Ryan Strome

U.S. imposing 220% duty on Bombardier CSeries planes

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

I might be missing something here.

This project has cost over 5 billion dollars, Quebec alone has "coughed up" 1.3 billion of tax payers money.

Now Airbus is the majority owner of the C series, and they might be adding second assembly line in Alabama for these planes.

 

Airbus did not put any cash into this deal, that is an amazing deal for them!

Sure it's a big f you to Boeing, but also an example of burning the house down to save the furniture.

 

 

Bombardier is actually losing nothing in comparison to their gain.  Most of the materials for the jet will continue to be built in Canada.  Ireland will now get a piece of the action as well.  This also allows for the reported expansion of the rail facilities to meet the demands being requested out of China which are reportedly almost twice the worth of the investment thus far in the C series in the first order alone.

 

Bombardier in Canada didn't have the capacity for the volume of orders the C-Series is anticipated to receive.  The only jet of it's size with it's range and technology being produced today; Boeing and Airbus being #1 and #2 respectively didn't have an answer to it.

 

Boeing chose to play unfairly and will inevitably lose in court the same way they did against Airbus when they fought Airus' entrance in to the US

 

But Bombardier while giving up 50.01% might lose some initial return.  But now has the capacity to build in Canada and Ireland, but also now has one of the largest most efficient plants in the US at it's disposal as well to build this plane free of Tariffs.  But most importantly Airbus now will be building this in it's plants in France and Germany as well.  With orders estimated to be in the hundreds for this jet at its price point Bombardier is actually going to make a fortune off of this.

 

Now added that this also gives Bombardier the ability to produce future Airbus contracts in Canada and with the knwoeldge that Airbus' A400 was a contender for the military procurement contract and that the Typhoons as part of the NATO fleet were also high on the list.

 

It's an initial loss for a lot of future gain.

 

Long term pictures are always better than short term worry

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said:

Hey Warhippy, Thanks for this ^^^, makes thing much clearer. 

Dude my initial reaction was WTF are you doing!  You just coughed up billions

 

Then I read through the proposal and there's a lot of cross company property sharing that will see Bombardier benefit in ways that those most upset cannot imagine.

 

China placed an initial order for 144 high speed cargo cars last Spring.  Bombardier was ready to fill the order without issue until the Delta order for 70+ C-Series came in and some logistics issues were happening.  Last week the CRC (Chinese Railway Corp) asked about their ability to finish the order on time after Delta's order and the ensuing Tariffs came out.

 

This allows for Bombardier to push most of the production of the largest pieces of the C-Series to Airbus' plants in Brookley and Mobile while maintaining a large portion of the work here in Canada but also allows them to expand work in to the CRC high speed order.  144 initial cars with another 250+ scheduled for order after completion.  Brail based Embraer lost out on that large order and also applauded Boeings dumping claims after being on the losing end of Bombardier a number of times over the last decade.

 

All this in essence does is allow Bombardier in Canada and Ireland to concentrate on finishing essential orders but also opens the way for expansion and building of Airbus craft as well as potential military purchases down the road.

 

If we give up a little up front for a larger return later on it's not a bad thing.  The people claiming we're throwing money away have never invested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Bombardier is actually losing nothing in comparison to their gain.  Most of the materials for the jet will continue to be built in Canada.  Ireland will now get a piece of the action as well.  This also allows for the reported expansion of the rail facilities to meet the demands being requested out of China which are reportedly almost twice the worth of the investment thus far in the C series in the first order alone.

 

Bombardier in Canada didn't have the capacity for the volume of orders the C-Series is anticipated to receive.  The only jet of it's size with it's range and technology being produced today; Boeing and Airbus being #1 and #2 respectively didn't have an answer to it.

 

Boeing chose to play unfairly and will inevitably lose in court the same way they did against Airbus when they fought Airus' entrance in to the US

 

But Bombardier while giving up 50.01% might lose some initial return.  But now has the capacity to build in Canada and Ireland, but also now has one of the largest most efficient plants in the US at it's disposal as well to build this plane free of Tariffs.  But most importantly Airbus now will be building this in it's plants in France and Germany as well.  With orders estimated to be in the hundreds for this jet at its price point Bombardier is actually going to make a fortune off of this.

