Trump’s trade war hurting US economy

1. The adverse impact of Trump's tariffs could be felt in the rising prices of washing machines and the scrapping of solar projects in the US. Similarly, thanks to Trump's disastrous trade war with China, Latin American countries like Brazil are selling abundance of soybeans to China at US expense. As a result, Trump had to hastily call a so-called "truce" in his trade war with the EU, lying to US farmers that he had opened up the European market to US agriculture, and pleading with them: "You’re not going to be too angry with Trump..."

The following are excerpts from Justin Worland's June 19, 2018 article, headlined "Why Trump's Trade War With China Is So Risky" at http://time.com/5314894/donald-trump-china-trade-war/

(Begin excerpts)
....For Trump, who has declared trade wars “easy to win,” the escalating tariffs represent the fulfillment of a campaign promise to crack down on China and reduce the U.S. trade deficit to support U.S. jobs. But most economists, business leaders and trade experts on both sides of the aisle have cried foul, arguing that trade wars are a dangerous game that could hurt the economy at home and around the world.

The prospect of a trade war is particularly dangerous when it comes to China, the U.S.’ largest goods trading partner. Products from the country are integrated into global supply chains, and the U.S. sends the country billions of dollars worth agricultural products, vehicles and machinery each year.

That position — along with the authoritarian nature of its political system — gives China significant leverage to stay the course in any trade war. The country’s tariffs on $34 billion in goods announced on June 15 targeted industries in politically sensitive places: soybean farmers in Iowa, U.S. automakers in the Rust Belt and orange juice in Florida.

People in those swing states are taking notice. “If we lose trade to China, our neighbors to the south will be glad to take up that trade,” says John Heisdorffer, a soybean producer from Iowa and president of the American Soybean Association.

...most economists generally say that tariffs are the wrong way to tackle the issue. The rollout of this latest set of actions was quick and decisive, leaving little opportunity for negotiation. On June 15, Trump announced tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports. Within minutes China responded in kind, targeting a range of goods from soy beans to electric vehicles, and prompting Trump three days later to order his trade office to find another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to target. Preemptively, Trump said he would be willing to bring the total value of Chinese goods targeted with tariffs to $450 billion....

You may not have felt the pinch of the trade war yet, but experts say that barring big shift in direction large swathes of Americans will get hit. To understand the effects of tariffs, look no further than washing machines and solar panels. The price of laundry equipment has spiked 17% in the last three months after years of decline, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. And more than $2.5 billion in U.S. solar projects have been scrapped thanks to the tariffs, according to a Reuters analysis.

Meanwhile, markets have responded poorly to Trump’s tariffs play, dipping repeatedly with each new tariff announcement. Even an internal report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers reported by the New York Times found that Trump’s trade agenda would hurt the U.S. economy. At the same, Trump’s tax cuts and higher spending have actually exacerbated the trade deficit, which he ostensibly hopes to reduce with his trade agenda. “Look, I have always said a trade deficit doesn’t matter,” former Trump advisor Gary Cohn said at a Washington Post event last week. “In many respects, it’s helpful to our economy.”

But Trump has remained determined to implement his trade agenda in contrast to his vacillations on other political issues. And he is counting on the getting tough on China play to deliver a win for his base and give Republicans a boost in the midterm elections. The question now is whether economic effects will be felt by then as well. (End excerpts)

 

2. Winter Nie is the regional director of Southeast Asia and Oceania for IMD Business School. He opined that the result of a US-Sino trade war would be "an economic war of attrition that China is infinitely better positioned to win". The following are excerpts from Winter Nie's December 22, 2016 article headlined "Why America Would Lose a Trade War With China" at http://fortune.com/2016/12/22/donald-trump-china-trade-war/

(Begin excerpts)
...If Trump were to impose the 35% to 45% tariffs that he talked about in his campaign, the situation could evolve quickly into a total rupture. But there are a number of intermediate stages that might be painful to both the Chinese and to American companies, but would still leave open trade in certain areas that both sides consider critical. What is certain is that a complete rupture would hurt American companies and China as well, though America will likely be the bigger loser.

....Trump is entering uncharted waters. The danger is in thinking that talking tough to China will produce positive results. It won’t. From Beijing’s perspective, international trade takes a second seat to internal politics. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s top priority is to maintain political stability. He cannot lose face in his relations with a new administration in Washington and hope to retain power at home. He especially cannot deal with an American president who the Chinese feel fails to show proper respect for China itself. And, now that China has emerged as the world’s second most powerful economy, he really doesn’t have to.

A trade war would be problematic, but it would not be a disaster for China, mainly because the U.S. needs China more than vice versa. Twenty years ago, the situation might have been different. China was dramatically underdeveloped, and it wanted access to Western technology and manufacturing techniques. China has most of what it needs now, and what it doesn’t have it can easily obtain from vendors outside the U.S. While the American market looked enticing a few decades ago, it is relatively mature, and today the newer emerging market countries have become much more interesting to Beijing.

Although a good deal of American high tech equipment is manufactured in China, the lion’s share of the profits go to the American companies that designed the equipment. If that were to stop, American companies would be hurt more than Chinese manufacturers.

The fastest growing markets for the best items China produces, like laptop computers and cell phones, are in developing regions such as India, Latin America, and Africa. In contrast, China itself is a market that the U.S. can hardly ignore. By the end of 2015, Chinese consumers bought 131 million iPhones. The total sales to U.S. customers during the same period stood at only 110 million. And iPhones are only a small part of U.S. exports. Boeing, which employs 150,000 workers in the U.S., estimates that China will buy some 6,810 airplanes over the next 20 years, and that market alone will be worth more than $1 trillion.

Were Trump to start a trade war, the most immediate effects would probably be felt by companies like Walmart, which import billions of dollars of cheap goods. The prices on almost all of these items would quickly skyrocket beyond the reach of the lower economic brackets—not because of manufacturing costs, but because of the tariffs. The result would be an economic war of attrition that China is infinitely better positioned to win.

China’s foreign currency reserves now stand at more than $3 trillion. In contrast, the U.S. has foreign exchange reserves that hover at around $120 billion. Trump’s tariffs would automatically trigger penalties against the U.S. in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and might even lead to the WTO’s collapse, which would lead to higher tariffs against U.S. exports. While it might take a while for that to happen, the turmoil would be catastrophic for American business and employment. China, on the other hand, would emerge relatively unscathed.

