EU has already lost the Trump vs. EU Trade War

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

As always, EUphiles are free to disagree, no hard feelings.

Bonus points if EUphiles were unaware that there was already a Trade War between U.S. and EU, which would make the EU capitulation in the Trade War even more amusing to me.

If you have no clue at all what I am talking about, you may wish to read, digest, and understand the full article below. 

Excerpt is provided, but the full article explains how EU has already lost, with Mainstream Media both clueless and oblivious, due to their incessant  IMPEACH  ORANGE  MAN  agenda which they keep shoving down our throats.

Leverage – EU Pledges Increased U.S. Investment in Effort to Avoid U.S. Auto Tariffs

Funny stuff amid headlines discussing the likelihood of President Trump postponing a 25% tariff on European autos.  What the pundits are missing is how President Trump has positioned a myriad of trade dynamics that make EU action unavoidable.   This is the fun stuff, so let’s enjoy the details.

The current headlines surround President Trump “postponing” a 25% tariff on EU automobiles as an outcome of the major EU manufacturers (mostly Germany) promising increased investment in their U.S. operations.  By itself this would be considered a win for President Trump, but that’s not the whole picture, not even close.

What the more broad trade and manufacturing dynamic includes will explain what EU economists are only just now starting to realize.  Yes, the major European auto-makers will put more investment into the United States (thereby lessening the EU industrial economy); however, the auto decision is not because they are presenting a magnanimous benefit of sorts, but rather it is a foregone conclusion; an unavoidable reality due to a previous trade agreement construct.  ...

 

... President Trump has the EU over a barrel.

As an outcome of the USMCA, Germany was already going to have to manufacture content in the U.S. in order to avoid auto tariffs.  Germany is not going to be able to bring German parts into the U.S. and assemble in U.S. made vehicles. They are going to have to produce more auto parts inside the U.S.   The issue is a matter of timing.

As soon as the USMCA is ratified, Germany is going to have to make their U.S. investment.  However, with the USMCA not yet ratified, President Trump has deployed the 25% auto tariff threat directly.  This forces the EU to make their already unavoidable auto investment in U.S. manufacturing faster than they would like.  ...

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

Interesting that you see the EU as an adversary. It confirms my impression that the only reason Trump doesn't like EU is because the prefers to negotiate with smaller entities where he has the upper hand... 

Let's compare notes in a few years. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Interesting that you see the EU as an adversary. It confirms my impression that the only reason Trump doesn't like EU is because the prefers to negotiate with smaller entities where he has the upper hand... 

Let's compare notes in a few years. 

I've mentioned repeatedly that I tend to view the EU as a "Mini Me" version of the United Nations.  Globalism run amok.  For example, Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN Human Rights Commission.

EU countries aren't really the problem.  The EU globalism agenda (and the larger UN globalism agenda) is definitely a problem, in my opinion. 

Obviously, we will disagree; no issue with differences of opinion.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

 

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I've mentioned repeatedly that I tend to view the EU as a "Mini Me" version of the United Nations.  Globalism run amok.  For example, Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN Human Rights Commission.

EU countries aren't really the problem.  The EU globalism agenda (and the larget UN globalism agenda) is definitely a problem, in my opinion. 

Obviously, we will disagree; no issue with differences of opinion.

My comment was more to trade. The article seemed to make trade between US and Europe out to be a zero sum game. That was all. I should have been clearer. Sorry. 

p.s. I believe in fair trade; fair as level playing field. So if a better balance is needed between US and EU fine by me.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

P.S. I am gently poking LinkedIn for amusement, to see if I get censored there yet again.

Screencap, just in case this disappears:

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

My comment was more to trade. The article seemed to make trade between US and Europe out to be a zero sum game. That was all. I should have been clearer. Sorry. 

p.s. I believe in fair trade; fair as level playing field. So if a better balance is needed between US and EU fine by me.

Thanks for the clarification.  Seems we agree more than disagree on this then.

Waiting now to see if remake it manages to work in a China Good / U.S. Bad comment somehow.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

45 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 

My comment was more to trade. The article seemed to make trade between US and Europe out to be a zero sum game. That was all. I should have been clearer. Sorry. 

p.s. I believe in fair trade; fair as level playing field. So if a better balance is needed between US and EU fine by me.

Rasmus, how do you view the fact that many NATO nations are not contributing their fair share to the organization and the idea that they are using these funds to further themselves economically? Would this impact the ‘level playing field’?

I am not trying to start a ‘pissing contest’ re USA vs EU, I am simply pointing out that there are many issues involved in ‘trade’.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Rasmus, how do you view the fact that many NATO nations are not contributing their fair share to the organization and the idea that they are using these funds to further themselves economically? Would this impact the ‘level playing field’?

The discussion around contributing is a little strange to me. Part of the issue is that the US never cashed in the dividends. This has nothing to do with NATO partners. And it is a fairly key point - NATO partners spending more will NOT affekt US spending levels. 

All that said I agree that European countries should be responsible for their security. 

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

2 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

The discussion around contributing is a little strange to me. Part of the issue is that the US never cashed in the dividends. This has nothing to do with NATO partners. And it is a fairly key point - NATO partners spending more will NOT affekt US spending levels. 

All that said I agree that European countries should be responsible for their security. 

I think each member country should spend 2% minimum of their GDP

See link for who does and who doesnt

https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/14/nato-pledge-which-european-countries-spend-over-2-of-gdp-on-defence

The likes of Canada, Italy, Spain and Gemany should hang their heads in shame!

