Tariffs contribute to job losses in American manufacturing, Fed report shows

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  7 months ago  •  44 comments

By:   Martha C. White

Tariffs contribute to job losses in American manufacturing, Fed report shows
Tariffs implemented in 2018 alone cost Americans a collective $1.4 billion each month, one study showed.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The White House insisted that tariffs would be a boon to U.S. factories. The Federal Reserve says otherwise.

A new report from the Fed’s Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, titled “ Disentangling the Effects of the 2018-2019 Tariffs on a Globally Connected U.S. Manufacturing Sector ,” concluded that President Donald Trump's tariffs led to job losses in the manufacturing sector and higher prices for producers and consumers.

“Our results indicate that tariffs have been a drag on employment and have failed to increase output,” authors Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce wrote. A key production benchmark published earlier this month   found   that U.S. manufacturing shrank for the fourth straight month in November.

The two researchers studied the effects of what they characterized as “unprecedented tariff increases” implemented over the past two years on American manufacturers. “There are virtually no modern episodes of a large, advanced economy raising tariffs in a way comparable to the U.S. in 2018-2019,” they noted.

Previous research conducted by a wide swath of agencies and private-sector firms has documented the broader harmful economic impact of protectionist trade policies espoused by the Trump administration. For instance,   research   conducted jointly by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Princeton University and Columbia University found that the tariffs implemented in 2018 alone cost Americans a collective $1.4 billion each month.

Tariff proponents — up to and including the president — argue that making imported raw materials and finished goods more expensive will drive production back to the U.S. In reality, the Fed new report found, the complexity and global scope of today’s industrial supply chains make it nearly impossible for multinational manufacturers to respond this way.

“What you’re trying to do is roll back 50 or 60 years of progressive trade liberalization,” said Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “These were linkages that didn’t exist back in the 1950s… Undoing that is very, very economically dangerous.”

One of the biggest casualties has been manufacturing jobs. The labor market advantage conferred by protectionism was more than outweighed by the combination of higher input costs and retaliatory tariffs, Flaaen and Pierce said.

Their research found “a negative and statistically significant relationship between the rising input cost effect of tariffs and manufacturing employment… [and] a negative effect of foreign retaliatory tariffs on U.S. manufacturing employment that is apparent immediately after retaliatory tariffs begin to be imposed.”

Most of the Trump administration’s tariffs have been imposed on China; accordingly, the report found that manufacturers with a greater presence in or exposure to the Chinese market were more negatively impacted.

Some American manufacturers were able to boost their domestic market share, but the trade-off was higher production costs, since tariffs were applied on many foreign-made industrial inputs and raw materials, as well as reduced competitiveness in foreign markets.


“Tariffs can have impacts through channels beyond their traditional effect of limiting import competition,” Flaaen and Pierce said.

Domestic buyers, whether they are other companies or retail consumers, wind up paying more in two ways: Higher input costs get passed through the supply chain, and a reduction in foreign competition prompts American companies to raise prices. An earlier   study   found that a 20 percent tariff on imported washing machines imposed in January 2018 led to an average rise of 12 percent in retail prices — or nearly $100 per machine, and big appliance brands raised prices for clothes dryers in tandem with the washing machine price hikes, even though dryers were not included in the tariff.

Tariffs have made American-made products more expensive — and less competitive — overseas in two ways. Higher input costs played a role here, as did the tit-for-tat retaliatory tariffs imposed in response by other countries.

The Fed report acknowledged that these short-term effects aren’t necessarily permanent — but they added that there also could be as-yet-unknown long-term ramifications, as well.

If companies believed tariffs were in place in perpetuity, they might reconfigure their supply chains rather than continuing to incur higher expenses. Due to the decades-long supply chain optimization process multinational manufacturers have developed, though, any such changes would take considerable time and expense to implement. For instance, some industrial inputs such as certain smartphone parts or computer components are only produced in China. There is no trained labor supply or ready access to raw materials anywhere else around the globe.