 

Now added that this also gives Bombardier the ability to produce future Airbus contracts in Canada and with the knwoeldge that Airbus' A400 was a contender for the military procurement contract and that the Typhoons as part of the NATO fleet were also high on the list.

 

It's an initial loss for a lot of future gain.

 

Long term pictures are always better than short term worry

I'd agree with all of that except for the fact that Airbus can buy the other 49.9 percent of the C-series company at their option. So this needs to be viewed ultimately as a delayed sale. 

 

But that info you posted about the potential for fighter jets is interesting... i wonder if we can get Airbus to work with Bombardier on building those jets here?

 

What might keep this in Canada though come to think of it is if we get a trade deal with China before the US and EU... that could make selling C-series jets in China a big win to Airbus, just via the Canadian connection. 

 

 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'd agree with all of that except for the fact that Airbus can buy the other 49.9 percent of the C-series company at their option. So this needs to be viewed ultimately as a delayed sale. 

 

But that info you posted about the potential for fighter jets is interesting... i wonder if we can get Airbus to work with Bombardier on building those jets here?

 

What might keep this in Canada though come to think of it is if we get a trade deal with China before the US and EU... that could make selling C-series jets in China a big win to Airbus, just via the Canadian connection. 

 

 

 

we're all but live with the CETA (Canada Euro zone Trade Agreement) and are almost completed with the TPP which effectively makes NAFTA with it's current issues a non issue.

 

That 49.9 percent to my knowledge and understanding is that Airbus would not only have to effectively have government approval at both federal and provincial levels via the foreign investment and acquisition act; but also shareholder agreement in order to purchase it out.

 

I find it hard to believe they obtain a unilateral agreement.

 

Added that now knowing that even purchasing Australia's former F-18's would need US approval but also mean that some of the money would go to Boeing anyways is just a slap in the face to not only us taxpayers but more importantly our service members.  The ability to give them new advanced jets while possibly being in on not only the R&D phase of Airbus/Dassaults new next gen fighter while maintaining our R&D in the F-35 like we have been and still are is of immense strategic and economic benefit to this country.

 

Being able to purchase and also potentially build the Typhoon class Eurofighters and the A400 as well as possibly the next gen fighters is a no brainer.  If it cost 50.01% up front for it.  Fine so be it.  A little in advance for a lot later on is a wise investment IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Bombardier is actually losing nothing in comparison to their gain.  Most of the materials for the jet will continue to be built in Canada.  Ireland will now get a piece of the action as well.  This also allows for the reported expansion of the rail facilities to meet the demands being requested out of China which are reportedly almost twice the worth of the investment thus far in the C series in the first order alone.

 

Bombardier in Canada didn't have the capacity for the volume of orders the C-Series is anticipated to receive.  The only jet of it's size with it's range and technology being produced today; Boeing and Airbus being #1 and #2 respectively didn't have an answer to it.

 

Boeing chose to play unfairly and will inevitably lose in court the same way they did against Airbus when they fought Airus' entrance in to the US

 

But Bombardier while giving up 50.01% might lose some initial return.  But now has the capacity to build in Canada and Ireland, but also now has one of the largest most efficient plants in the US at it's disposal as well to build this plane free of Tariffs.  But most importantly Airbus now will be building this in it's plants in France and Germany as well.  With orders estimated to be in the hundreds for this jet at its price point Bombardier is actually going to make a fortune off of this.

 

Now added that this also gives Bombardier the ability to produce future Airbus contracts in Canada and with the knwoeldge that Airbus' A400 was a contender for the military procurement contract and that the Typhoons as part of the NATO fleet were also high on the list.

 

It's an initial loss for a lot of future gain.

 

Long term pictures are always better than short term worry

I think Boeing's next move is to argue that the tariffs should be imposed on parts that will be assembled in Alabama.

Also, I am interested to see if Boeing tries to work closer with Embrear in the future.