In fact, the importance of the U.S.-China relationship is already being challenged by other players. Apple’s iPhone sales in China are running into competition from local Chinese manufacturers, and Samsung is more than happy to fill any void that the Chinese can’t deal with. Likewise, the Chinese would happily shift their trillion dollars in future aircraft purchases to Airbus a European firm that is already building a plant in China to finish assembly of large, twin-aisle jets. As for automobiles, most Chinese would just as soon drive a Mercedes, BMW, or Lexus as a Ford.

Trump’s abandonment of existing U.S. trade agreements would accelerate China’s displacement of America as the world’s leading economic power. Both China leading economic experts hope that won’t happen quite yet, but almost anything is possible. (End excerpts)

 

Cut the crap.

A trade war is good for everybody.

Especially for workers.

 

3. Minnesota is the third largest producer of soybeans in the US. The crop accounts for 30 percent of the state's agricultural exports. The state shipped more than $2 billion worth of soybeans abroad in 2016. More than half went to China.

The following are excerpts from the April 5, 2018 article, by Star Tribune staff writers Jim Spencer and Tom Meersman, under the headline "Minnesota has millions at stake as China targets soybeans" at http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-has-millions-at-stake-as-china-targets-soybeans/478803513/

(Begin excerpts)
WASHINGTON – Minnesota’s 2018 soybean crop lost $152 million in value in the commodities futures market hours after China threatened Wednesday to place a 25 percent tariff on soybeans imported from the United States.

Commodity futures are in constant flux, the state’s soybean farmers know. But they also see a serious threat should actions ever replace words.

“If the futures price drops 40 cents a bushel on talk, what’s it going to do if this really happens?” asked Bill Gordon, who grows 1,000 acres of soybeans a year on his farm near Worthington.

As the U.S. and China move closer to a trade war, no one involved with Minnesota’s leading agricultural export wants to find out.

“Soybeans are the big dog in the room,” University of Minnesota grain market economist Ed Usset explained. “China will import more soybeans this year than our entire country produced four years ago.”

Minnesota is the nation’s third largest producer of soybeans. The crop accounts for 30 percent of the state’s agricultural exports. The state shipped more than $2 billion worth of soybeans abroad in 2016. More than half went to China.

There are other Minnesota-made products on China’s newly announced list of U.S. products that face 25 percent tariffs in retaliation for President Donald Trump’s plan to place punitive taxes on 1,300 kinds of Chinese imports to America. But none put the state’s economy at more risk than a punitive levy on a little yellow protein-rich bean....

But the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association is so upset that it issued a statement Wednesday “calling on the White House to reconsider the tariffs that led to this retaliation.”

Minnesota-based Cargill urged both countries to “get to the negotiating table to constructively address their concerns with each other in a time-bound manner.”

“The impact of trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies could lead to a destructive trade war with serious consequences for economic growth and job creation,” Cargill said.

Four state legislators — Sen. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake; Rep. Rod Hamilton, R-Mountain Lake; Sen. Bill Weber, R-Luverne; and Rep. Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck — who lead the agriculture committees in St. Paul issued a joint statement, warning that “foreign tariffs on products like soybeans and pork could be devastating to farmers already struggling with low commodity prices, and threaten Minnesota families, jobs, exports, and our economy.”....

Bob Worth, a 65-year-old soybean farmer in Lake Benton, lived through a trade battle that became more than a war of words when President Jimmy Carter took on the Russians in the late 1970s. “That hurt us significantly,” Worth said. “We lost exports and the value of commodities fell.”

It took years for Worth’s farm to recover....

If the threats turn into actual tariffs, Naeve* said “crazy things” will begin to happen.

“The beans will end up going somewhere,” Naeve added, “but the more we have to shuffle around and swap and do more logistics and transloading and shipping, every one of those things just bites into the price and nibbles away 5 and 10 and 20 and 50 cents a bushel here and there.”

For people such as Mike Petefish, dragging agricultural commodities — especially soybeans — into a trade war makes no sense. The 33-year-old president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association farms 5,000 acres of soybeans and corn with his father and his wife.
“Ag is one of the few areas where we have a trade surplus,” Petefish said. “Exporting more soybeans would seem to be an answer.”
Instead, the president’s trade policy has put at risk the very voters who delivered him to the White House.

“Trump,” said Petefish, “has to know that most of his base lies in rural America.” (End excerpts)

* Seth Naeve is a University of Minnesota Extension soybean agronomist.

 

My great friend, go home to grow your soybeans.

 

Soybeans are crap food.

 

4. The following are excerpts from the July 12, 2018 article headlined "Trump trade war pain: Small U.S. firms hit by import, export tariffs as years of efforts go down the drain" at https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...-tariffs-years-efforts-go-drain/#.W2MLyPZuLIU

(Begin excerpts)
NEW YORK – Time and effort have gone down the drain for Steve Gould, who is scrambling to find new customers for his gin, whiskey and other spirits since the United States has taken a tough stance on trade issues.

Before the European Union retaliated against new U.S. tariffs with taxes of its own, Gould expected revenue from the EU at his Golden Moon Distillery in Colorado to reach $250,000 or $350,000 this year. Now he’s concerned that European exports will total just $25,000. Golden Moon already saw an effect when then-candidate Donald Trump made trade an issue during the 2016 campaign. Gould lost one of his Mexican importers and an investor, as overseas demand for small-distiller spirits was growing.

“We’ve lost years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars in building relationships with offshore markets,” says Gould, who’s hoping to find new customers in countries like Japan.

President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policies are taking a toll on small U.S. manufacturers. The president has imposed tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports from most of the world, including Europe, Mexico and Canada, driving up costs for companies that rely on those metals. And he has slapped 25 percent taxes on $34 billion in Chinese imports in a separate trade dispute, targeting mostly machinery and industrial components so far. Trump’s tariffs have drawn retaliation from around the world. China is taxing American soybeans, among other things; the European Union has hit Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Kentucky bourbon; Canada has imposed tariffs on a range of products — from U.S. steel to dishwasher detergent.

More businesses could be feeling the pain as the trade disputes escalate — the administration on Tuesday threatened to impose 10 percent tariffs on thousands of Chinese products, including fish, apples and burglar alarms. And China responded with a tariff threat of its own, although it didn’t say what U.S. exports would be targeted.

Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to tariffs because they lack the financial resources larger companies have to absorb higher costs. Large companies can move production overseas — as Harley-Davidson recently announced it would do to escape 25 percent retaliatory tariffs in Europe. But “if you’re a small firm, it’s much harder to do that; you don’t have an international network of production locations,” says Lee Branstetter, professor of economics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College.