The new Fed report also said it “does not explicitly consider the effects of increased uncertainty about future trade policy.” Economists blame that uncertainty for a sharp decline in corporate capital investment, even though companies were left flush with cash after the 2017 tax cut.

“It’s very clear that when executives are faced with tariffs, they don’t invest,” Kirkegaard said, noting that manufacturing employment growth has lagged behind the broader economy to a significant degree since the tariff war began.

This new report shows that Trump and his advisers are out of touch with the modern economy, Kirkegaard added.

“The core economic thinking of the administration is out of the 1950s. It doesn’t reflect the interconnected world,” he said. “The world is more complicated than it was in the 1950s, and consequently, when you impose tariffs on an industry that has lots of international connections, it’s going to backfire.”



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
1  Buzz of the Orient    7 months ago

Right from the beginning I said that Trump's tariff war was going to hurt the American consumers more than it would the Chinese ones, and then I saw that the American farmers were suffering so with billions of YOUR tax dollars they were helped, but it wasn't until now, having read that article, that I was aware of the effect it would have on the American manufacturers as well. If the trade war was such a good thing for the USA, then why is Trump negotiating with China for removal of tariffs now?

This cartoon from China Daily indicates that the tariff war has harmed the whole world's economy.

5dcde74aa310cf3e97a65298.jpeg

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1    7 months ago
Right from the beginning I said that Trump's tariff war was going to hurt the American consumers more than it would the Chinese ones, and then I saw that the American farmers were suffering so with billions of YOUR tax dollars they were helped, but it wasn't until now, having read that article, that I was aware of the effect it would have on the American manufacturers as well. 

Yes, Chinese consumers have been competing with US consumers.  Global trade is actually a competition between consumers and not a competition between suppliers.  Global trade is a competition to buy things in the global marketplace.  The more US consumers are willing to pay for things produced in China means Chinese consumers must pay more to compete for those goods.  Unless, of course, the Chinese government subsidies Chinese consumers with lower prices.

If the trade war was such a good thing for the USA, then why is Trump negotiating with China for removal of tariffs now?

Because American capitalists really aren't capitalists.  But then Chinese capitalists aren't capitalists, either.  

This cartoon from China Daily indicates that the tariff war has harmed the whole world's economy.

Has global consumption declined?  The tariff war may have hurt profiteers and pirates on the supply side.  But global trade isn't about supply.  

Why should we, as consumers, care about tariffs impeding the rich becoming richer?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2  sandy-2021492    7 months ago

American farmers may never have the markets they had before the tariffs.  It was a rash move, with likely lasting negative effects.

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     7 months ago
 
 
 
lady in black
4  lady in black    7 months ago

But, but, but there are plenty of jobs...yeah minimum wage ones....trickle down and tariffs don't work, but crooked donnie supporters will continually lap up his shit.....sickening.

 
 
 
MUVA
5  MUVA    7 months ago

The US is winning the trade war it is funny to see the nattering nabobs of negativism point of view on this one.   

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @5    7 months ago

Can you support that statement, or are you just parroting what you've heard from other supporters of increased taxation?

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.1  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1    7 months ago
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @5.1.1    7 months ago

Also from Forbes:

So far, Trump's one-year old trade war hasn't had much impact on the U.S. economy. First quarter earnings showed no evidence of a corporate earnings recession, despite some warnings that prices could rise soon due to existing tariffs.

Now those tariffs are much higher. U.S. companies are seriously looking to remap their supply chain out of China. Doing just that is one of the main aims of Trump's China policy.

"I am looking for suppliers elsewhere now, outside of China," says Alex Camera, CEO of a Seattle-based audio equipment manufacturer called Audio Control.

Expanding tariffs against China were put on hold in March, but finally rose last month to 25% on $250 worth of Chinese imports. Tariffs on an additional $300 billion of Chinese imports are in the works.

