the richest country of the three. World customs/tariffs are not "fair" in so many ways....especially to the rich aggressive countries like the US.
I was referring to terms. If its preferred an open market, that's fine with me. If the market requires restrictions, those terms should be level, which requires much more negotiating and diplomacy. Either way I'm fine.

Yes countries tariffs are not fair, and the should be addressed per country
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I was referring to terms. If its preferred an open market, that's fine with me. If the market requires restrictions, those terms should be level, which requires much more negotiating and diplomacy. Either way I'm fine.

Yes countries tariffs are not fair, and the should be addressed per country
Of course the market requires restrictions to prevent any one from dominating unneccessarily. Not sure what you mean by level terms; we're all signatory to the terms agreed upon, and should work within them. If you mean we're all subject to the same exact terms/tariffs, that isn't what a trade agreement is trying to deal with.
 
everettT

everettT

Audioholic Spartan
Of course the market requires restrictions to prevent any one from dominating unneccessarily. Not sure what you mean by level terms; we're all signatory to the terms agreed upon, and should work within them. If you mean we're all subject to the same exact terms/tariffs, that isn't what a trade agreement is trying to deal with.
I dont want to get hung up on NFTA, as that's not how this started and those are different deals. I went there with a comment, then question after a reply. NAFTA isnt the biggest focus of this administration's ire (not that its not been on the forefront at times.)

My point about the US trade deficit is the problem and I asked for @Hetfield for proof we didnt have one.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I dont want to get hung up on NFTA, as that's not how this started and those are different deals. I went there with a comment, then question after a reply. NAFTA isnt the biggest focus of this administration's ire (not that its not been on the forefront at times.)

My point about the US trade deficit is the problem and I asked for @Hetfield for proof we didnt have one.
Without reading back, not sure what you mean by "the US trade deficit is the problem and I asked for @Hetfield for proof we didnt have one". Of course we have a trade deficit problem, we are a largely import based consumer economy....not a good formula for long term success in world economics.
 
H

Hetfield

Audioholic Samurai
Trade deficits aren't a bad thing. It just sounds bad and is easily exploited for political gain because it sounds bad.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
H

Hetfield

Audioholic Samurai
I dont want to get hung up on NFTA, as that's not how this started and those are different deals. I went there with a comment, then question after a reply. NAFTA isnt the biggest focus of this administration's ire (not that its not been on the forefront at times.)

My point about the US trade deficit is the problem and I asked for @Hetfield for proof we didnt have one.
When did I say we didn't have a trade deficit? We have wealth here and we like to buy stuff. Of course we import a ton of stuff we like to buy. Trade deficits are not a bad thing or an indicator something is very wrong.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Trade deficits aren't a bad thing. It just sounds bad and is easily exploited for political gain because it sounds bad.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Well they are a bad thing for traditional currency superiority considerations....not that they're the best way to go.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Interesting thread. Some observations:

For someone supposedly as wealthy as the current POTUS, he sure seems to have a poor grasp of basic economics. His obsession with tariffs and the need to be seen as "winning" in international trade will just lead to pain for all. Tariffs and other trade barriers were enacted during the Great Depression in an effort to stimulate domestic production and exports. That ignored the fact that other countries could do the same thing, which only exacerbated the effects of the depression. Right now, there is no recession/depression, which means the US government is implementing solutions in search of a problem.

Trump has complained that "Canada is killing us on trade", ignoring the fact that Canada currently has a trade deficit with the USA. This situation varies from year to year, so trade is pretty much equal between the two countries. There was no justification for tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, so the "national security" excuse was trotted out. The Canadian government has since implemented retaliatory tariffs. So, who wins?

Bringing in tariffs on Canadian-built vehicles - again, unjustified - would throw the entire North American auto industry into chaos. Vehicle components and sub-assemblies cross the Canadian/US/Mexican borders multiple times before final assembly. Tariffs will make European/Japanese/Korean imports look a lot less expensive...