Intersting turn of the events for sure, Delta has to be happy about this for sure.

Edited by CBH1926

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

I think Boeing's next move is to argue that the tariffs should be imposed on parts that will be assembled in Alabama.

Also, I am interested to see if Boeing tries to work closer with Embrear in the future.

Intersting turn of the events for sure, Delta has to be happy about this for sure.

No question.  Their ops manager was out last night in an interview grinning ear to ear swearing that Delta had nothing to do with this but that as was told, Delta would NOT be paying duties on these jets

 

I am unsure if Boeing would work with Embraer, after their snubbing of Saab in the late 70's and Dassault in the early 90s as well as their tooth and nail fight to ensure Airbus never entered American markets even though Airbus' first foray in to the US was an attempted partnership with Boeing; they just don't seem the type to play well with others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 18, 2017 at 9:09 PM, CBH1926 said:

I think Boeing's next move is to argue that the tariffs should be imposed on parts that will be assembled in Alabama.

Also, I am interested to see if Boeing tries to work closer with Embrear in the future.

Intersting turn of the events for sure, Delta has to be happy about this for sure.

 

On October 19, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Warhippy said:

No question.  Their ops manager was out last night in an interview grinning ear to ear swearing that Delta had nothing to do with this but that as was told, Delta would NOT be paying duties on these jets

 

I am unsure if Boeing would work with Embraer, after their snubbing of Saab in the late 70's and Dassault in the early 90s as well as their tooth and nail fight to ensure Airbus never entered American markets even though Airbus' first foray in to the US was an attempted partnership with Boeing; they just don't seem the type to play well with others.

I read this today, and it reminded me of our conversation couple of months ago.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-held-takeover-talks-with-brazilian-aircraft-maker-embraer-1513874742

Edited by CBH1926

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeing loses trade case over Bombardier passenger jets

  • The ruling is a big loss for U.S. aerospace giant Boeing.
  • Boeing complained Canada's Bombardier dumped the planes below cost.
  • Delta in 2016 agreed to buy at least 75 C Series jets from Bombardier.

 

In a surprise decision, the U.S. International Trade Commission has ruled against aerospace giant Boeing in a bitter trade case it brought against Bombardier over passenger jets its Canadian rival sold to Delta Air Lines.

 

The 4-0 decision is public defeat for Boeing, which had argued that Bombardier's trade practices were illegal and harmful to its business. Bombardier argued that Boeing did not have a comparable plane to offer Delta.

 

The trade commission was tasked with determining whether Boeing was or could be harmed by Bombardier.

 

"Today's decision is a victory for innovation, competition, and the rule of law," Bombardier said in a statement.

 

Boeing shares were recently trading down less than 1 percent following the ruling. Delta shares nudged up less than 1 percent.

 

The dispute was over the sale of Bombardier's roughly 100-seat C Series jets, which Boeing complained to the U.S. government were sold to Delta below their cost of production and that the program received illegal subsidies from Canadian government.

 

"We are disappointed that the International Trade Commission did not recognize the harm that Boeing has suffered from the billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies that the Department of Commerce found Bombardier received and used to dump aircraft in the U.S. small single-aisle airplane market," Boeing said in a statement. "Those violations have harmed the U.S. aerospace industry, and we are feeling the effects of those unfair business practices in the market every day."

 

Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department upheld duties of nearly 300 percent it had slapped on the C Series passenger jets made by Bombardier, a win for Boeing.

 

The bitter trade dispute between the two aircraft manufacturers escalated. It has also added to tensions between the U.S. and Canada, as the Trump administration seeks to renegotiate terms in the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

 

Delta, the second-largest U.S. airline, has been stuck in the middle of the dispute. Delta CEO Ed Bastian has repeatedly said the airline won't pay the tariffs and called the duties "absurd."

 

The airline has not taken delivery of the C Series jets yet, so it had not been subjected to the tariffs. Delta said it opted for the Bombardier jets because Boeing offered it no feasible alternative.