For now, the market expects that Trump and Xi Jinping will have a "come-to-Jesus" moment at the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan later this month and shelve the idea of imposing tariffs on everything China ships to the U.S.

Warning: the market has been wrong on China tariffs every single time.

Maybe businesses are coming to grips with that fact.

For the first time in months, U.S. jobs slowed to a crawl. Nonfarm payrolls for May increased by 75,000, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expected a gain of 180,000.

Can investors chalk this up as the final end of a long 10-year business cycle? Or can one assume that just as many businesses are reconsidering their employee headcount in the eventuality of blanket tariffs across the China-sourced supply chain.

If businesses are now penciling in trade war headwinds, Trump's job market boom is dead in the water.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/06/07/tariffs-101-understanding-trumps-trade-war/#66d0a0375f20

Trump's idea of "winning the trade war" by hurting China involves a lot of us shooting ourselves in the foot.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.2    7 months ago
Trump's idea of "winning the trade war" by hurting China involves a lot of us shooting ourselves in the foot.

Just another one of those "Storms" before the "Calm", as always  !

"Time heals all wounds." ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.3    7 months ago

Although I feel for those who may be directly affected negatively, no pain, no gain. Did the administration not "subsidize" many to help them ride out whatever?

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.4    7 months ago
Did the administration not "subsidize" many to help them ride out whatever?

Yes, so on top of the end user paying for the tariff, all of us get to participate in the "subsidy" as the deficit and national debt keep climbing.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.5    7 months ago
so on top of the end user paying for the tariff

