Trump was looking for a trade war. Now he has one.

New Person

本站元老
注册
2003-08-26
消息
5,827
荣誉分数
1,349
声望点数
323
And so it begins.

Before he started picking on “Rocket Man,” and the National Football League, President Donald Trump, the bully in chief, targeted his country’s closest trading partners.

They didn’t take the bait. Countries such as Canada, China, Germany, and Mexico have done an admirable job of (mostly) ignoring Trump’s threats to blow up trade agreements and violate commercial norms.

But there is only so much a politician can stand. Trump keeps begging for a trade war, and it now seems inevitable that he is going to get one.

MORE: U.S. slams Bombardier with massive and ‘absurd’ duty of 219 per cent

The U.S. Commerce Department’s decision to tag Bombardier Inc.’s newest plane with retaliatory tariffs of more than 200 percent was a blatant abuse of power. The complainant, Boeing Co., had asked for only an 80-percent penalty. Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, went bigger to remind the world that he could. “The U.S. values its relationships with Canada, but even our closest allies must play by the rules,” Ross said in a press release.

Ross’s remark was telling, not because he said anything surprising, but because he chose to say anything at all.

There is nothing new about the U.S. looking out for the interests of Boeing; as Canada’s foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland said Wednesday, just ask Airbus SE, the world’s only other supplier of large commercial airplanes. Yet there was something new about the way Ross announced the preliminary decision. Edward Alden, a reliable observer of trade policy and politics at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that it’s unusual for the commerce secretary to comment so forcefully on a determination that could technically be reversed.

Ross’s move was the equivalent of the schoolyard tough smearing a Cheez Whiz sandwich on the face of an innocent. He used the Bombardier press release to remind that his department had initiated 65 trade-related investigations since Inauguration Day, a 44 percent increase from the same period a year earlier. Economic historians have a term for this sort of behaviour: beggar-thy-neighbour. It comes from the Great Depression, when countries resorted to tariffs to “protect” jobs and only ended up making things worse.

MORE: Bombardier gets a taste of ‘America First.’ What comes next?

Thanks to Trump, we probably are about to repeat that mistake. Consider the Boeing case.

The company earned revenue of about (US) $95 billion in 2016, which is greater than the gross domestic product of Ukraine. Bombardier’s revenue was about $16 billion. Yet mighty Boeing still took issue with the Canadian company’s sale of 75 of its 110-seat, C-Series planes to Delta Airlines, even though Boeing doesn’t build such a plane. Bombardier sold the C Series to Delta at a significant discount, standard practice in the aviation business, because Delta was one of the first to place a big order. Boeing said the only reason Bombardier was able to sell its planes so cheap was because it was the recipient of unfair government subsidies.

Boeing is the recipient of as much or more government assistance as Bombardier, but that is beside the point. The Trump administration saved no jobs by siding with Boeing: the company doesn’t make the plane Delta wanted, nor was it planning to. Boeing sued Bombardier to stomp on a potential future competitor.

AAswdrS.img
© Used with permission of / © Rogers Media Inc. 2017. Bombardier’s CS100 assembly line is seen at the company’s plant Friday, December 18, 2015 in Mirabel, Que. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz
Meanwhile, the Commerce decision weakens Bombardier, and therefore puts in jeopardy at least some of the more than 20,000 Americans who work for the company’s U.S.-based suppliers. The plane-making duopoly of Boeing and Airbus would continue to reign uncontested, keeping prices high for airlines and their passengers. If Bombardier fails, a Chinese buyer likely would pick up the pieces to accelerate that country’s dream of challenging the duopoly. If that happened, Boeing could say goodbye to much of its Asia business.

So how does harassing Bombardier help American workers, again?


You don’t need to be a game theorist to connect those dots. The danger is that the Trump administration doesn’t care to try. It’s on a rampage. Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, stated bluntly earlier this month that the White House intends to use the size of the American economy to muscle trading partners into accepting trade agreement’s on the president’s terms.

“What is the best thing to do in the face of market distortions to arrive at free and fair competition?” Lighthizer asked at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I believe – and I think the president believes – that we must be proactive, the years of talking about these problems has not worked, and that we must use all instruments we have to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior, and to convince our trading partners to treat our workers, farmers, and ranchers fairly.

“We must demand reciprocity in home and in international markets,” he said. “So expect change, expect new approaches, and expect action.”

