| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Sarah Palin: Trump Is ‘Trying to Win' a Trade War ‘We've Been Fighting for Decades' |
| 2018-03-06 |
| [Breitbart] President Donald Trump is responding to a trade war ‐ not starting one ‐ he inherited by pursuing a "level playing field" via tariffs, wrote former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday. Palin pointed to comments made by Breitbart News’s Senior Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour last Thursday about Trump’s proposals to combat "economic warfare" waged by China to destroy America’s steel and aluminum manufacturers. China’s predatory pricing of steel and aluminum exports is designed to destroy the financial viability of America’s domestic manufacturers of the metals, said Mansour: What China is doing, they are willing to take a loss on steel and dump steel below the price of what it costs them to make it simply because they want to destroy our industry for a strategic reason. They want the world to be dependent on them. They want to take the market; that’s why they’re dumping steel. This is an act of war. This is economic warfare. "POTUS isn’t starting any trade war... it’s been raging for decades and we keep losing," wrote Palin. "People MUST understand our nation’s solvency and sovereignty are at stake here." |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #26 Your insults are uncalled for I've been trading with the U.S. for decades. With mutual benefit. I also know a lot about China and about their aggressive trade policies. What I'm calling for is dealing with it the smart way. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-03-06 23:59 |
| #25 European Conservative you ignorant slut. China has invested massive amounts of government capital into steel production for the purpose of creating a global monopoly, and then exploiting monopoly rents once everyone else is driven out of business. This is not what you learned in econ 101. This is straight up warfare by other means. The Chinese have done exactly the same thing with rare-earth metals. This is a strategy that they pursue in selected strategic industries to capture key economic terrain and hold it for as long as possible. Is it an economically good investment for them, no it is not in the classical econ 101 analysis. But strategically, it gives them 6-12 months of advantage in the case of a crisis. Which is what they are buying. Tariffs and sanctions are exactly the right response to deprive them of that opportunity and deter them from doing something to cause a conflict. |
| Posted by: rammer 2018-03-06 23:54 |
| #24 If possible I'd like to continue that conversation. Maybe a new article tomorrow? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-03-06 23:51 |
| #23 Actually China's steel exports have been decreasing in the last year. They need most of their steel in China now. If you see the construction frenzy in China, you easily understand why. China is in no position to threaten U.S. steel production by using dumping methods. There isn't really much Chinese steel going to the U.S. Most of it goes to South Korea and South East Asia. U.S. tariffs aren't going to do anything about it. Btw I think it's legitimate to fight back against dumping. But if you do, it should hurt the guy who does it. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-03-06 23:45 |
| #22 European Conservative, you are correct but if one nation decides to suffer just long enough until the competition goes under it's a different matter. That is what China has been doing. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2018-03-06 23:19 |
| #21 Isn't it funny that the one piece of the free market they'll let us keep is the part that in concert with all the bits they've taken away is instrumental in d3eindustrializing us and taking away our ability to support ourselves? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2018-03-06 20:49 |
| #20 "She threatens our figurehead pharaoh, This eagle too quick for an arrow! Fly, help her to rise, Mighty scourge of the skies, O seductive Red maverick sparrow!" |
| Posted by: Zenobia Floger6220 2018-03-06 20:19 |
| #19 One of the most ridiculous concepts of trade is that trade is (or needs to be) "fair". It isn't. You deal with that fact and just do better. Ask your local bookstore whether competition with Amazon is fair. And yet, some manage better than others. Tariffs don't solve that problem. Produce better steel. Actually the U.S. already charges substantial tariffs on Chinese steel. Raise those tariffs, and prices for everything using steel will go up. From beer cans to skyscrapers. You'll lose more jobs than you might gain in the steel industry. Tariffs may also encourage the sanctioned nation to do better. This is what Japan did with automobiles. Imposing tariffs is a sure indication that you're losing the "war". And YOU pay for it. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-03-06 19:29 |
| #18 Mr.B.Arnold did great service. I agree. The USA might not have come into existence without his victory at Saratoga. He was a big failure as a turncoat, though. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2018-03-06 17:14 |
| #17 #12 I think that Mueller should be concerned about Trump going all out against him. Glass house and all that. |
| Posted by: Ebbeatch Wheasing1070 2018-03-06 16:54 |
| #16 #5 Ah, you mean an "unconscious agent". |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-03-06 14:44 |
| #15 There were a lot of comments floating around in '08 about how, in terms of effectiveness, the ticket would have been better reversed. I was in agreement as I never really forgave the Keating 5. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2018-03-06 11:20 |
| #14 Perhaps I'm reading too much Donald Trump into this, but in hindsight, makes me wonder if she was the target all along and "her running mate" simply the tool used to destroy her. It's easy to think of McCain as a tool and quite obvious that the MSM hates her. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2018-03-06 11:18 |
| #13 Interesting thoughts on Palin. When I consider my Trump hating co-workers and friends they hate Palin equally as much and their reasons why are just as thin (accent/twitter, etc). |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2018-03-06 11:10 |
| #12 An unattributed source says Mueller ordered to go all out after Trump after tariffs announcement. Don't know who is doing the ordering or who said this. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2018-03-06 10:50 |
| #11 China ha has trashed economy. They are trying to prop it up by dumping the items they have a strategic reserve of, Steel. Trump is again playing the long game. He recognizes this and the tariff will not hurt US production, he will eventually give other nations exemptions. But the base of this is not to make it fair for US steel, even thought he is press releasing this. It is an attack on China's economy. Well though out and if place will be well played. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2018-03-06 09:50 |
| #10 As I posted before, Mr.B.Arnold did great service. Captured in the Canadian expedition. Exchanged. Probably was the key player in the victory at Saratoga which itself was key in bringing in French aid. Very trusted aide to Washington. When Congress refused him honors, Washington gave him the post at West Point. Then, of course, the turning which can be attributed to ego, a big ego. Traded it all for a commission in the King's army. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-03-06 09:36 |
| #9 At that date and time 'he served' and was obviously held captive for very long time. I have no reason to doubt his service record, nor will I. It is his record in the congress that concerns me. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-03-06 09:01 |
| #8 You figure there was a significant difference between the official Vietnam captivity story and what CIA knew, Besoeker? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-03-06 08:54 |
| #7 Well, like Donald Trump, she certainly was a populist who had no membership in the beltway UniParty. Interestingly, it now appears Maverick had a hand in the dissemination of the dossier aimed at Trump. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-03-06 08:44 |
| #6 I've been thinking much the same. Isn't it odd how McCain sorta-kinda petered out there close to the end of his presidential campaign. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2018-03-06 08:39 |
| #5 She was a victim of the Deep State.......including the proclivities of her running mate. Posted by AlanC Perhaps I'm reading too much Donald Trump into this, but in hindsight, makes me wonder if she was the target all along and "her running mate" simply the tool used to destroy her. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2018-03-06 08:06 |
| #4 She was a victim of the Deep State.......including the proclivities of her running mate. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2018-03-06 08:02 |
| #3 Sarah upended 'business as usual' with the oil companies in Alaska. She better than a lot understand the push back in dealing with intrenched interests and Deep State. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-03-06 07:41 |
| #2 It's not losing, it's another channel for foreign aid. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2018-03-06 07:32 |
| #1 Losing for decades, Mrs Palin. Losing. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-03-06 04:25 |