Can you cite (and I mean cite with some backup) some everyday items that you buy that have had a substantial price increase since the tariffs have been initiated? I have noticed NO pinch in my household budget whatsoever. If you have, I would be interested to know just what they are.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.6    7 months ago
  • A tariff is a tax imposed on goods that the U.S. buys from other countries. An important part of the cost of the tariffs for U.S. households and firms consists of the tax incidence — the portion of the tax that is passed on to various buyers and sellers of targeted goods once they arrive at the U.S. border. One study finds that the group of tariffs levied only during the year 2018 would raise the cost of the consumption bundle for the average household by $135 dollars (see   this table   for a summary of all studies mentioned, their estimates, and the different factors each study takes into account). An   update   by the same authors estimates the costs of tariffs imposed in 2018 and through June 2019 will cost the average U.S. household $247 per year, or $460 per household per year when including those planned through December 2019.
  • Beyond adding up how much U.S. buyers expend on tariffs, or which buyers bear the greatest incidence, an accounting of the full costs of the tariffs should include the fact that the taxes also generate efficiency losses. Households and firms may have to substitute away from goods targeted by the tariff toward alternatives that cost more than they were paying before, or that are less well suited to their needs or preferences. Some buyers at the margin may find that they are no longer able to afford as much of the good, or may decide to go without it. These broader costs, called “deadweight loss,” may be between half and 3 times the direct burden of the tariff ( see here   for a concise breakdown of tariff payments versus deadweight loss). Two studies find that the cost of tariffs levied only during the year 2018, including both the direct cost and the deadweight loss from the tariff, totals $400 to $500 (see   Fajgelbaum, Goldberg, Kennedy, and Khandelwal (2019)   and   Amiti, Redding and Weinstein (2019)   in the   table ). Two studies estimate that the cost of tariffs levied in 2018 and the first half of 2019, including both the direct burden and the deadweight loss, amounts to roughly $800 per household (see   here   and   here , also in the table).
  • Tariffs can result in diffuse price increases that are difficult for researchers to measure with precision in real-time.   Academic research   suggests — and   companies have announced   — that firms whose costs are affected by tariffs may spread theses costs across goods that were not targeted by the tariff. The objective may be to minimize the number of goods exhibiting a large retail price hike, which can disrupt sales volumes. However, this type of strategic pricing also may enable stores to pass on a higher fraction of the costs. Domestic producers in U.S. industries protected by tariffs (as well as foreign producers not subject to the tariffs applied to Chinese goods) may also raise prices on their goods in the U.S. market, adding another layer of complexity in measuring the overall impact on prices for consumers. Production of   some goods   may be flexible enough that a tariff on varieties from only one country will have no effect at all. Economists are still studying exactly how much the changes in the prices of targeted goods as they cross the border translate into prices charged to the final purchasers as opposed to being absorbed by firms and distributors as losses on the supply-side
  • The trade policy uncertainty can affect the investment and hiring decisions of firms, slowing economic activity. Tariffs have been introduced rapidly; their ultimate size, scope and duration is as yet unknown; and the range of retaliatory tariffs is likewise evolving. All of these issues present uncertainty, introducing an additional risk in investing and hiring because firms may find it harder to anticipate the costs of imported inputs or the scope of their export market. This results in the economy growing less than it otherwise would.   The Congressional Budget Office estimates   that combined with the deadweight losses from tariffs, policy uncertainty will cause U.S. gross domestic product to be 0.3 percentage points lower in 2020 than it otherwise would be. The   Federal Reserve Board of Governors,   using a more detailed measure of trade policy uncertainty, estimates that GDP will be a full percentage point lower in 2020 than it otherwise would be, driven by disruption in investment and industrial production. These two studies suggest these losses will amount to between $500 and $1,700 per household on average in 2020 alone.
  • Some studies account either explicitly or implicitly for increased profits and wages in industries protected by the new tariffs and for tariff revenues as a source of government revenue. While the imposition of tariffs may make the economy less well off in general, this does not mean that it is a loss for everyone: tariffs generate gains for some firms. For instance, protection from foreign competition allows some firms to raise their price — increasing their profits and the wages they are able to pay. Like other taxes, tariffs also are a source of government revenue. Taking this into account can affect estimates of the overall cost of tariffs: one study that includes these factors (but does not include the broader uncertainty) finds net effects from the 2018 tariffs as low as $61 per household per year, on average. The empirical approaches by the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors implicitly allow for some benefits to be factored in, but still find net losses from changes in trade policy (with uncertainty) through June 2019 of roughly $500 to $1700 per year in 2020, averaged across households.
  • Most studies assume substantial pass-through of the tariffs into the prices that households and firms pay for targeted goods. Studies of the first year and a half of the new tariffs suggest that the entire cost of the tariffs did, indeed, appear in the prices of goods targeted for tariffs as they crossed the border into the United States. The substantial pass-through of tariffs observed in prices of targeted goods as they cross the border may indicate, in line with   previous research,   that because a lot of U.S. trade with China is invoiced in dollars, prices of U.S. imports from China are sticky in dollars. Depreciation of the Chinese Renmimbi (RMB) against the U.S. dollar over time may offset some of the direct cost of the tariffs for importers. Adjustments in the prices in response to exchange rate fluctuations when prices exhibit stickiness can sometimes take 1-3 years, depending on expectations. Exchange rate adjustment is not a panacea. It does not eliminate all deadweight loss from the tariff because tariffs still distort the prices of goods targeted by the tax relative to goods not targeted. Exchange rate adjustment also does not eliminate the effects of the new policy uncertainty, which may be much larger than the more direct costs of the tariffs.
 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.7    7 months ago
Yes, so on top of the end user paying for the tariff, all of us get to participate in the "subsidy" as the deficit and national debt keep climbing.

Moral to the story is ……. "Buy American Made".....not "Chinese Made" !

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.7    7 months ago
by the same authors estimates the costs of tariffs imposed in 2018 and through June 2019 will cost the average U.S. household $247 per year, or $460 per household per year when including those planned through December 2019.

.......or basically, 1 1/2 months unlimited cell phone plan payments. Wife is buying a new car today. I guess I had better make sure she cuts the estimated payment per month by $40 a month so we can afford to live the life we have become accustomed to......../S

Side note, I saved that $460 per year plus some by switching my auto and home insurance policies......to the tune of $2,400. I think we will be okay.

jrSmiley_29_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif .

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.8    7 months ago

"American Made" often relies on Chinese components.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.11  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.10    7 months ago
"American Made" often relies on Chinese components.

But …. They don't have to....do they ?

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.12  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.9    7 months ago

Maybe the 2500 a year I saved on Obamacare will help offset that 460 a year I am losing trying to balance the trade deficit with China, Or maybe we should just let them to continue to steal intellectual property.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.11    7 months ago

Do they have to?  No.  Do they?  Yes.  And it saves manufacturers (and you and me) money.  Or rather, it did.

This is one of the problems we've identified - tariffs are paid for by you and me, not China.

It's a bit anti-capitalist, isn't  it?

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.14  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.13    7 months ago
And it saves manufacturers (and you and me) money.

So....Buy Chinese ?

"tariffs are paid for by you and me"

I haven't noticed any pricing differences. Could be because of what I buy though !

Oh....remember the concrete brouhaha awhile back ? Concrete prices went up for Americans because most of the product was going to China, and no tariffs were involved then. The time wait to get concrete sucked too.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.15  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.13    7 months ago

No it's called having a dog in the hunt. As stated, no pain, no gain. This way, everyone has a stake in the "game" to get the rest of the world in line if they want to do business on an even playing field. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.14    7 months ago
So....Buy Chinese ?

You probably are, whether you think so or not.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.16    7 months ago

Oh, I know I'm buying Chinese stuff at times. I just said I didn't notice any cost disadvantage to doing it. When I project manage renovations for Hotels, we bought (and still do) Chinese as much as we could. Even with Shipping, taxes, port charges, and everything else that went along with Overseas Shipping, it was still cheaper than buying materials here. These so-Called Tariffs, still isn't making the company I manage for buy elsewhere. It's still "Cheaper" than buying here.

So this fallacy about costing Americans more as if folks are dying here, is baloney. It's still cheaper to buy Chinese !

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.15    7 months ago
No it's called having a dog in the hunt.

Um, every manufacturer and its home country have a dog in the hunt, just by being business.  That's what having a dog in the hunt is.

Tariffs hobble the other guys' dogs so that yours can win. And then the foxes are harder for everybody to catch.  And if you want the other guy to buy your goods (we do want to export to China, right), then you don't want to both piss him off by hobbling his dogs  and  make it hard for him to make the money to buy your stuff.

https://apnews.com/cedb612f694344289677e8fade682a78

Growth is slowing in the United States and worldwide partly because Trump’s own tariffs have raised costs and escalated uncertainties for businesses. China’s economy, the world’s second-biggest and for decades a reliable engine of growth, has been decelerating under the weight of Trump’s tariffs and deliberate government policies to curb debt.

Slower growth means less business for steel mills.

“Market demand right now is relatively soft,” said Charles Bradford, an independent steel analyst.

The World Steel Association forecasts that U.S. demand for steel will slow from 2.1% growth last year to 1% in 2019 to 0.4% in 2020.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.17    7 months ago
So this fallacy about costing Americans more as if folks are dying here, is baloney.

That was your own bit of hyperbole, nobody else's.

Cheaper than buying US doesn't mean the price isn't going up overall.  And I'm sure you know that the hotels aren't absorbing the costs of price increases on construction and decor - they're passing it along to guests.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.20  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.13    7 months ago

All taxes were paid in the forum of tariffs excise taxes  before the evil income tax was implemented.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.21  It Is ME  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.19    7 months ago
Cheaper than buying US doesn't mean the price isn't going up overall.

Everything goes up in price. It doesn't take tariffs for that to occur. Are there Tariffs on home sales to make them more expensive than a lot of people can afford anymore ?

I've been at simple commission meetings, where the "Big" agenda was a vote on raising Impact fee's again, to simply build something in a City or County of this country. Would that be considered a "Tariff" ?