Shifting manufacturing away from items that use components that are being taxed is also harder since small businesses tend to make fewer products, he says. And if tariffs make it too expensive to export to their current markets, small companies may not be able to afford the effort of finding new ones.

Small business owners have been growing more confident over the past year as the economy has been strong, and they’ve been hiring at a steady if not robust pace. But those hurt by tariffs are can lose their optimism and appetite for growth within a few months.

“They have narrow profit margins and it’s a tax,” says Kent Jones, an economics professor at Babson College. “That lowers their profit margins and increases the possibility of layoffs and even bankruptcies.”

Bertram Yachts is one company finding it trickier to maneuver. The U.S. has put a 25 percent tariff on hundreds of boat parts imported from China, where most marine components are made. And European countries have imposed a 25 percent tariff on U.S.-made boats. Last year, Bertram exported about a third of its boats, with half going to Europe.

“We have been squeezed on both sides,” says Peter Truslow, CEO of the Tampa, Florida-based boat maker.

Truslow doesn’t know how the tariffs will affect the company’s sales and profits, but dealers he’s spoken to in Europe have already gotten cancellations on boats that run into the millions of dollars. Bertram plans to try to build up its strong U.S. business and seek more customers in countries that aren’t involved in trade disputes with the U.S. including Japan and Australia.

Still, the company’s growth and job creation stand to slow. “It’s probably going to be more about a reduction in hiring than it is about layoffs,” Truslow says.

The ripples are being felt across the industry, says Tom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association trade group. He estimates there are about 1,000 manufacturers, almost all small or mid-size businesses, and says some parts can only be bought from China.

Matt Barton’s metal fabrication company, which makes custom replacement parts for farm equipment, outdoor signs and people who race hot rods, is paying its suppliers up to 20 percent more for metals than it did a year ago.

Prices had actually soared as much as 40 percent months ago amid expectations of U.S. tariffs on aluminum and steel. They have since steadied, but are expected to remain high for three to six months. Barton’s Pittsboro, Indiana-based company, The Hero Lab, is absorbing part of the increases. Some racing customers are still delaying orders.

“What they budgeted to cost $1,000 now is now $1,200 or $1,500,” Barton says. “They’re pushing their orders back four to six weeks, waiting for a few more paychecks to come in.”

Jeff Schwager’s cheese company, Sartori, is selling products to Mexico at break-even prices because of that nation’s retaliatory 25 percent tariff. Twelve percent of the Plymouth, Wisconsin-based company’s revenue comes from exports, which is the fastest-growing segment of the business.

Sartori and its Mexican importer are each absorbing half the costs of the tariff. Schwager, the CEO, doesn’t see leaving the Mexican market as an option.

“If you lose space on the grocery store shelf, or you’re taken out of recipes in restaurants, that take years to get back,” he says. He hopes the trade dispute can be resolved and tariffs rolled back.... (End excerpts)

 

Soybeans are crap food, but you are the greatest.

If you are one of the small US manufacturers like Steve Gould who can't find new customers for his Golden Moon Distillery in Colorado, you can spend the rest of your life drinking your gin, whiskey and other spirits every day.

 

Yes, I know I had to buy less washing machines this week than I usually buy.

 

Yes, I know why.

 

THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP!
While the Left cries about Putin and transgenders and promotes socialism, here are Trump's success in just a little over one year:

1, Tax cuts: Congress has passed a tax overhaul, and just the anticipation of tax reform plus the reall effects has excited business owners and fueled stock market records.
2. Economic growth: The gross domestic product has grown by more than 4%, something that the socialist imbecile Obama said would not happen
3. Consumer confidence: Consumer confidence recently rose to the highest level in 17 years, according to the New York-based Conference Board.
4. Deregulation: Trump has cut over 67 Obama-era regulations and added only three new rules. The rollback on regulations has spurred business confidence, economic activity and stock market growth. Trump said the actions have saved $8.1 billion in lifetime net regulatory costs.
5. Stock market: The Dow has set record highs 70 times this year, rising 5,000 points in a year for the first time in history.
6. Judicial appointments: Trump has staffed the judiciary with constitutionalists such as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and now Brett Michael Kavanaugh.
7. Unemployment: The number of people collecting unemployment benefits has continued to fall to a near 44-year low.
8. African-American: Lowest on record
9. Hispanic unemployment: Lowest on record
10. Israel: The United States' relationship with Israel has been much improved since the last administration.
11. U.S. energy: The Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines are under construction. Jobs to be created: 42,000.
12. Coal: Trump stopped Obama’s war on coal.
13. Schools: Trump is giving the green light to school choice programs across the country.
14. Obamacare fail: Congress failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but the tax reform bill wipes Obamacare's individual mandate thus rendering Obamacare dead, thank God.

 

5. The following are excerpts from the April 24, 2018 AP news report by Richard Lardner under the headline "Trump's trade war with China risks jobs and profits in working-class areas" at http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/national/ct-trump-china-tariffs-20180424-story.html

(Begin excerpts)
President Donald Trump's escalating dispute with China over trade and technology is threatening jobs and profits in working-class communities where his "America First" agenda hit home.

The Commerce Department has received more than 2,400 applications from companies seeking waivers from the administration's tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, which may result in duty payments of millions of dollars for larger businesses. The department has begun posting the requests online for public comment; several of the applications released so far suggest deep misgivings with Trump's protectionist strategy, especially in areas where he won strong support during the 2016 election.

The tariffs are aimed primarily at China for flooding the global market with cheap steel and aluminum. But they've also led to confusion and uncertainty, according to Associated Press interviews and a review of records. In Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin, for example, businesses operating in the furniture, energy and food sectors have outlined the financial difficulties they'd face if they're not excused from the steel tariff.

In Okmulgee, Oklahoma, dozens of jobs hang in the balance as office furniture giant Steelcase waits to hear back from the Commerce Department.

A Steelcase subsidiary, PolyVision, operates a plant in Okmulgee that uses a special type of steel from Japan to manufacture a durable glass-like surface for whiteboards and architectural purposes. PolyVision "cannot and will not be able to procure" from U.S. companies the cold-rolled steel it requires "in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality," Steelcase said.

Trump won most of the votes cast for president in Okmulgee County. Without a waiver, Steelcase warned, the "economic viability of PolyVision (and) the small town of Okmulgee" would be jeopardized.