There is little reason to think any of this change will be for the better.

OPINION: Trudeau’s banana republic approach to Bombardier and Boeing

Americans, even the reasonable ones, tend to forget that politics is practiced in other countries besides their own. Bombardier builds the wings for the C-Series planes in Northern Ireland, and both Prime Justin Trudeau and British Prime Minister Theresa May are talking about stopping all business with Boeing.

Expect more of this from other countries because the U.S.insults will keep coming. The Commerce decision on Bombardier was an invitation to American companies to sue their toughest international rivals rather than out hustle them. The outrage that Canada’s political class demonstrated on Wednesday will spread to other countries. Because Trump is so unpopular, the pressure to retaliate will be great. Someone eventually will.

History is a pretty good guide for what could happen next. Maybe the lessons of the Depression will forestall the worst. But the nature of politics hasn’t changed enough to keep everyone on the high road. The trade war is coming.
 
Canadians have no one else to blame but Trudeau and his buddy Omar Khadr.
 
Looks like Americans are more scared, well, as they should be.
 
And so it begins.

Before he started picking on “Rocket Man,” and the National Football League, President Donald Trump, the bully in chief, targeted his country’s closest trading partners.

They didn’t take the bait. Countries such as Canada, China, Germany, and Mexico have done an admirable job of (mostly) ignoring Trump’s threats to blow up trade agreements and violate commercial norms.

But there is only so much a politician can stand. Trump keeps begging for a trade war, and it now seems inevitable that he is going to get one.

MORE: U.S. slams Bombardier with massive and ‘absurd’ duty of 219 per cent

The U.S. Commerce Department’s decision to tag Bombardier Inc.’s newest plane with retaliatory tariffs of more than 200 percent was a blatant abuse of power. The complainant, Boeing Co., had asked for only an 80-percent penalty. Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, went bigger to remind the world that he could. “The U.S. values its relationships with Canada, but even our closest allies must play by the rules,” Ross said in a press release.

Ross’s remark was telling, not because he said anything surprising, but because he chose to say anything at all.

There is nothing new about the U.S. looking out for the interests of Boeing; as Canada’s foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland said Wednesday, just ask Airbus SE, the world’s only other supplier of large commercial airplanes. Yet there was something new about the way Ross announced the preliminary decision. Edward Alden, a reliable observer of trade policy and politics at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that it’s unusual for the commerce secretary to comment so forcefully on a determination that could technically be reversed.

Ross’s move was the equivalent of the schoolyard tough smearing a Cheez Whiz sandwich on the face of an innocent. He used the Bombardier press release to remind that his department had initiated 65 trade-related investigations since Inauguration Day, a 44 percent increase from the same period a year earlier. Economic historians have a term for this sort of behaviour: beggar-thy-neighbour. It comes from the Great Depression, when countries resorted to tariffs to “protect” jobs and only ended up making things worse.

MORE: Bombardier gets a taste of ‘America First.’ What comes next?

Thanks to Trump, we probably are about to repeat that mistake. Consider the Boeing case.

The company earned revenue of about (US) $95 billion in 2016, which is greater than the gross domestic product of Ukraine. Bombardier’s revenue was about $16 billion. Yet mighty Boeing still took issue with the Canadian company’s sale of 75 of its 110-seat, C-Series planes to Delta Airlines, even though Boeing doesn’t build such a plane. Bombardier sold the C Series to Delta at a significant discount, standard practice in the aviation business, because Delta was one of the first to place a big order. Boeing said the only reason Bombardier was able to sell its planes so cheap was because it was the recipient of unfair government subsidies.

Boeing is the recipient of as much or more government assistance as Bombardier, but that is beside the point. The Trump administration saved no jobs by siding with Boeing: the company doesn’t make the plane Delta wanted, nor was it planning to. Boeing sued Bombardier to stomp on a potential future competitor.

AAswdrS.img
© Used with permission of / © Rogers Media Inc. 2017. Bombardier’s CS100 assembly line is seen at the company’s plant Friday, December 18, 2015 in Mirabel, Que. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz
Meanwhile, the Commerce decision weakens Bombardier, and therefore puts in jeopardy at least some of the more than 20,000 Americans who work for the company’s U.S.-based suppliers. The plane-making duopoly of Boeing and Airbus would continue to reign uncontested, keeping prices high for airlines and their passengers. If Bombardier fails, a Chinese buyer likely would pick up the pieces to accelerate that country’s dream of challenging the duopoly. If that happened, Boeing could say goodbye to much of its Asia business.