"And I'm sure you know that the hotels aren't absorbing the costs of price increases on construction and decor - they're passing it along to guests."

Kinda like forcing Minimum wage hikes would do the same ?

It's all a "Catch 22" to live. One "Wants" more pay, one will have to "Pay" more for the product !

It's that simple.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.22  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.6    7 months ago

Nope, we are pretty conscientious about buying American.

The only thing I can honestly say was priced a lot higher from last year to this year was holiday LED lights which

were all Chinese at WalMart, Target, HD, Amazon.  Lowes carries GE which are made in the Philippines which were the most expensive.

I do normally only buy  LED holiday lights after the holidays at half off - they were Chinese from Target.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  It Is ME @5.1.21    7 months ago
Would that be considered a "Tariff"

Not really, as it would apply to all operators of whichever business a locality intends to charge.  Not only operators from one area.

Minimum wage hikes may increase the cost of goods and services, yes.  But they also enable workers to pay for the cost of goods and services, to an extent.  Tariffs don't increase anybody's income, and therefore don't have the same effect.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.24  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.6    7 months ago

Who do you suppose is paying that, what was it,  $12 BILLION dollars or so,     Farmer bailout  ?

I'll give you a hint, it ain't coming from China.

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.25  Ronin2  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.24    7 months ago

Hint, the same damn people that paid for the automotive bailout to give controlling interest of GM to the UAW. 

The same damn people that paid for the Wall Street bailout, Harley Davidson bailout, and every other damn bailout in the history of the US.

What pisses the left off is that this bailout more than likely helps out Trump supporters, rather than staunch Democratic supporters like the UAW.

Trump at least is doing something to try an lower the trade deficit with China, and to stop them from stealing our innovations. What other President has even tried to do that? 

Tariff wars suck. You think the Chinese are winning this war? There is a reason they are negotiating with the US. 

Trump should be judged on the results of the tariff war. If the US comes out in a better position in trade than when we went in, it will be a win. If it doesn't, we have elections for a reason. Of course the Chinese could just hold out to see if one of the weak kneed Democrats running for President wins the office, and raises the white flag. Given that the Chinese are negotiating, they must be watching the Democrat impeachment shit show, and the insane Democrat debates.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.1.26  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.25    7 months ago
Hint, the same damn people that paid for the automotive bailout

Those loans were repaid.

Obama says automakers have paid back all the loans it got from his admin 'and more'

By Steve Contorno on Thursday, January 22nd, 2015 at 5:13 p.m.

In the run up to his 2015 State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama was once again trumpeting his administration’s intervention in Detroit.

"Last month, the rescue of the auto industry officially came to an end," Obama said Jan. 7 in Detroit. "The auto companies have now repaid taxpayers every dime and more of what my administration invested in."

In December, the Treasury Department announced it sold the remainder of its 54.9 million shares in Ally Financial — formerly, General Motor’s financing service, GMAC — for $1.3 billion. With the deal, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the United States was "winding down the Auto Industry Financing Program," the federal program that saved the auto industry— or bailed it out, depending on your view.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6  Paula Bartholomew    7 months ago

Who didn't see this coming with Trump's tariffs?

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1  lady in black  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6    7 months ago

Crooked donnie supporters...you know they think everything is sunshine and unicorn poop

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.1  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @6.1    7 months ago

I have been in working in a family business for 32 years including the time I was in the reserves.I have owned the business for the last 13 the last three years have been the best in the last  12 years in the boat business people have more disposable income  in the upper middle class my commercial and government contracts are at a rate we haven’t seen in about 20 years.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.2  lady in black  replied to  MUVA @6.1.1    7 months ago

I too own a boat so what's the big deal, it may not be a "big" boat, but what's your point.  The tariffs may not be affecting you but they are affecting other Americans

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.3  loki12  replied to  lady in black @6.1.2    7 months ago

I felt the same way about Obamacare, the huge increase in policies, narrowing of coverage corridors and the increase in deductibles and out of pocket may not have affected the worthless takers, but they affected me.