The waiver request also indicates that a $15 million plant expansion may be at risk. Steelcase and PolyVision are on the verge of making the investment, which would create new construction and manufacturing jobs, according to the request.

Roger Ballenger, Okmulgee's city manager, said he and other local officials are "very concerned about the situation with PolyVision."....

Economists Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman estimated last month that the tariffs would increase employment in the U.S. steel and aluminum industries by more than 26,000 jobs but also lead to the loss of 495,000 other jobs throughout the rest of the American economy....

The future is much murkier for another Baytown steel business, Borusan Mannesmann Pipe. Without a waiver, Borusan may face tariffs of $25 million to $30 million annually if it imports steel tubing and casing from its parent company in Turkey, according to information the company provided to the AP.

Borusan said the Baytown production line would no longer be competitive and "jobs would be threatened" if it cannot import 135,000 metric tons of steel annually over the next two years. The pipes Borusan produces are used primarily as casing for oil and natural gas wells.

But if Commerce says yes, Borusan will be able to unlock a $25 million investment in the Baytown facility as it seeks to become a "100 percent domestic supplier," according to the waiver request. An additional $50 million expansion in pipe fabrication capacity would follow, the company said, leading to as many as 170 new jobs.

Seneca Foods Corporation, the nation's largest vegetable canner, said in its waiver application that it's unclear, at best, if U.S. suppliers have the ability or willingness to expand their production in the long term to meet the company's annual demand for tinplated steel.

But "clearly they cannot meet demand in the short term," Seneca told Commerce officials. That means Seneca has to buy a portion of what it needs from overseas.

A person with knowledge of Seneca's situation said the company would face a $2.25 million duty if the Commerce Department doesn't approve its waiver request for 11,000 metric tons of tinplate it already agreed to purchase from China. The material is to be delivered this year and next, according to the waiver request. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Seneca said it employs more than 400 people at can-making facilities in Wisconsin and Idaho and near its headquarters in New York's Wayne County, where Trump bested Clinton. The company doesn't warn layoffs are imminent if the waiver isn't approved. Instead, the tariffs would likely come out of Seneca's bottom line, the person said. (End excerpts)

 

Yes, you have to thank God that the Dow will forever defy gravity like me up here.

 

6. The following are excerpts from the May 21, 2018 CNNMoney (New York) news report under the headline "Everything is getting more expensive, and 43% of families can't afford the basics" at https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/21/pf/applenews-consumer-prices/index.html

(Begin excerpts)
If you've been feeling like your paycheck isn't going as far as it used to, you're not imagining things.

Everything from gas to mortgages to your Chipotle order is getting more expensive.

Nearly 51 million US households don't earn enough to cover basics like rent and food.

Meanwhile, Amazon Prime members are getting a new discount and Ikea is offering a new credit card. Catch up on last week's money news here:

PRICES ARE GOING UP

After years of low inflation, consumer prices are rising as the economy gets stronger. Be ready to pay more for gas, your orders at McDonald's and Chipotle, and even your Netflix and Amazon Prime subscriptions.

Dozens of companies in recent weeks have said they already hiked prices or plan to in the coming months to combat inflation.

Plus, the Federal Reserve is gradually raising interest rates, which will make auto loans and mortgages more expensive, too.

MANY FAMILIES CAN'T AFFORD THE BASICS

Despite a stronger economy and low unemployment rates, people across the country are still struggling to make ends meet.

About 43% of US households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a new study by the United Way ALICE Project.

California, New Mexico and Hawaii have the largest share of struggling families, at 49% each. North Dakota has the lowest at 32%.

MIXED NEWS FOR THE CLASS OF 2018

There should be a lot more job openings for new college grads this year, but starting salaries won't be much higher than last year.... (End excerpts)

 

7. The following are excerpts from the July 23, 2018 article by Paul Davidson of USA TODAY under the headline "U.S. trade war with China, other countries: Layoffs, reduced hours, slimmer profits" at https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-war-china-layoffs-thinner-profits/762569002/

(Begin excerpts)
The bullets are flying in the intensifying U.S. trade war with other global powers, and the casualties are starting to mount – in layoffs, reduced worker hours and thinner company profits.

While the damage has been limited so far, it would spread quickly if the Trump administration follows through on all its threatened tariffs, economists say. President Donald Trump significantly ramped up the fight Friday with fresh tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese imports.

“This is hurting the economy but so far it’s manageable,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “If the war continues to escalate, it will do more damage and at some point it will undercut the good economy” and trigger a recession.

Trans-Matic, of Holland, Michigan, shapes metal, mostly into auto parts, as well as components for door locks. It has paid higher steel costs for several months as U.S. steelmakers raised prices in anticipation of higher American tariffs on metal imports, company Chief Financial Officer Steve Patterson says.

Trans-Matic has passed along the price hikes to its auto-supplier customers, but some have scaled back orders, reducing Trans-Matic’s revenue in that key sector by 5 to 10 percent, Patterson says. As a result, the company is giving its 300 U.S. employees about five hours a week in overtime instead of their usual 10.

“When you cut them back ... they get grumpy,” he says. And with a low unemployment rate creating a tight labor market that’s giving workers more leverage, Patterson worries Trans-Matic employees could bolt for competitors. “This is all causing a bit of chaos,” he says....

After the EU slapped a 31 percent tariff on motorcycles, iconic Harley-Davidson said it would move some production overseas, sparking a war of words with Trump.

In Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Mid-Continent Nail, the nation’s largest nail maker, laid off 60 workers last month. Sales plunged 70 percent after Trump placed a 25 percent tariff on steel from Mexico and Canada. When the company boosted its prices, customers defected. Now, Mid-Continent is strongly considering a second round of 200 layoffs, company spokeswoman Elizabeth Heaton says, and all 500 employees could be axed by Labor Day.

The company's woes are rippling through the region. SEMO Box, a packaging company in Cape Girardeau, has said it will lay off four temporary workers because of the slowdown at Mid-Continent, according to Mid-Continent and The Associated Press. SEMO wouldn’t comment.

In Phoenix, Greg Hankerson, co-owner of Vintage Industrial, which makes custom steel furniture, says the 25-percent tariff on imported steel has boosted raw-material costs, which forced him to raise prices 5 to 10 percent earlier this year for various items, with more price hikes possible.