 

"Delta is pleased by the ITC's ruling rejecting Boeing's anticompetitive attempt to deny U.S. airlines and the U.S. traveling public access to the state-of-the-art 110-seat CS100 aircraft when Boeing offers no viable alternative," Delta said. "The airline looks forward to introducing the innovative CS100 to its fleet for the benefit of Delta's employees, customers and shareowners."

 

Delta Air Lines in 2016 agreed to buy at least 75 planes from Bombardier.

 

In a twist, however, last October, European aerospace giant Airbus, Boeing's chief rival, said it would take a majority stake in the C Series program and said the planes could be manufactured in Alabama, where Airbus already makes narrowbody jets.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/boeing-loses-trade-case-over-bombardier-passenger-jets.html

 

**********************************************

 

4-0 decision. Suck it Boeing.

 

The winning never stops for this doofus administration.

Edited by nuckin_futz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

^^ nice finger to Trump :lol: 

Umm.... what does Trump has to do with this situation?  It would be as relevant as someone sprouting.... "Go Trudeau Go!"  

 

 

Just a large aircraft manufacturer with fat military defense contracts from the US government threatened by a smaller rival in a market segment they don't service anyways.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. Much. Winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Umm.... what does Trump has to do with this situation?  It would be as relevant as someone sprouting.... "Go Trudeau Go!"  

 

 

Just a large aircraft manufacturer with fat military defense contracts from the US government threatened by a smaller rival in a market segment they don't service anyways.  

This is the first sentence of the first post in this thread.......

 

"The U.S. Department of Commerce has clobbered aerospace giant Bombardier with a hefty 220 per cent countervailing duty on the sale of its CS100 commercial jets to a U.S. airline following a trade complaint from an American rival. "

 

That's what Trump has to do with this situation.

 

I found it a little humorous @Ryan Strome up voted your post when he's originator of the thread.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

This is the first sentence of the first post in this thread.......

 

"The U.S. Department of Commerce has clobbered aerospace giant Bombardier with a hefty 220 per cent countervailing duty on the sale of its CS100 commercial jets to a U.S. airline following a trade complaint from an American rival. "

 

That's what Trump has to do with this situation.

 

I found it a little humorous @Ryan Strome up voted your post when he's originator of the thread.

You can find it humorous all you like, has Trump even ever mentioned anything about this? Does Trump run Boeing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You can find it humorous all you like, has Trump even ever mentioned anything about this? Does Trump run Boeing?

Trump has mentioned trade tariffs and duties many times. Unfair trade policies or what he sees as unfair policies are the central part of his economic platform.

 

Trump does not run Boeing. He runs the US government who's Department of Commerce, is run by his hand picked secretary Wilbur Ross. That's who's responsible for the 220% duty, not Boeing.

 

It's the administration that's responsible for the ruling against the administration by the US International Trade Commission.

 

 

Edited by nuckin_futz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

Trump has mentioned trade tariffs and duties many times. Unfair trade policies or what he sees as unfair policies are the central part of his economic platform.

 

Trump does not run Boeing. He runs the US government who's Department of Commerce, is run by his hand picked secretary Wilbur Ross. That's who's responsible for the 220% duty, not Boeing.

 

It's the administration that's responsible for the ruling against the administration by the US International Trade Commission.

 

 

Sure Trump has brought up trade but this is different. It's very clear Bombardier took a loss on those jets, everyone knows that. The thing is it didn't hurt Boeing because they weren't bidding on that particular sale.

 

Proud Canadian sure but Bombardier is running on tax payer money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

This is the first sentence of the first post in this thread.......

 

"The U.S. Department of Commerce has clobbered aerospace giant Bombardier with a hefty 220 per cent countervailing duty on the sale of its CS100 commercial jets to a U.S. airline following a trade complaint from an American rival. "

 

That's what Trump has to do with this situation.

 

I found it a little humorous @Ryan Strome up voted your post when he's originator of the thread.

It's the department's job to lookout for American business interests.  

The POTUS is irrelevant as it's the company that brings up any issues to the Department of Commerce... then that department goes to the trade tribunal for arbitration.  

