The Foreign Trade Thread

#103
#103
SpaceCoastVol said:
So you are cool with GM taking their jobs overseas?
Click to expand...

I'm all for American jobs. The question this ignores is how much extra do we want to pay to keep them?

Trump brags of more steel jobs.



Is 600 jobs worth paying 10%+ more for steel?

I bet someone has done the math, and the answer is "no."
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#104
#104
midnight orange said:
By that logic it would even be better to build cars in Tennessee for Tennessean’s. We would have to build greenhouses for rubber, raise cattle for the tannery, bring in engineers and programmers for he engines and navigation systems, find a way to mine aluminum and other elements for the steel, etc.
Click to expand...

You might have overlooked that large body of water between China and California. Also, the gross profit is composed of a markup from the cost to the sales price AND the rate of inventory turnover. Shipping tons of automobiles halfway around the world stretches out the turnover.

GM is making sound decisions that have little to do with tariffs.
 
#105
#105
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You might have overlooked that large body of water between China and California. Also, the gross profit is composed of a markup from the cost to the sales price AND the rate of inventory turnover. Shipping tons of automobiles halfway around the world stretches out the turnover.

GM is making sound decisions that have little to do with tariffs.
Click to expand...
Yeah I might have overlooked the Pacific but I didn't. Who knew that shipping cost money and time and was factored into production costs. Sounds like your saying the Tennessee plant is a good idea due to the close proximity.
Tariffs are always a factor because they go into the cost of production you mentioned above. I cant say how much but it is a factor.
If you have evidence that tariffs are not a factor for GM, show it.
 
#106
#106
"The company is cutting more than 14,000 white collar and blue-collar jobs, and will probably cut two plants in the U.S. and one in Canada as part of a downsizing to cut costs. The automaker mentioned Trump tariffs on steel as a higher cost that the company has to account for with fewer jobs. Ford is expected to make similar cuts before year-end."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CRAB&usg=AOvVaw0UgeODqruwrx6qFzYoQpA5&ampcf=1
 
#108
#108
"State-directed industrial policies"

Yesterday Trump told GM where to build its factories.

DtIAY31VYAEacDO.jpg
 
#109
#109
midnight orange said:
Yeah I might have overlooked the Pacific but I didn't. Who knew that shipping cost money and time and was factored into production costs. Sounds like your saying the Tennessee plant is a good idea due to the close proximity.
Tariffs are always a factor because they go into the cost of production you mentioned above. I cant say how much but it is a factor.
If you have evidence that tariffs are not a factor for GM, show it.
Click to expand...

Rail delivery takes a day or two from almost anywhere in North America. Cargo ships take weeks or even a month or more from factory to port to ocean crossing to port to final destination. Plus customs red tape.

When GM blames tariffs for their decisions to close US factories they're smoke screening. Isn't their lady CEO a Hillary Clinton ally?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and hog88
#111
#111
Thunder Good-Oil said:
When GM blames tariffs for their decisions to close US factories they're smoke screening.
Click to expand...
There are likely a number of reasons for these closures, but it's undeniable that tariffs add millions to GM's costs.
Thunder Good-Oil said:
What is an appropriate response when your trading "partner" slaps a half again as much tariff on their goods relative to your's?
Click to expand...
There's a number of carrots and sticks. Without being privy to the negotiations, it's hard to say which are effective. But tariffs should be about the last option.

This isn't about China, it's about Trump loving tariffs. He's still threatening them against Canada.
 
#112
#112
Velo Vol said:
There are likely a number of reasons for these closures, but it's undeniable that tariffs add millions to GM's costs.

There's a number of carrots and sticks. Without being privy to the negotiations, it's hard to say which are effective. But tariffs should be about the last option.

This isn't about China, it's about Trump loving tariffs. He's still threatening them against Canada.
Click to expand...

Has Canada ratified the agreement yet?
 
#113
#113
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Rail delivery takes a day or two from almost anywhere in North America. Cargo ships take weeks or even a month or more from factory to port to ocean crossing to port to final destination. Plus customs red tape.

When GM blames tariffs for their decisions to close US factories they're smoke screening. Isn't their lady CEO a Hillary Clinton ally?
Click to expand...

Long way to say that you have no evidence that tariffs do not hurt car manufacturers. What new field in economics is disputing comparative advantage?
 
#118
#118
Velo Vol said:
LOL. Let's just add a new national sales tax. Imagine how rich the country will become.

Click to expand...


A Chinese custom machine manufacture is in Gallatin this week and will be signing a 10 year lease on a facility today.
 