In Wisconsin, Regal Ware, which makes cookware and small kitchen appliances, is getting dinged at both ends of the trade shootout. The West Bend company, with 200 U.S. employees, has paid $150,000 to $175,000 more for steel and aluminum as a result of the U.S. tariffs, says Doug Reigle, vice president of supply chain management. It’s absorbing part of that and passing along part in a 2.5 to 5 percent surcharge.

Meanwhile, 65 percent of its revenue comes from overseas. Its products in Europe were hit with a 25 percent tariff last month, costing the company up to $2.5 million in sales, Reigle says. He says the company easily could have moved abroad but instead decided to stay in the U.S., investing $7 million in plant improvements the past five years.

“We kept jobs here, and I almost feel we’re being punished for that,” he says.

Elsewhere in Wisconsin, the dairy industry is reeling from $387 million in Mexican tariffs of 15 to 25 percent on U.S. cheese. Wholesale cheese and butter prices have slumped recently as buyers and sellers worry about the effects of the duties, says Pete Hardin, publisher of Milkweed, an industry publication.

“We are looking at a washout of 20 percent of Wisconsin dairy farm milk income on a monthly basis,” he says. “That’s how dangerous this mess is.”

That’s because dairy farmers have started cutting their prices to wholesalers to offset the higher tariffs, reducing their profits. The state’s farmers already were in trouble because of a milk surplus.

Another round of 25 percent U.S. tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese imports took effect Friday and includes items such as medical devices, auto parts and industrial machinery.

Those measures are aimed at fighting what administration officials say is China’s theft of U.S. intellectual property and its insistence that companies divulge valuable technology to enter China’s market. Beijing is lashing back with duties on American meat, seafood and SUVs, among other products. An additional $16 billion in tariffs, by both sides, are expected later this summer.

Over the next year, all these tariffs are expected to translate into the loss of about 170,000 jobs and a tenth of a percentage point in economic growth, Zandi estimates. But Trump has threatened an additional $400 billion in tariffs on Chinese shipments to the U.S. and $275 billion in auto imports. Those would push total job losses to 700,000 and lop a half-percentage point of economic growth, likely nudging the country into recession, he says. (End excerpts)

 

8. Zachary Karabell is a WIRED contributor. He is the head of Global Strategies Envestnet and president of River Twice Research. The following are excerpts from his June 27, 2018 article headlined "Trump's Trade War Won't Hurt China. It Could Hurt Tech In the US".

(Begin excerpts)
...For starters, China’s tech investment footprint in the US is remarkably small. The value of China tech investments was $9.9 in billion 2015. That rose by some estimates to more than $15 billion in 2016, and then dipped to $13 billion in 2017; last year’s number would have been much smaller without an $8 billion investment in Uber by Tencent, in conjunction with Japan’s SoftBank. The number of deals has fallen as well, to 165 last year from 188 in 2015, and has plunged in 2018 so far. The biggest reasons: The Chinese government has clamped down on easy credit that fueled these deals, and Chinese companies have grown wary of investing in industries that might come under the Washington spotlight....

Much as with immigration, the Trump administration is touting aggressive policies on an issue where the trends already have reversed course. Chinese direct investment is, in relative terms, small; limiting it will have minimal impact on US startups and growth companies (though it’s possible that one of those companies would have become a unicorn of the 2020s). Limiting such investment will also have minimal impact on the domestic Chinese economy. It will, however, cast an even greater pall over future economic ties, further propelling China to seek investments elsewhere.

As for restrictions on US technology exports to China, those too are a pinprick. First, the US government has been selectively trying to contain exports of technology it sees as vital or sensitive for many years. Under Obama, chipmakers such as Intel and Nvidia were not allowed to sell certain types of chips with military, supercomputer, or security applications. More to the point, US technology companies don’t export that much to China. Even by a generous definition of technology that includes aircraft parts, US technology exports to China amounted to less than $30 billion in 2017, out of total trade with China in goods and services in excess of $700 billion.

Most of what US tech companies sell to China does not show up as US exports because the products aren’t made in the United States. Hence an iPhone, which is nominally an American product that sells well in China, isn’t actually an American export to China because the phones are mostly assembled in … China.

As a result, restricting what American tech companies can sell to China doesn’t ultimately prevent many of those companies from selling to China, because of their global supply chains. In addition, there’s a good chance the restrictions would lead to unintended consequences: Faced with uncertain crackdowns on their exports from the US, American tech companies could shift more production overseas, rather than risk restrictions on their outbound American-made goods.

So here, as elsewhere, we have what appears to be forceful action designed to punish China and “restore” American competitiveness. The actual dollar amounts, however, are tiny, and the number of companies that will be meaningfully impacted is small. China is spending heavily on AI research, as well as on cybersecurity and robotics. Preventing Chinese companies from investing a few million here and there on American startups might make it harder for said startups to raise money, but it changes the competitive balance going forward hardly at all.

As symbols, though, these moves send a message that the US increasingly is not open for business. They signal to companies around the world that they would be better off looking for alliances and arrangements not subject to unpredictable American tariffs or investment restrictions. Denying foreign firms and countries access to US capital and US markets 20, 30, or 40 years ago would have represented a nearly insurmountable challenge. Faced with such measures, most countries and companies would have and did accommodate American demands. That is not the world we inhabit today.

With limited tools and unlimited words, the Trump administration cannot significantly alter US-China trade today. But it can, and has, soured the climate for future economic bonds. In the short term, the economic harm could be quite limited. It’s the longer-term challenges that should be of greater concern. If Trump’s policies make the US a less desirable place to invest, if they channel ever more global activity away from America, the damage will accrue steadily. Like the frog as the water gets hotter and hotter, it may not feel like much year by year, and when the damage finally hits home, it may be too late. We have time, but it’s not infinite. (End excerpts)

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/trumps-trade-war-wont-hurt-china-it-could-hurt-us-tech/

 

9. Terry Miller is the Mark Kolokotrones fellow and director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation. He previously served as US ambassador to the United Nations Economic Council and deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of State.

The following are excerpts from the March 22, 2018 article by opinion contributor Terry Miller under the headline "Exaggerating our China trade problem will hurt Americans".

(Begin excerpts)
President Trump has announced tariffs on $60 billion worth of Chinese imports, the latest action in a series of policy measures aimed at changing Chinese economic practices that the administration believes are harming American businesses. Based on their reactions, few American businesses welcome the move. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue, recently warned that “tariffs could lead to a destructive trade war with serious consequences for U.S. economic growth and job creation.”