There's a clear disparity with the US contribution compared to some of these nations and it clearly isnt a "level playing field" 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I think each member country should spend 2% minimum of their GDP

 

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

There's a clear disparity with the US contribution compared to some of these nations and it clearly isnt a "level playing field" 

US spends something like 3,5 %. This is their choice and this will NOT change even if the rest of NATO also does. 

 

8 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

The likes of Canada, Italy, Spain and Gemany should hang their heads in shame!

Denmark recently increased defense spending to about 1,5 % of GDP. Yet, if you look at per capita contribution in financial terms to wars like afghanistan and Iraq it is fairly high. 

This is not an easy discussion. 

Some also make the argument that foreign aid in-directly is security spending and US is very low on that. 

Again, not necessarily disagreeing, but this is not black and white.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Interesting that you see the EU as an adversary. It confirms my impression that the only reason Trump doesn't like EU is because the prefers to negotiate with smaller entities where he has the upper hand... 

Well I do lol, EU bad, we've done this.

Are these 'small entities' for example the 2nd most powerful country in the world? Those 'small' guys?

#trumpbad #chinasmall

Edited November 12, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

33 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

 

US spends something like 3,5 %. This is their choice and this will NOT change even if the rest of NATO also does. 

 

Denmark recently increased defense spending to about 1,5 % of GDP. Yet, if you look at per capita contribution in financial terms to wars like afghanistan and Iraq it is fairly high. 

This is not an easy discussion. 

Some also make the argument that foreign aid in-directly is security spending and US is very low on that. 

Again, not necessarily disagreeing, but this is not black and white.

Okay, let the US simply drop back to the mandated 2% contribution and take it from there. The fact is, countries which were not paying their fair share were using it to address problems at home. America has it’s own problems at home and shouldn’t be subsidizing other countries security at the expense of the American taxpayer.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

6 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Well I do lol, EU bad, we've done this.

Are these 'small entities' for example the 2nd most powerful country in the world? Those 'small' guys?

#trumpbad #chinasmall

We have and therefore I shall not delve further into it. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, let the US simply drop back to the mandated 2% contribution and take it from there

Yes. Keep MAD in place. force Europe to get serious about defense. 

Edited November 12, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

MAD costs money. Do you think Europe will subsidize the missile silos in North Dakota or the subs at sea? Maybe Europe needs to consider their own version of MAD instead of relying on those damned Americans.

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

12 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

MAD costs money. Do you think Europe will subsidize the missile silos in North Dakota or the subs at sea? Maybe Europe needs to consider their own version of MAD instead of relying on those damned Americans.

When the UK finally does Brexit will you stop calling us Europeans (please)?

Also I think we do our fair share along with a few other European states so lets not generalize the mud slinging.

I think that Canada is just as culpable here as the likes of Germany etc why do they get off the hook?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

26 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

MAD costs money. Do you think Europe will subsidize the missile silos in North Dakota or the subs at sea? Maybe Europe needs to consider their own version of MAD instead of relying on those damned Americans.

fair point. 

France does have nuclear capabillity as far as I know. But fair enough. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

When the UK finally does Brexit will you stop calling us Europeans (please)?

Why wait for Brexit?   

English and proud! Why are we being lumped in with a whole continent anyway? Does no one have any pride in their country nowadays?

We are amazing. Get with the program people. That's why you're currently reading ENGLISH. Do the math. 

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

Very true DT

Glad to have you back ☺️

[Guest]

Haha cheers, just been trading almost non stop, 18 hours a day for a week. Markets nice and volatile last few days, been beautiful. I wake, trade European hours a while, then it's NY open, trade all that, then after that closes it's like 2-3 hours until Oz and Asian opens, trade that a bit, collapse, repeat LOL.

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

5 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Haha cheers, just been trading almost non stop, 18 hours a day for a week. Markets nice and volatile last few days, been beautiful. I wake, trade European hours a while, then it's NY open, trade all that, then after that closes it's like 2-3 hours until Oz and Asian opens, trade that a bit, collapse, repeat LOL.

I need my sleep pal!

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I've mentioned repeatedly that I tend to view the EU as a "Mini Me" version of the United Nations.  Globalism run amok.  For example, Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN Human Rights Commission.

EU countries aren't really the problem.  The EU globalism agenda (and the larget UN globalism agenda) is definitely a problem, in my opinion. 

Obviously, we will disagree; no issue with differences of opinion.

You view the rest of the whole world as less than the US; it's a problem. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

I need my sleep pal!

 

I sleep well while collecting dividends.

Although I did do two trades today (sold a swing equity for profit and bought more of a solid dividend payer).  Just a couple grand.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

You view the rest of the whole world as less than the US; it's a problem. 

Not quite.  I don't view the U.S. as being subservient to the United Nations or the EU or to China.  Or to any other country.  The concept of Nationalism is a fading concept. 

Putin is a Nationalist, as are a handful of leaders of other countries.

Trudeau and Macron are examples of leaders who apparently seek to downgrade their own countries into subservience to the globalist agenda.

[El Nikko + 2,145]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The concept of Nationalism is a fading concept. 

 

I would respectfully argue the absolute opposite although I might have misunderstood you.

I believe nationalism is surging across the Western World, even Trump described himself as a nationalist at a rally not so long ago.

I also believe the world is changing and there is no going 'back to normal'

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by El Nikko