#120
#120
midnight orange said:
Long way to say that you have no evidence that tariffs do not hurt car manufacturers. What new field in economics is disputing comparative advantage?
Click to expand...

Stop making up false narratives from me. Trump's goal is fair trade. We can't get there without pushing back against the unfair practices of our trading "partners".

Closing manufacturing facilities isn't a strategy that GM suddenly came up with. Hillary's buddy that runs GM is trying to blame Trump for closing the US based factories because her cars aren't the choice of US consumers. US manufacturers are partnering with China because that consumer market has exploded. Owning a piece of Chinese manufacturing operations is how the US companies are able to participate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#121
#121
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Stop making up false narratives from me. Trump's goal is fair trade. We can't get there without pushing back against the unfair practices of our trading "partners".

Closing manufacturing facilities isn't a strategy that GM suddenly came up with. Hillary's buddy that runs GM is trying to blame Trump for closing the US based factories because her cars aren't the choice of US consumers. US manufacturers are partnering with China because that consumer market has exploded. Owning a piece of Chinese manufacturing operations is how the US companies are able to participate.
Click to expand...
^—- !!
And they’re laying off so many white collar employees to make their balance sheet look better!

GM isn’t competitive. And it’s friggin GM’s own fault not Trumps.
 
#122
#122
NorthDallas40 said:
^—- !!
And they’re laying off so many white collar employees to make their balance sheet look better!

GM isn’t competitive. And it’s friggin GM’s own fault not Trumps.
Click to expand...

Unions continue to hurt GM. Obama's bailout saved them from liquidation, but his kowtowing to the organized labor didn't do a lot for their long term prospects.
 
#123
#123
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Unions continue to hurt GM. Obama's bailout saved them from liquidation, but his kowtowing to the organized labor didn't do a lot for their long term prospects.
Click to expand...

The bailouts were terrible policy, GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy. They would be much stronger companies today if they had.

Not to mention the stock and bond holders that got screwed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#124
#124
You said:

Thunder Good-Oil said:
It makes sense to build 3,000 pound objects close to the market they're going to be sold in and near the materials and direct labor that go into the production process. The problem occurs when they're built there and shipped here. GM vehicles made in China and shipped to the US should be taxed like a mofo.
Click to expand...

Which defies the concept of comparative advantage. I asked what new field of economics is disputing comparative advantage.

You then said:

Thunder Good-Oil said:
Rail delivery takes a day or two from almost anywhere in North America. Cargo ships take weeks or even a month or more from factory to port to ocean crossing to port to final destination. Plus customs red tape.

When GM blames tariffs for their decisions to close US factories they're smoke screening. Isn't their lady CEO a Hillary Clinton ally?
Click to expand...

Which is almost an exact quote from a Trump adviser
“Navarro shot back at GM on Saturday in an interview on CNN, saying the auto company was using "smoke and mirrors" to deceive the public” and what does Hillary Clinton have to do with it?

Contrarily from Forbes:

“GM Cuts Jobs And Plants To Deal With Changing Tastes And Trump Tariffs. GM is closing five plants and thousands of workers to cope with declining industry auto sales, higher costs from Trump tariffs and diminishing interest in sedans like this Buick LaCrosse.”

GM Cuts Jobs And Plants To Deal With Changing Tastes And Trump Tariffs

You then stated it was about “fair trade”. You are the one changing the narrative when it suits your defense of Trump.

Thunder Good-Oil said:
Stop making up false narratives from me. Trump's goal is fair trade. We can't get there without pushing back against the unfair practices of our trading "partners".

Closing manufacturing facilities isn't a strategy that GM suddenly came up with. Hillary's buddy that runs GM is trying to blame Trump for closing the US based factories because her cars aren't the choice of US consumers. US manufacturers are partnering with China because that consumer market has exploded. Owning a piece of Chinese manufacturing operations is how the US companies are able to participate.
Click to expand...

I’m sure the steel manufacturers find the tariffs “fair”. Car manufacturers and consumers, not so much. “ Fair trade” is a bs crony catch phrase used by those in an attempt to legislate their economic preferences.
 
#125
#125
hog88 said:
The bailouts were terrible policy, GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy. They would be much stronger companies today if they had.

Not to mention the stock and bond holders that got screwed.
Click to expand...

To be fair, at least the government didn't get burned by GM like they did with Obama's subsidy of his solar power fantasy. But in general, unless a company is vital to national security, they should be allowed to crash and burn. Unions vote blue. Workers weren't saved. Workers that support the Left kept their jobs. It's a way to buy votes not much different than Bernie Sanders buying votes by promising to forgive the student debt of Art History and Theater majors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top