The problem with tariffs is that they aren’t paid by Chinese businesses or the Chinese government. Instead, American consumers and businesses foot the bill. The administration’s hope is that the higher prices paid by Americans will reduce their demand for Chinese goods and thus hurt the Chinese manufacturers. That’s a little like cutting off your foot in order to hurt the shoemaker.

...The business community’s negative reaction to the proposed tariffs and other restrictions is significant. It tells us that a great many American producers find that our current trade and investment relationship with China actually works well for them.

...American businesses are neither dupes nor victims in the process. They enter into trading and investment relationships with Chinese commercial entities when it is profitable to do so. When there is no gain, there is no trade.

President Trump has railed against the U.S. trade deficit with China, arguing that Beijing is taking advantage of us. But in any voluntary economic trade, and all of our trade with China is voluntary on our part, we are taking advantage of them as well. That is the nature of free trade: Both parties to the transaction benefit. Both sides have an advantage. The administration seems focused on those businesses facing competition from Chinese products, and they are certainly deserving of consideration.

But many other Americans are benefitting significantly from their economic relationships with the Chinese. Our exporters benefit from access to the Chinese market. Our manufacturers benefit from the imported Chinese goods they use in their manufacturing processes. American workers benefit from jobs created because of Chinese investment. American consumers benefit from lower cost Chinese products. All of these Americans are equally deserving of consideration.

It is the nature of our capitalist economy to let the market determine prices and production levels. When the government interferes with that process, through tariffs or other trade restrictions, it tilts the playing field in favor of some Americans and against others. Such favoritism is deeply offensive to the American sense of fairness and justice.

...We must avoid the trap of restricting our own economy, and thus becoming more like them.

The United States benefits from more trade rather than less. It always has and always will. There is no doubt that China can be a tough adversary for American dealmakers. But Americans are tough negotiators as well. The administration would do well to remember that fact as it inserts itself and its own judgments into economic relationships that American businesses and consumers have already decided are in their own best interests. (End excerpts)

Source: http://thehill.com/opinion/internat...g-our-china-trade-problem-will-hurt-americans

 

10. Eric Boehlert is a veteran progressive writer for Media Matters and Salon. The following are excerpts from his April 9, 2018 article headlined "Trump to farmers: My trade war has to hurt you ‘for the country’".

(Begin excerpts)
Suggesting it’s their patriotic duty to take an economic hit for America, Trump on Monday conceded U.S. farmers will likely be hurt by the White House’s unfolding trade war with China.

But he stressed that farmers shouldn’t worry if their livelihoods dwindle because he promises to make it up to them.

“They want to hit the farmers because they think it hits me — I wouldn’t say that’s nice,” Trump said of China. “But I’ll tell you, our farmers are great patriots. These are great patriots. They understand that they’re doing this for the country,” he added.

“We’ll make it up to them. And in the end, they’re going to be much stronger than they are now.”

In just one week, Trump has already flip-flopped from his irrational claim that “trade wars are good, and easy to win.”

What’s obvious is that Trump’s base is going to pay the biggest price for his reckless tariff rhetoric.

“Many of the farmers who helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency fear becoming pawns in his escalating trade war with China, which threatens markets for soybeans, corn and other lifeblood crops in the Upper Midwest,” the Washington Post reported on Monday....

Suddenly, billions of dollars of pork exports are at risk, as well as thousands of jobs attached to that industry.

“It’s going to hurt American farmers, no doubt about it,” a 43-year-old dairy farmer announced at a recent Wisconsin town hall. “We were already looking at depressed prices for corn and soybeans before this. There’s no sector that’s showing good numbers.

A stinging editorial in the Quad City Times in Iowa declared that voters had been “conned” by Trump on trade. “Eight of the country’s top 10 soybean producers voted for Trump in 2016.”

Now he’s rewarding those farmers by demanding that they take a massive hit for him. And he’s offering nothing but empty promises in return. (End excerpts)

Source: https://shareblue.com/trump-farmers-trade-war/

 

11. Damian Paletta is White House economic policy reporter for The Washington Post. Before joining The Post, he covered the White House for the Wall Street Journal.

Honors & Awards: Scripps Howard Raymond Clapper Award, 2011 Sigma Delta Chi award for Washington correspondence, 2011.

The following are excerpts from Damian Paletta's April 11, 2018 article headlined "Trump considers Depression-era program to bail out farmers caught in his trade war with China".

(Begin excerpts)
President Trump is considering a Depression-era program to help bail out American farmers hurt by the trade dispute with China, two people familiar with the process said.

Trump’s aides are looking at ways to use the Commodity Credit Corporation, a division of the Agriculture Department that was created in 1933 to offer a financial backstop for farmers.

But while the White House is considering the idea as a way to protect farmers if China slaps tariffs on U.S. agricultural products, some GOP lawmakers have told the administration that the approach will not work. The program, the lawmakers say, will not be able to provide the needed relief to farmers, and using it will further inflame trade tensions with China.

The CCC can borrow up to $30 billion from the Treasury Department and extend that money to farm groups. If U.S. farmers see orders from China plummet because both countries create new layers of tariffs on imports, the White House wants to set up a bailout program for the U.S. agriculture industry....

Some lawmakers are telling the White House not to pursue this approach. They are still trying to persuade Trump to stop short of engaging in a trade war with China, as Beijing has threatened to impose tariffs on U.S. agriculture products.

“CCC is used for emergency items,” said Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). “I know it has been misused in the past. I’ve seen that up front.”

He said he has told the White House that the best approach is to ensure farmers have a market to sell their products into, not a financial incentive for the products to sit idle.

“It’s not that I’m diametrically opposed to it to the degree that I’d say no. I’m just saying I don’t know how we implement this, I don’t know what kind of cockamamie scheme that we could come up with that would be fair, that would be at least somewhat responsible,” Roberts said....

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has also raised warnings about the administration’s approach, saying any changes should ensure farmers maintain high levels of production and should not be designed to provide artificial subsidies.

“Farmers want to be productive,” she said. “They want their goods and commodities going to new and developing markets.”

....U.S. farmers exported $21 billion in goods to China in 2016, and they fear a major disruption if Beijing slaps tariffs on pork, soybeans, fruit and other products.

This has led to a panic from farmers, who are leaning on lawmakers such as Roberts to intervene before their orders plummet.