As for dairy, that industry makes up a tiny proportion of the Canadian and US economies, but has become an obsession for POTUS. Canada has a supply management system for its dairy industry, based on quotas assigned to each dairy. So, production is limited to what the market can bear. Allowing too much imported dairy product would throw that system out of balance. It means stable incomes for dairy farmers, but means Canadians pay higher sticker prices for dairy products than Americans. I say "sticker prices", because Canadian dairy farmers receive NO subsidies, while the US government subsidises its dairy industry. Americans pay higher dairy prices than they think - the extra cost is just buried in taxes. Contrary to popular belief, Canada currently imports more dairy product from the US, than the other way around. But, that isn't good enough for POTUS. OK, fine. If the Canadian government dismantled supply management, they would then be justified in bringing in tariffs on American dairy products because they are subsidised. Plus, a huge proportion of American dairy workers are underpaid, undocumented residents (look it up) - a hidden subsidy.

The American dairy industry is its own worst enemy. They are trying to compensate for low prices by producing more product, which only compounds their problems. Is the solution to excess production simply to dump it into the Canadian market?

It was mentioned that the Republican and Democratic parties seem to have reversed positions on trade. I don't believe that to be quite accurate. The White House has a problem with NAFTA, but as far as I can tell, the Republican side of Congress had far less concern.

NAFTA has caused pain to some sectors of the economies of all three countries, but overall, it's been a resounding success. The desire to renegotiate it is baffling.
 
H

Hetfield

Audioholic Samurai
Interesting thread. Some observations:

For someone supposedly as wealthy as the current POTUS, he sure seems to have a poor grasp of basic economics. His obsession with tariffs and the need to be seen as "winning" in international trade will just lead to pain for all. Tariffs and other trade barriers were enacted during the Great Depression in an effort to stimulate domestic production and exports. That ignored the fact that other countries could do the same thing, which only exacerbated the effects of the depression. Right now, there is no recession/depression, which means the US government is implementing solutions in search of a problem.

Trump has complained that "Canada is killing us on trade", ignoring the fact that Canada currently has a trade deficit with the USA. This situation varies from year to year, so trade is pretty much equal between the two countries. There was no justification for tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, so the "national security" excuse was trotted out. The Canadian government has since implemented retaliatory tariffs. So, who wins?

Bringing in tariffs on Canadian-built vehicles - again, unjustified - would throw the entire North American auto industry into chaos. Vehicle components and sub-assemblies cross the Canadian/US/Mexican borders multiple times before final assembly. Tariffs will make European/Japanese/Korean imports look a lot less expensive...

As for dairy, that industry makes up a tiny proportion of the Canadian and US economies, but has become an obsession for POTUS. Canada has a supply management system for its dairy industry, based on quotas assigned to each dairy. So, production is limited to what the market can bear. Allowing too much imported dairy product would throw that system out of balance. It means stable incomes for dairy farmers, but means Canadians pay higher sticker prices for dairy products than Americans. I say "sticker prices", because Canadian dairy farmers receive NO subsidies, while the US government subsidises its dairy industry. Americans pay higher dairy prices than they think - the extra cost is just buried in taxes. Contrary to popular belief, Canada currently imports more dairy product from the US, than the other way around. But, that isn't good enough for POTUS. OK, fine. If the Canadian government dismantled supply management, they would then be justified in bringing in tariffs on American dairy products because they are subsidised. Plus, a huge proportion of American dairy workers are underpaid, undocumented residents (look it up) - a hidden subsidy.

The American dairy industry is its own worst enemy. They are trying to compensate for low prices by producing more product, which only compounds their problems. Is the solution to excess production simply to dump it into the Canadian market?

It was mentioned that the Republican and Democratic parties seem to have reversed positions on trade. I don't believe that to be quite accurate. The White House has a problem with NAFTA, but as far as I can tell, the Republican side of Congress had far less concern.

NAFTA has caused pain to some sectors of the economies of all three countries, but overall, it's been a resounding success. The desire to renegotiate it is baffling.
Well you said it best. Thank you. 200 billion more on China today which only makes things more expensive for us. Then the white house says they better not retaliate which makes no sense. They can't just sit there and take it. Then the White House says if they do retaliate 267 billion more. Then what exactly do we have? A trade wars that no one wins. It does cause pain though.


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
D

Drunkpenguin

Audioholic Chief
The company i work for buys a steel product thats normally 29000. The tariffs add 3000 to that now. We charge that to the customer who in turn charges that to their customers im sure. So in the end we the people pay for it. Nothing else changes.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
On the topic of Tariffs, Trump himself will say the place where China is really abusing us is stealing our technology and intellectual property.
No one will dispute that is a real and valid problem (well, probably China).