 

Now if Donald Trump specifically calls out Bombardier, then yeah, that's totally on his feet.  But using this as some potshot against a politician you disagree with.... that makes as much sense as saying Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama had their hand in the Softwood Lumber dispute.  As powerful as the POTUS, they don't control every little thing that goes on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lancaster said:

It's the department's job to lookout for American business interests.  

The POTUS is irrelevant as it's the company that brings up any issues to the Department of Commerce... then that department goes to the trade tribunal for arbitration.  

 

Now if Donald Trump specifically calls out Bombardier, then yeah, that's totally on his feet.  But using this as some potshot against a politician you disagree with.... that makes as much sense as saying Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama had their hand in the Softwood Lumber dispute.  As powerful as the POTUS, they don't control every little thing that goes on.  

Normally the POTUS is irrelevant in issues like this. However this administration has made this a central part of their economic platform. They have stated they will go after what they deem unfair business practices with vigor. Much more vigor than previous administrations. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has been very clear he's as militant if not more than Trump on this issue.

 

Bombardier case shows Donald Trump cannot always do what he wants

Donald Trump was elected on a promise to tear up trade agreements and impose tariffs and quotas on countries - like China and Mexico - who he claimed were exploiting trade rules in a way that was costing American jobs.

 

Earlier this week America imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels that are manufactured in China.

 

In Davos on Wednesday, Wilbur Ross - the US Commerce Secretary - told journalists that “US troops are now coming to the ramparts” in the fight against “predatory trade practices”.

 

On Friday, President Trump told participants at the World Economic Forum that the United States was committed to “fair” and “reciprocal” trade but repeated his threat to take action against countries who “exploit the system at the expense of others”.

 

The dispute between Boeing and Bombardier was initially a commercial dispute but it quickly became political. In December, Wilbur Ross, held Bombardier up as an example unfair state aid.

 

The British and Canadian governments argued the case was unjustified and urged the White House to intervene.

 

Theresa May raised the issue with Mr Trump every time they met - she did so again on Thursday - but to no avail.

 

The British government expected to lose this case and were preparing for job losses in Belfast.

 

The US International Trade Commission’s ruling tells us something about the limits of President Trump’s reach.

 

His policy of “America First” is not just bravado.

 

Trump believes in it and knows it plays well at home.

 

But although President Trump is powerful, America is a democracy and there are checks and balances on his power.

 

He can’t do what he wants.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-01-26/bombardier-donald-trump-america-first-boeing/

 

************************************

 

Your stance that this is just business as usual over the last 5 administrations is wrong. This has clearly been ramped up big time. Both in rhetoric and in action. Keep an eye on how many tariffs and duties are coming down the line in the next little while. Solar panels, washing machines, Canadian dairy products are just the beginning. China is up next and that's when it get's interesting.

 

This slap is clearly on the administration.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Normally the POTUS is irrelevant in issues like this. However this administration has made this a central part of their economic platform. They have stated they will go after what they deem unfair business practices with vigor. Much more vigor than previous administrations. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has been very clear he's as militant if not more than Trump on this issue.

 

Bombardier case shows Donald Trump cannot always do what he wants

Donald Trump was elected on a promise to tear up trade agreements and impose tariffs and quotas on countries - like China and Mexico - who he claimed were exploiting trade rules in a way that was costing American jobs.

 

Earlier this week America imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels that are manufactured in China.

 

In Davos on Wednesday, Wilbur Ross - the US Commerce Secretary - told journalists that “US troops are now coming to the ramparts” in the fight against “predatory trade practices”.

 

On Friday, President Trump told participants at the World Economic Forum that the United States was committed to “fair” and “reciprocal” trade but repeated his threat to take action against countries who “exploit the system at the expense of others”.

 

The dispute between Boeing and Bombardier was initially a commercial dispute but it quickly became political. In December, Wilbur Ross, held Bombardier up as an example unfair state aid.

 

The British and Canadian governments argued the case was unjustified and urged the White House to intervene.

 

Theresa May raised the issue with Mr Trump every time they met - she did so again on Thursday - but to no avail.

 

The British government expected to lose this case and were preparing for job losses in Belfast.