The threat has already led to wild gyrations in commodity prices, particularly for soybeans. (End excerpts)

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-trade-war-with-china/?utm_term=.72a9b59a7795

 

farm subsidies ~ more corporate welfare, much to the delight of the right wing

 

Whether right or left wing or no wings, one thing I am sure is that you are not one of the farmers hurt by Trump's foolish tariffs.

 

12. Stuart Anderson writes about globalization, business, technology and immigration. He is the executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a non-partisan public policy research organization focusing on trade, immigration and related issues based in Arlington, Virginia. From August 2001 to January 2003, he served as Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and Counselor to the Commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Before that he spent four and a half years on Capitol Hill on the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, first for Senator Spencer Abraham and then as Staff Director of the subcommittee for Senator Sam Brownback. He has published articles in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and other publications.

The following is full text of Stuart Anderson's article, contributed on August 17, 2015 under the headline "Trump The Hypocrite: Investing Overseas Fine For Him".

(Begin text)
Donald Trump’s appeal is said to be his straight talk. But when it comes to international trade, he sounds like a hypocrite, the classic “Do what I say, not what I do” politician.

While bashing companies for investing in foreign countries, Donald Trump’s own company has shown no inclination to invest and build only in America. In fact, a significant percentage of his company’s hotels and major real estate properties are located abroad.

"Mr. Trump is either inexcusably hypocritical or inexcusably ignorant of economics,” according to Donald J. Boudreaux, a professor of economics at George Mason University. “There is zero economic difference between, say, a U.S. car company's investments abroad in factories and Mr. Trump's own investments abroad in hotels: both are meant to improve the bottom line of companies headquartered in the U.S. by taking advantage of profitable economic opportunities outside of the U.S."

Yet a staple of Trump the candidate’s speeches has been to bash Ford Motor for building a plant in Mexico. “Trump has repeatedly said that if elected, he would not allow Ford to open a new plant in Mexico,” reported the Detroit News. “At his campaign announcement speech in New York in June, Trump said he would call [Ford CEO Mark] Fields to explain the ‘bad news.’”

“Let me give you the bad news: Every car, every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35% tax,” Trump said. “They are going to take away thousands of jobs."

The Detroit News noted, “It isn’t clear how Trump could legally single out one automaker for punitive taxes.”

Ford spokesman Karl Henkel said: “Mark [Fields] sent Mr. Trump an email with information about Ford, including the $6.2 billion we have invested in our U.S. plants since 2011 and our hiring of nearly 25,000 U.S. employees.”

“When it comes to political hypocrisy, Donald Trump deserves a gold medal,” said Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan-Flint and creator of the economics blog Carpe Diem. “At the same time that the billionaire businessman criticizes Ford for producing some of its cars in Mexico, and threatens to stop any expansion there and impose a 35% tax on Ford imports from Mexico, he certainly has no trouble taking advantage of the global marketplace when it comes to his own businesses.”

Perry notes Trump has imported clothing from China and Mexico produced for his brand. “For Trump to operate, outsource and invest globally while criticizing companies like Ford for doing the same is the ultimate hypocrisy. To be fair to Ford, Trump should either agree to impose a 35% tax on Trump Collection clothing and agree to stop investing overseas, or he should stop his threats against Ford for operating as a global carmaker.”

As economists such as Don Boudreaux and Mark Perry point out, there is no real difference between a U.S. car company investing in a foreign country and a real estate company building a hotel or office building in a foreign country.

Under “Our Hotels” on the Trump Hotel Collection website, it lists six domestic hotels and six international hotels. Is the problem Ford is building something in Latin America? Well, there are Trump hotels in Panama and Rio de Janeiro. The other hotels abroad are in Toronto, Doonbeg, Ireland, Vancouver, and Baku, Azerbaijan. (Toronto and Vancouver also have a Trump Tower.)

On the website for the Trump Real Estate Collection, nine international properties are listed, including two Trump Towers in India and one in Istanbul, another in Uruguay and another in the Philippines, as well as a Trump World in South Korea, among others.

If one argued the way Donald Trump argues on the campaign trail, then one could say that Donald Trump is costing America jobs by building hotels and commercial real estate in foreign countries instead of in the United States. In theory, the same money used to build and staff more than a dozen properties abroad could have supported thousands of jobs in America.

Donald Trump and his executive team believed a better use of the company’s capital was to invest its money abroad rather in the United States and that those investments in foreign countries would be more profitable.

There is nothing wrong with the company Donald Trump leads investing in other countries. However, there is something wrong when he attacks the head of another company for doing the same. (End text)

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuart...investing-overseas-fine-for-him/#7c3fc8ca1dc8

 

13. Gabby Morrongiello is a White House reporter for the Washington Examiner. She is a graduate of George Washington University, where she earned her bachelor’s degree in political science. She is an alumna of the National Journalism Center and of America’s Future Foundation.

The following are excerpts from Gabby Morrongiello's March 08, 2016 article headlined "Report: Dozens of Trump products made overseas".

(Begin excerpts)
Donald Trump has been offshoring the production of Trump-brand products since 2006, despite his unrelenting criticism of companies that send jobs overseas, according to a new report.

The report comes less than a week after Trump was caught defending outsourcing as "not always a terrible thing" and sometimes "a necessary step" in a 2005 blog post unearthed by Buzzfeed News.

Trump-brand products have been outsourced to China, Japan, Honduras and Brazil as well as European countries Norway, Italy and Germany since 2006, according to data collected by ImportGenius, a company that gathers information related to exports and imports. The data was compiled into a public spreadsheet by Our Principles PAC, a group committed to ending Trump's candidacy. The data also shows that about 1,200 shipments of Trump-brand goods have come to the U.S. from foreign companies and manufacturers since 2011.

Everything from slippers and men's shirts to ballpoint pens and "Trump body soap" has come to the U.S. from Asian and South American countries, the data shows. Trump has previously admitted that clothes such as ties, which belong to his menswear line, are manufactured in China and Mexico.

"This man made nothing in America," former Jeb Bush staffer and Our Principles PAC spokesman Tim Miller said in an email to the Washington Examiner.

"Trump has made an entire career and fortune out of taking advantage of the American worker to enrich himself. There is no reason to believe his rhetoric now. All you have to do is look at his Chinese product labels to know what Donald values most — himself," Miller added.

Trump, who has chastised companies such as Nabisco, Ford and Boeing for outsourcing jobs to China and Mexico, has said that "laborers are paid a lot less, and the standards are worse when it comes to the environment and health care and worker safety" in countries where manufacturing is being moved to. Still, that hasn't stopped the New York billionaire or his family from mass-producing a portion of their products overseas.

