Tom Kirkman

EU has already lost the Trump vs. EU Trade War

Recommended Posts

(edited)

apologies, I didn't even read it, it's pointless, just assumed it was another dig?

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Selva said:

 

If we go one like this, we'll have no more threads to comment. 

He will create one, because err Yaris, meat, women, heated driveway, liberal....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I agree that the EU has already lost the Trump v EU trade war. What are your thoughts? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Tom, I agree that the EU has already lost the Trump v EU trade war. What are your thoughts? :) 

You and Tom can Dutch rudder each other while watching a trump lie monologue. #Joy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Selva said:

Do I really need to close this one too? 

No  :) 

24 minutes ago, Selva said:

If we go one like this, we'll have no more threads to comment. 

I can always start some if you like? They are always popular ...  ;) 

#DT2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you start one without Yaris, meat, women, heated driveway, liberal...? 

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

HAHAHAHAHAHAH genius 🤣🤣

Liberal?

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Selva said:

Can you start one without Yaris, meat, women, heated driveway, liberal...? 

Probably not but maybe add trump and China to that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAH genius 🤣🤣

 

Of course, because they were my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Rob, I never refer to the Brits as European! Where did that come from?

The Brits have ALWAYS been a big player in the sub game (see the Perisher program).

Only joking Douglas!

the astute and Dreadnought are frighteningly good subs!

the Astute has a signature of a baby dolphin when at speed

when the first Astute was tested against 12 US hunter killer subs it destroyed (in theory) all of them without ever being detected 

not a bragging Brit as we’re always on the same side, but they are amazing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I don't need blue pills but occasionally take one for sport.... #ManyTimes

Do you also snipe hunt for sport? LOL

 

I meant to say do you also snipe hunt for sport with your "pipe" after you take an occasional blue pill for sport? LOL

Edited by ceo_energemsier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DayTrader said:

I was gonna post that Poland thing, then edited it 

Yeah, I already mentioned privately that some topics will surely rile some people, so better to just laugh privately at some jokes rather than duck bricks heaved by irate snowflakes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meantime, over on LinkedIn where I shared this thread, having some fun conversations.  I am pleasantly surprised that I haven't triggered the ire of LI censors yet.

First up, my opening intro on LinkedIn to this Oil Price thread:

Screenshot_20191113-044648_LinkedIn.thumb.jpg.c80176df3689ce6e3a4d738241fb5977.jpg

 

And one of the comments this morning, and my reply:

20191113_044231.thumb.jpg.66680dbeaa4cb15f8b766005dd1add9b.jpg

20191113_045153.thumb.jpg.eaa86312df6d0b0e49f2982fc2e34e4e.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL did she reply to the Epstein bit?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol that is funny 😆




Also Epstein didn't kill himself

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

There is not really an "EU Trade War."   It should be remembered that the USA and the countries of the EU have parallel and similar cost structures, social structures, and legal structures.  Thus the various enterprises that would make a decision as to where to locate would feel comfortable in either locale.  What you are thinking of as a "trade war" is all this vague grumbling about 25% auto tariffs.  I rather doubt that it would occur, as Americans are by far the biggest export marketplace for both BMW and Mercedes, and I suspect VW is not far behind.  What it might do, if such tariffs were enacted (and I consider that unlikely), is push some German automakers to set up more US assembly plants.

Then the real issue would become: would those cars be "kitted" and sent over in pieces from Germany, to be simply assembled in the USA, or would the Americans insist on a certain percentage of "US Content"?  And that is not clear.  If you look at the Japanese(and Korean) cars, some models are simply shipped in complete, others are kitted entirely of Japanese parts  (such as certain Subaru models) and others have varying degrees of US components, fabricated of course to the Japanese standards.    Would that experience be duplicated with the European models?  Probably, although with Mr. Trump, nothing is certain.

All that said, I would predict with some certainty that a car tariff would wreck the plans of Pugeot/Citroen to re-enter the US market.  I don't see those guys setting up assembly plants inthe USA, the market for them is far too small. 

Edited by Jan van Eck
scrivener error
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 11/12/2019 at 9:59 PM, Ward Smith said:

You do realize that for decades, the EU has been charging a 10% tariff on US cars, while we've only been charging 2.5% tariffs? Does that sound "level" to you? It was also "conveniently" left out of this otherwise informative Article

I don't know te auto-market, so I will take your word for it. 