So how does harassing Bombardier help American workers, again?


You don’t need to be a game theorist to connect those dots. The danger is that the Trump administration doesn’t care to try. It’s on a rampage. Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, stated bluntly earlier this month that the White House intends to use the size of the American economy to muscle trading partners into accepting trade agreement’s on the president’s terms.

“What is the best thing to do in the face of market distortions to arrive at free and fair competition?” Lighthizer asked at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I believe – and I think the president believes – that we must be proactive, the years of talking about these problems has not worked, and that we must use all instruments we have to make it expensive to engage in non-economic behavior, and to convince our trading partners to treat our workers, farmers, and ranchers fairly.

“We must demand reciprocity in home and in international markets,” he said. “So expect change, expect new approaches, and expect action.”

There is little reason to think any of this change will be for the better.

OPINION: Trudeau’s banana republic approach to Bombardier and Boeing

Americans, even the reasonable ones, tend to forget that politics is practiced in other countries besides their own. Bombardier builds the wings for the C-Series planes in Northern Ireland, and both Prime Justin Trudeau and British Prime Minister Theresa May are talking about stopping all business with Boeing.

Expect more of this from other countries because the U.S.insults will keep coming. The Commerce decision on Bombardier was an invitation to American companies to sue their toughest international rivals rather than out hustle them. The outrage that Canada’s political class demonstrated on Wednesday will spread to other countries. Because Trump is so unpopular, the pressure to retaliate will be great. Someone eventually will.

History is a pretty good guide for what could happen next. Maybe the lessons of the Depression will forestall the worst. But the nature of politics hasn’t changed enough to keep everyone on the high road. The trade war is coming.

This is a warning shot from Trump. Trudeau's response would determine the fate of the NAFTA negotiation. He'd better be patient, careful and smart for one time.
 
拿加拿大开刀惹怒英国 美与最铁盟友展开“飞机大战”

【环球时报驻英国、加拿大、德国特约记者 孙微 陶短房 青木 任重】喊着“美国第一”的川普政府拿邻国加拿大开刀,却惹怒另一重要盟友英国。英国首相特雷莎·梅27日警告说,美国对庞巴迪公司征收的惩罚性关税将引发英美之间的贸易战争。而此前加拿大外长已经表态称,在庞巴迪的问题上,加拿大将竭尽全力战斗、战斗!这场由“波音大战庞巴迪”引发的贸易纠纷正不断闹大。

也难怪英国和加拿大急了眼,本来波音只是建议向庞巴迪的飞机征收80%的反倾销税,但美国商务部的裁决却把惩罚性关税一下子提高到近220%。美国政府释放的信号非常明显:即使是最亲密的盟友,也必须给美国的利益让路。令美国媒体不解的是,川普尚未在贸易问题上对中国和墨西哥“说最狠的话”,加拿大却首先挨了一刀。《纽约时报》28日称,这反映出川普在重塑国际贸易规则上面临的复杂局面。

据英国《每日电讯报》报道,美国对庞巴迪的C系列飞机征收高额反补贴关税激怒英国。首相特雷莎·梅警告说,美国此举将引发英美之间的贸易战争,梅还直接呼吁川普总统介入这一争端,因为这一争端为英美之间签订脱欧后的自由贸易协定带来阴影。

导致英国愤怒的事件始于庞巴迪公司与美国的达美航空公司签署了125架中程客机的合同。波音公司向美国商务部投诉说,庞巴迪公司得到了加拿大政府的资助,以低于市场价的方式出售飞机。“这将对美国航空制造业的工人和波音全球供应链造成损害”。波音公司在投诉中还说,这一争执不是要限制创新或竞争,而是“要保持公平的竞争环境,确保航空企业遵守贸易协定”。美国商务部26日初步裁定,对庞巴迪的C系列飞机征收219.63%的反补贴关税,因初步发现其获得了补贴。

加拿大广播公司称,飞机制造业的专家说,这是自1980年全球32个大国共同签署飞机购销自由贸易协议之后,第一次出现对飞机征收关税。庞巴迪公司发表声明说:“美国的贸易法规从来没有以这种方式使用过,而波音公司正试图用一种扭曲的过程来扼杀竞争”。