The spreadsheet, first reported by Yahoo Politics, shows that dozens of shipments of Ivanka Trump footwear have come from Hong Kong since she debuted her footwear line in March 2011. Other foreign shipments include Ivanka Trump jewelry and an Ivanka Trump earring box.

Trump has repeatedly pledged to "bring jobs back to America" in his stump speech and during debates, and the White House hopeful suggested imposing a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports during an interview with the New York Times earlier this year.

Several of Trump's opponents and critics have pointed to outsourcing as an instance where his actions don't match his rhetoric.

"How do you reconcile a business model based on importing with professions of deep belief that manufacturing should be brought back to America?” Robert Lawrence, a professor of trade and investment at Harvard University, wrote Tuesday in a column for PBS. "Trump argues he has no choice, since foreigners have made their products so cheap by manipulating their exchange rates. But then how do you explain the utter contempt he has expressed on the campaign trail about others who outsource when he is doing exactly the same thing?

"If Trump won't buy Oreos on moral grounds, why should any moral person, following his example, buy Trump-branded merchandise?" Lawrence asked.... (End excerpts)

Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-dozens-of-trump-products-made-overseas/article/2585268

 

14. Michael Hayne is a progressive comedian, writer and voice artist. The following are excerpts from his October 11, 2016 article headlined "Here Are All of the Trump Products Made Overseas" with the subheading "Like everything else about his campaign, Trump's trade talk is a pure scam".

(Begin excerpts)
When right-wing commentators are not making bizarre apologies for sexual-assault braggart Donald Trump's "locker room talk," they are praising him for how great he is on trade. Trump talks big about how he will bring back jobs, not let them leave in the first place, and place tariffs on goods made in other countries, punishing corporations that offshore jobs. On this topic, like every other, Trump could be said to be stretching the truth so much it practically violates the Geneva Conventions, as he has been a prime offshorer of jobs on his path to billionaire status and has a well-documented history of treating small businesses and craftspeople like crap.

Much like his other bold policy prescriptions, Trump's promise to bring back our jobs from crooked China and ensure that all of our products are made right here in the USA runs completely counter to reality. His history of outsourcing his products is as long as his history of bankruptcies—in fact, he has previously sung the praises of outsourcing, even promoting outsourcing to students at his fraudulent Trump University.

“Outsourcing Creates Jobs in the Long Run,” was the headline of a course description Trump wrote for Trump U in 2005, the same year he boasted to Billy Bush about grabbing women by their genitals. "We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs—how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses," Trump (or his ghostwriter) opened. "But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing."

But it wasn't until an appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman in 2012 when Trump was publically mocked and exposed as a serial and deceptive outsourcer of jobs. Trump was boasting incoherently about his crappy ties and where they were made, when Letterman chimed in and said, "They were made in China and Bangladesh."

So just how much of Trump's products are made overseas? Here's the complete list.

1. Trump apparel

The Donald J. Trump Collection includes ties, suits, dress shirts, eyeglasses and other accessories. Trump shirts were made in China, Bangladesh, Honduras and Vietnam.....

2. Trump home Items

That's right, you can adorn your home with the Trump label and risk your house either being foreclosed or falling into a sink hole. Trump Home offers a variety of items including chandeliers, mirrors, bedding, table lamps, cabinets, sofas, barstools, cocktail tables and more. Reports show that pretty much all of these items are made in a host of foreign countries, including China and Turkey....

3. Trump hotel items

Trump's chain of luxurious hotels and opulent condos are the crowning achievements of his sprawling empire. When he's not going ballistic on Twitter at 3am like a jealous ex, or railing about how the Republican establishment has hung him out to dry, he's constantly boasting about all of his fabulous hotels.

The only problem is that virtually all of his hotel items are made in China and Taiwan.

4. Trump beverages

...Trump Vodka was manufactured at a distillery in the Netherlands, but the distribution company stopped carrying it in 2010. An Israeli company continued to carry Trump Vodka, although the version sold in Israel is different from the original Trump Vodka. The Trump Vodka produced and sold in Israel is made from ingredients that make it kosher for Passover, which made it a popular beverage around the holidays. However, the Jerusalem Post reported that none of the ingredients were actually kosher.

….Trump lives in his own reality. To be even more precise, Trump appears to be building (or rather paying unqualified Polish immigrants slave wages to build) a wall around reason and truth. His newfound love for America and protectionism runs counter to his years of amassing obscene wealth as a shady businessman. His ability to sell crap to his low-information basket of deplorables and have them screaming for seconds is accomplished purely by playing to their white rage. (End excerpts)

Source: https://www.alternet.org/election-2016/here-are-all-trump-products-made-overseas

 

15. The following are excerpts from the November 25, 2017 opinion piece headlined "What Will America’s Economy Be Like If Trump Serves A Second Term?" at http://trump-today.news/opinions/2017/will-americas-economy-like-trump-serves-second-term/

(Begin excerpts)
Imagine eight years of a Trump presidency and guess what the economic future based on his barely a year’s stay in the White House will be. The thought alone can bring the number of people with depressive disorders to an unprecedented high. Companies will start looking elsewhere outside the US to relocate. The rich states will consider secession and a second civil war will be in the offing....

The economic gains of not having to adhere to the climate change regulations are short-term. The US won’t have to pay the remaining fee of $2 billion (during Obama’s term, $1 billion was paid); more jobs for the coal companies will open; and people won’t have to pay higher taxes to finance reduced-emissions regulation policies.

But far into the future, the economy will suffer. For one, the expected job openings for coal companies are not as massive as the Republicans portray it to be. Several energy companies are turning to natural gas, and solar and wind for sources of power. Together they employ about 4.5 million people. The industry is driven to natural sources because of the lower manufacturing and installation costs. They will be creating more jobs than coal plants. But businesses look at the political climate and a pro-coal president who is perceived as not too supportive of the solar- and wind-powered companies does not augur well for an auspicious start....

The Paris Agreement is meant to regulate activities so that CO2 levels will be contained. If President Trump cannot comprehend the necessity for climate change, the economy will suffer. GDP growth will be negative, people will have less disposable income, and more individuals and families will be on welfare...

Four years of a Trump presidency will do considerable damage to the US economy, some as yet unfelt. Come 2020, voters should have realized that another four years of Trump will relegate the country to a mere continent doomed to poverty, sickness, violence, and fights for survival. (End excerpts)