If Trump wanted to address that and if he was a mature and civil person, he should have started an initiative involving all of the other countries that are getting their technology ripped off in the same manner to come up with a strategy for calling China out and resolving the issue.
That way we would be fighting what is clearly "a good fight" (for a good cause that is simple to understand and support from a global perspective) with the added strength of our allies... and as a bonus, we would be shoring up our relationship with our allies while also hurting the world view of China (they are image conscious!) in the name of clear and common fairness! "Moral highground" is a good place to be (and has played a major role in making the US great after WW2) and we have not coached this fight in a manner to be able to claim it!
Instead, we have China finding alternate suppliers of many products the US has traditionally sold to them. True, this is easier with some products than others, but if you are in a business that sells a lot to China and they can out source it to a different country, you are screwed because once the tariffs are over, China has no reason to go back to buying from the US.
If it was restricted to just China, we would still have the support of our allies, but since tariffs are being applied to other countries in a haphazard fashion, it undermines the story-line that this is about technology/intellectual property theft. Because Canada and Germany (and the rest) don't roll-over for Trump, he feels compelled to "show them who's boss". Basically, Trump's insecurity and need to be "King of the mountain" is clouding the view of what was right in his actions. Diplomacy requires that you allow leaders of other countries to, at least, appear as leaders to their country-men. If you require that they cow to you, you are essentially requiring them to destroy even the appearance of sovereign status and forfeit the respect of their country-men and any future in politics.

Will we win the trade war (I think it is fairly called a trade war at this point)? It will be interesting (and tragic) to watch. I think the straight up dollars are on our side, but the other question is how much suffering are China and the US willing to endure.
I have been impressed by the loyalty of the US workers who are willing to "take one for the team" and tough out their own economic misfortune from the tariffs. I don't know what percentage of workers they represent and how long before they start rethinking it, but I admire their resolve (even though I, personally, think it is misguided).
However, the Chinese people have a long history of compliance to whatever their government dictates to them. Communism is much more efficient than capitalism in the context of making your people eat poop with a smile on their face!
Consequently, I am not at all sure that having the $ balance sheet on our side is adequate to win, and even if it is, I do not believe China will be quick to admit defeat.
I hate to have a "doom and gloom" perspective, but I believe even if we do "win" it will ultimately be a "lose-lose" scenario with both countries emerging the weaker for it.

The only obvious winner will be Russia. We handed them their ass at the end of the cold war, but now that they have conceded that they cannot out-perform us, they are doing their best to undermine our success (as well as the success of modernized European countries) in order to make Russia more relevant.
Undermining the credibility of election processes, generating refugees (by supporting Syria, as one example) in Europe to overwhelm the resources of advanced countries, promoting hatred of these refugees; it all makes Russia more powerful on a relative scale.
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
When did I say we didn't have a trade deficit? We have wealth here and we like to buy stuff. Of course we import a ton of stuff we like to buy. Trade deficits are not a bad thing or an indicator something is very wrong.
Yeah, and a trade deficit means there's a transfer of wealth from net importer to the net exporter. Where do you think Saudi Arabia's wealth comes from? The question is, how does a nation's trade deficit compare to the wealth being created? Well... the US stock markets, as measured by the Russell 3000 index, are worth about 30 trillion dollars. Assuming a conservative 8% annual return on equity, that's about $2.4T The US trade deficit annualizes right now at about $700B. The US federal budget is about $4T. I'm thinking the trade deficit is a significant outflow, and I don't think it's a good thing that it's as big as it is.

Arguing with Canada about trade is dumb. Arguing with the EC is a lot less dumb. Arguing with China seems smart.
 
Forsooth

Forsooth

Audioholic
Wow!! Stocks today are at their historic highest levels!!

President Trump tweeted: "S&P 500 HITS ALL-TIME HIGH Congratulations USA!"

The global tit-for-tat so-called "trade war" seems to have had very little impact of the US economy as President Trump advances his economic objectives. The Labor Dept. has recently stated that America's jobless status is at its lowest in half a century.

Thank you, President Trump, for putting America First!!
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top