What I do know if the offshore market and there the US has a 100 % protected market with the Jones Act. And European markets are open to US companies. 

Now, you can make the case that in the longterm the Jones has been bad for the US, but currently it is giving Jones Act shipowners in the offshore space a massive advantage. 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rasmus genuine question, not trying to provoke.

Since the EU was officially formed in 1993 (before that it was the common market formed in 1957) what do you consider its greatest achievement to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Rasmus genuine question, not trying to provoke.

Since the EU was officially formed in 1993 (before that it was the common market formed in 1957) what do you consider its greatest achievement to be?

I don't think that it is fair to limit it to the 1993, but I would mention

1) EU citizensship; cultural understanding as a part of it. Yes, some aspects need changing, but the general idea is good in my view

2) Economic growth

3) keeping some manufacturing jobs in Europe - i.e. shipbuilding, where labour intensive work is farmed out to former eastern European countries

4) Europol

5) GDPR

6) Anti-trust legislation

7) combating international tax fraud.

8 ) Deal with Turkey re migrants / refugees. whilst I think the deal itself bad I think it could be the pre-cursor to many good things.

Some areas still need a lot more progress, but to me there is a foundation to build on. 

I can also mention some bad things EU has done and that I hope will be changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2019 at 1:28 PM, Rob Plant said:

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" 

I think EU spending is in line with the type of relation EU has with United States. US still has outsized role in world affairs, EU countries spending more on defence would mean remodelling role of US in EU security.

Germany spending 2% has various unintended, negative consequences. It will not stay at 2%. Germany will develop nuclear weapons. US troops would have to go home.

But all above are phantasies as EU is comfortable with current set up. US is engaged with China and this will take all US energy in the next 10 years. Only when US will back off Europe, EU would take the burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

I think EU spending is in line with the type of relation EU has with United States. US still has outsized role in world affairs, EU countries spending more on defence would mean remodelling role of US in EU security.

Germany spending 2% has various unintended, negative consequences. It will not stay at 2%. Germany will develop nuclear weapons. US troops would have to go home.

But all above are phantasies as EU is comfortable with current set up. US is engaged with China and this will take all US energy in the next 10 years. Only when US will back off Europe, EU would take the burden.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but didn't all NATO member countries sign up to the agreement to pay 2% of their GDP to NATO???

The fact that certain countries actively dont in order to prop up their economic policies elsewhere within their own country isnt what was agreed!

To say Germany will develop nuclear weapons  and US troops would go home is not true. It might be the case that Germany has to utilise its armed forces accordingly and the US troops are reduced in line with the 2% commitment, but that is what should be happening now!

Why would Germany's spending increase above 2% if the rest all paid 2%?

Is it right that they break their agreement and the US has to put in the rest? All this at the expense of their own US citizens??

Yeah I bet Europe is comfortable with the current set up as its massively in their favour, Trump has seen through this very quickly which is why he is rightly calling for member NATO countries to pay their way. I cant imagine his patience will last too much longer.

I think you are badly mistaken if you think all of the US energy is taken up with China my friend

I'm English and we have our own nuclear deterrent that is very expensive so I'm not worried if NATO collapses, but I'd be very worried being an EU country with no NATO and no defenses of their own.

These countries not paying their way are taking the piss quite frankly!

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

20 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I'm English and we have our own nuclear deterrent that is very expensive so I'm not worried if NATO collapses, but I'd be very worried being an EU country with no NATO and no defenses of their own.

These countries not paying their way are taking the piss quite frankly!

Yeah baby. He will call you a wanker next.

Rob, spell defences properly though please. Shame on you, Been hanging out with Doug too long. Or all that touring taking its toll. 

Edited by DayTrader
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha my apologies DT

wont happen again 😂

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Trump has seen through this very quickly which is why he is rightly calling for member NATO countries to pay their way. I cant imagine his patience will last too much longer.

Trump is NOT the first president to demand higher spending. Far from it. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

To say Germany will develop nuclear weapons  and US troops would go home is not true. It might be the case that Germany has to utilise its armed forces accordingly and the US troops are reduced in line with the 2% commitment, but that is what should be happening now!

I am not sure I understand where you are going?

Other NATO countries increasing spending only benefits US if US spends less. Unless US just want NATO countries to buy US weapon tech.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.