 

The US International Trade Commission’s ruling tells us something about the limits of President Trump’s reach.

 

His policy of “America First” is not just bravado.

 

Trump believes in it and knows it plays well at home.

 

But although President Trump is powerful, America is a democracy and there are checks and balances on his power.

 

He can’t do what he wants.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-01-26/bombardier-donald-trump-america-first-boeing/

 

************************************

 

Your stance that this is just business as usual over the last 5 administrations is wrong. This has clearly been ramped up big time. Both in rhetoric and in action. Keep an eye on how many tariffs and duties are coming down the line in the next little while. Solar panels, washing machines, Canadian dairy products are just the beginning. China is up next and that's when it get's interesting.

 

This slap is clearly on the administration.

 

 

So... hypothetically speaking... if Hillary was POTUS, you think that Boeing wouldn't go after Bombardier?  That the company would be like, "Oh well.... free market and all, nothing we can do about it" and the Department of Commerce would be, "Well... free trade and all, nothing to see here!"?  Lets not having political affiliation blind the fact that businesses and governments look after their self-interests first.

 

Even Obama's administration was the one to initially place tariffs on solar panels.  Was it because he's some anti-solar power guy?  Unlikely.  It was because a bunch of domestic solar panel manufacturers insisted Obama to give them some help.  Considering jobs and votes were on the line, he did it.  For someone supposedly a globalist, that's certainly a protectionist policy.  The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is just more blunt and direct about his policies, but Obama is just more indirect.  Results are the same really.  

 

But lets play the political potshot game for fun..... I guess Apple finally bringing in more cash back to the United States.  I guess that's a slap in the face to the previous Obama administration, eh?  I guess it goes to show that the previous POTUS knows nothing about managing an economy!  /sarcasm

 

FTR, I'm a very pro-free trade.  Any ECON101 course will prove that trade is better than less trade.  But to place the blame and triumphs based on politics... that's just infantile and unproductive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Normally the POTUS is irrelevant in issues like this. However this administration has made this a central part of their economic platform. They have stated they will go after what they deem unfair business practices with vigor. Much more vigor than previous administrations. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has been very clear he's as militant if not more than Trump on this issue.

 

Bombardier case shows Donald Trump cannot always do what he wants

Donald Trump was elected on a promise to tear up trade agreements and impose tariffs and quotas on countries - like China and Mexico - who he claimed were exploiting trade rules in a way that was costing American jobs.

 

Earlier this week America imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels that are manufactured in China.

 

In Davos on Wednesday, Wilbur Ross - the US Commerce Secretary - told journalists that “US troops are now coming to the ramparts” in the fight against “predatory trade practices”.

 

On Friday, President Trump told participants at the World Economic Forum that the United States was committed to “fair” and “reciprocal” trade but repeated his threat to take action against countries who “exploit the system at the expense of others”.

 

The dispute between Boeing and Bombardier was initially a commercial dispute but it quickly became political. In December, Wilbur Ross, held Bombardier up as an example unfair state aid.

 

The British and Canadian governments argued the case was unjustified and urged the White House to intervene.

 

Theresa May raised the issue with Mr Trump every time they met - she did so again on Thursday - but to no avail.

 

The British government expected to lose this case and were preparing for job losses in Belfast.

 

The US International Trade Commission’s ruling tells us something about the limits of President Trump’s reach.

 

His policy of “America First” is not just bravado.

 

Trump believes in it and knows it plays well at home.

 

But although President Trump is powerful, America is a democracy and there are checks and balances on his power.

 

He can’t do what he wants.

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-01-26/bombardier-donald-trump-america-first-boeing/

 

************************************

 

Your stance that this is just business as usual over the last 5 administrations is wrong. This has clearly been ramped up big time. Both in rhetoric and in action. Keep an eye on how many tariffs and duties are coming down the line in the next little while. Solar panels, washing machines, Canadian dairy products are just the beginning. China is up next and that's when it get's interesting.

 

This slap is clearly on the administration.

 

 

It's Canada that has like 300% tariffs on dairy products from the U.S. The whole supply management, thats why dairy products are so expensive here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.