美国和加拿大打贸易战,英国为何着急?《每日电讯报》27日称,梅威胁对美国进行贸易报复,因为美国此举威胁她脱欧战略的关键环节。庞巴迪公司在北爱尔兰的一家工厂负责生产C系列客机机翼,有雇员大约4500人,是北爱尔兰最大的制造业企业。美国此举将英国保守党与北爱尔兰民主统一党的关系置于紧张之中。英国27日告知波音,公司可能因这场争端而丧失英国的“阿帕奇”直升机防务合同。英国国防大臣法伦呼应说,“我们与波音在海上巡逻机以及阿帕奇直升机方面有合同。波音此举会影响我们与他们的未来合作关系。波音公司是英国重要的防务伙伴,也是上一次防务评估中的最大赢家之一,而他们现在的行为却不是我们想从一个长期伙伴那里看到的”。

让英国更担心的还有本国在脱欧之后面临的尴尬处境。英国《每日邮报》称,在英国威胁要终止与波音公司的军事合同之后,英美两国正处于贸易战的边缘。美国的初步裁决对于梅首相而言很尴尬,因为梅本来指望脱欧之后,英美两国的贸易能迅速升温。工党领导人科尔宾呼吁政府不要对美国低头,科尔宾在工党年会上表示,“如果英美特殊关系还有意义的话,那我们就可以对华盛顿表示:这样是不对的。”不论结果如何,美国商务部的戏剧性行动都会严重损害英美贸易关系,并严重挫伤脱欧后与美国进行自由贸易谈判者们的信心。美国一直在提倡自由贸易,然而川普的保守主义立场看起来可能是自由贸易面临的最大威胁。

英国《卫报》称,欧盟和美国几十年来一直在为各自的飞机制造商波音和空客提供支持。尽管如此,美国从来没有像此次对加拿大庞巴迪公司这样采取如此强硬的手段。这也让该公司在北爱尔兰工厂的数千个工作岗位受到威胁。这个案例让我们真正体会到在脱欧之后,英国在英美贸易问题上会如何被美国对待,以及英国将处于何种脆弱的地位。

《卫报》说,脱欧派天真地以为,英国脱欧后能够依靠美国主导的全球贸易体系,更方便地与世界其他地区进行贸易。然而在崇尚“美国第一”的川普领导下,这无异于妄想:全球化只能在美国的全力支持下才能蓬勃发展,现在保守主义盛行的白宫不可能全心全意支持。与欧洲保持紧密关系才是捍卫英国利益的最佳方法,这进一步证实了英国应该留在欧盟内部。
 
严肃问题: 小土豆又一次豪掷纳税人血汗钱给纳税人买大麻烦。


Manny Montenegrino @manny_ottawa
·27 Sep

Bombardier/Boeing
1. PM Justin gives $1B Bombardier
2. Breach of #NAFTA
3. Boeing claims breach-220% duty

Why isn't Media slamming Justin?

1. 小土豆给Bombardier 10亿
2. (此举)违背NAFTA
3. 波音上诉背约 - 220% 惩罚性关税。

媒体为什么不批家私庁?
 
But May could find it difficult to convince Trump, who has made "America First" a theme of his administration, to get a titan of U.S. industry to back off from defending what it views as its trade rights.
 
如果此事震醒小土豆,让他放弃他的那些Progressive Agenda, 好好生生谈贸易,也许就此拯救了NAFTA。

本来川普认为此约的加拿大部分只需微调。小土豆用给卡德儿的1千万给克林顿的2千万给Bombardier10个亿还有给无数非法越境者或潜在越境的推特改变了一切。

这伙计真能干。
 
1. 小土豆给Bombardier 10亿
2. (此举)违背NAFTA
3. 波音上诉背约 - 220% 惩罚性关税。

媒体为什么不批家私庁?
疮婆要废了nafta,哪里来的违背?这不整合你意?
 
疮婆要废了nafta,哪里来的违背?这不整合你意?
川普本来认为加拿大部分只需微调。小土豆却有本事把它弄成惊天大事。你不服还真不行。
 
川普本来认为加拿大部分只需微调。小土豆却有本事把它弄成惊天大事。你不服还真不行。
微调这事儿你都知道?:good:I服了U:wall:
 
后退
顶部