It was obvious the morons who wrote the law never ran a fucking thing in their life, if your costs and profits are fixed at 20%, how do you make more money?  

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.4  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @6.1.2    7 months ago

The boating industry is a indicator for the health of the economy and shows a trend in recreational spending like buying campers and taking vacations when people are doing better and confident the economy will maintain the coarse they spend more on nonessentials.Hows that?I read industry magazines along with Barrons Forbes.What kind of boat and if you ever have a question or problem I would love to help you. 

 
 
 
Telo
6.1.5  Telo  replied to  MUVA @6.1.4    7 months ago

We bought a boat 2 years ago and this year we've taken 2 family vacations.  So I'm not sure what the people that are "losing" money are doing wrong but the economy has been great for my family.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6    7 months ago
Who didn't see this coming with Trump's tariffs?

Unlike some on the left side of the aisle, everyone that I know saw it as a possibility. Unlike dem/lib/liv/progs who demand instant gratification simply because they live an breathe, there is always some sort of price to pay to get the desired end result............which, when it all comes out in the wash, will benefit us as a whole nation.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7  Nerm_L    7 months ago

The Federal Reserve finally admits that capitalism is dead and the stock market serves no economic purpose.  The Federal Reserve is stating that American businesses do not invest in production that would increase the resilience of the US economy.  American businesses are only pass through enterprises that make money by skimming off a share for themselves.  That's a middleman economy based on the principles of piracy rather than principles of capitalism.

Mercantilism requires an imperial foreign policy that results in invading and controlling foreign supply.  With the demise of capitalism another global war becomes unavoidable.  We've seen the history of colonial exploitation and we know how that story will end.  The United States either produces what it needs or the United States will be required to force other countries to supply what it needs.  The only way to continue peaceful coexistence is for the United States to become a producing nation again and supply its own needs.  

The Trump administration is very aware of the global interconnections in the US supply chain.  However, that global interconnection is viewed as an imminent threat to the United States rather than a desirable feature.  The Federal Reserve is only confirming that the threat posed by global interconnection is real and potentially devastating to the United States.  Tariffs aren't enough; it's time to consider embargoes on trade.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
8  al Jizzerror    7 months ago
A new report from the Fed’s Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, titled “ Disentangling the Effects of the 2018-2019 Tariffs on a Globally Connected U.S. Manufacturing Sector ,” concluded that President Donald Trump's tariffs led to job losses in the manufacturing sector and higher prices for producers and consumers.

Trump tariffs added about $100 to washing machines (and dryers also went up because of greed).  Electronics (smart phones) cost more and solar panels cost more.  And Trumps lies about who pays the tariffs.  The Chinese do NOT pay Trump's tariffs.  Americans pay Trumps tariffs.

Trump likes to take credit for stock market ups and he blames the Fed for the downs.  Butt my portfolio always goes down (a bunch) when Trump adds tariffs.  

The funny thing is that Trump's tariffs are illegal .  Tariff are taxes.  According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress is empowered to tax.  Trump uses a bullshit justification for his tariffs.  He claims tariffs are about national security (even when he puts tariffs on Canada and other allies).  Trump has continually usurped and ignored the powers the Constitution gives to Congress.

Trump has castrated Congress and rendered Congress impotent.  Moscow Mitch, who is a fucking eunuch, always takes it in the ass from Trump.  

Luckily, Nancy Pelosi has the balls to stand up to The Donald.  I'm going to send her another donation tomorrow to get more Democrats elected to Congress.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
8.1  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @8    7 months ago
 And Trumps lies

That says it all. 

Happy New Year to you as well, al.jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

XDm9mm
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Greg Jones
KDMichigan
cjcold
Snuffy
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
r.t..b...


48 visitors