Trump trade deficit lies and errors

False claims coming fast and furious now: Trump says the U.S. has a $100 billion trade deficit with Mexico (it's $69 billion; he's said this 25 times); that he's started building The Wall (no).

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) June 9, 2018

Trump falsely claims that the U.S. had an "$817 billion" trade deficit last year. He usually just says $800 billion. That number excludes trade in services. The actual deficit last year was $566 billion.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) June 9, 2018

President Trump exaggerated trade deficit with the European Union by $50 billion https://t.co/68PcSAbFrs

— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 8, 2018

Before the G-7 summit, Trump said that Mexico treats the U.S. "very unfairly." Here's why his campaign statement that Mexico could pay for the wall due to the trade deficit makes no sense: https://t.co/Uxs67aoMSr

— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) June 8, 2018

Trump said the trade deficit hands jobs and wealth to other countries — here's why that's wrong https://t.co/HWR6YaApvl pic.twitter.com/GVGBXPzogi

— Business Insider (@businessinsider) June 7, 2018

If you care about the trade deficit, seems odd to pick on Canada and Mexico. . . pic.twitter.com/M1UTajaTLi

— Douglas Irwin (@D_A_Irwin) June 4, 2018

Fact check on Trump’s trade numbers

Here’s the AP Fact check on Trump’s trade numbers.

I think he’s a liar but at a minimum, he’s leaving things out to paint a bleaker picture which jives with his view that the whole world (except Russia, I guess) is ripping us off.

Sad!

Questions and answers about trade and tariffs

This article answers questions about trade and tariffs.

Trump’s temper tantrum

Here’s Paul Krugman’s opinion of the G7 and some of his tweets from earlier today. He wrote about Trump: ” He didn’t put America first; Russia first would be a better description. And he didn’t demand drastic policy changes from our allies; he demanded that they stop doing bad things they aren’t doing. This wasn’t a tough stance on behalf of American interests, it was a declaration of ignorance and policy insanity.”

Really, really bad. Trump is throwing a temper tantrum, threatening dire retaliation against our allies for high tariffs THAT DON'T EXIST. You can't reach a deal with someone who demands you stop doing something you aren't doing 1/ https://t.co/xGjrqY9fgk

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 9, 2018

The intellectual basis for this tantrum, to the extent there is one, is a basic misunderstanding of how VATs work. But Trump will never admit that he was wrong, and was listening to the wrong people. Right now, corporate America should be terrified 3/

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 9, 2018

It's sort of the trade equivalent of basing immigration policy on a crime wave by undocumented immigrants that exists only in Trump's fevered racist imagination. But unlike little kids torn from their parents, major economies can and will strike back 2/

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 9, 2018

This is absolutely boneheaded analysis; VATs don't convey any competitive advantage: https://t.co/Ahv3mONkhC. But if Trump is surrounded by people who think they do, they'll destroy the trading system for no good reason 2/ pic.twitter.com/XFRaFl1KWE

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 9, 2018

It's worse than that. Trump/Navarro aren't talking about actual EU tariffs. They almost surely mean value-added taxes, which they wrongly believe are trade barriers. Not a chance in hell Europe will give an inch — or a centimeter — on that front. https://t.co/N4n7QmPcwt

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 9, 2018

To understand the G7 disaster, you need both to acknowledge that Putin has something on Trump — what, exactly, we may never know — and that Trump's advisers have very, very bad ideas. Worth revisiting Navarro-Ross 1/ https://t.co/uL295MQQgx pic.twitter.com/dP3TiYvZzl

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 9, 2018

What does Russia have on Trump?

There is no rational way to explain Trump’s suggestion that Russia should be readmitted to the G7 unless Russia has something on him. Russia was expelled because of their attack on the Ukraine. Since then, there was their meddling in the US election and the poisoning in the UK. There is no way they should be allowed back.

Trump has alienated our allies and put tariffs on him. He has taken the US out of the Iran accord but has nothing to replace it. He made the US the only country that is not in the Paris climate agreement. He withdrew from the TPP but has nothing instead. Asian countries will trade without us. Do you really think he can make deals? He has multiple bankruptcies, stiffed contractors, and pulled the Trump University scam. I don’t see how he is capable of making good deals that will help the US. He’s just a bully and liar.

He attacks our allies but sucks up to North Korea.

Putin must be thrilled by Trump’s disgraceful behavior.

Sad!

Update:

What we *do* know is that the explanation must involve something big that Trump wants Putin either to do FOR him — or to refrain from doing TO him. And that it’s something for which Trump is prepared to sacrifice America’s national security. That makes him a danger to us all. https://t.co/yvaPLHXfKi

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 9, 2018

Trump attacks our allies on trade

If we have any allies left after all of his terrible behavior…..

Trump imposes tariffs on Canada, Mexico and Europe.

Story, to be updated: Trump imposes steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, damaging Canadian companies and the broader relationship: https://t.co/wMzD7rIdat

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) May 31, 2018

Reminder: not even the *US aluminum industry* wants tariffs on aluminum from Canada, Mexico, the EU and other "market economies" https://t.co/zCxv16rDt7

— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) May 31, 2018

The EU has a very detailed list (https://t.co/pKqKabOh1J) of US products it plans to retaliate against, including steel, bourbon, rice, beans, jeans, motor boats, makeup, and orange juice. Canada has not specified plans yet; government has said it's contemplating several options.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) May 31, 2018

Trump explicitly argues that allies have treated the U.S. worse on trade than its enemies have. https://t.co/cW9sLdGHwg

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) May 31, 2018

Told that Canada's government says that it's absurd that Canada poses a national security threat – national security being the official rationale here – Commerce Sec Wilbur Ross says, "Governments will say what they say.”

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) May 31, 2018

Mexico answers US tariffs with its own on US pork bellies, grapes, apples and flat steel. The EU is expected to retaliate with tariffs on US jeans, motorcycles and bourbon.

If you're a Trumper who works in one of these industries – congratulations – you may have won a pink slip!

— Facts Do Matter (@WilDonnelly) May 31, 2018

Trudeau calls tariffs “an affront to the long-standing security partnership between Canada and the United States, and in particular, to the thousands of Canadians who have fought and died alongside American comrades-in-arms” and vows retaliation

— Ana Swanson (@AnaSwanson) May 31, 2018

Rural America shouldn’t be treated like collateral damage & it’s insulting to expect hardworking farmers, ranchers, & manufacturers to bear the negative impacts of poorly planned trade policy like tariffs on aluminum and steel.

— Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (@SenatorHeitkamp) May 31, 2018

GOP senator to @tedbarrett on Trump tariffs: "I don't like trade wars. There are no winners in trade wars. And this scares me … A lot of us have talked to [Trump] in person about this … Most of my Republican colleagues feel this way — most being the overwhelming majority."

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 31, 2018

Canada will also challenge these illegal & counterproductive measures under NAFTA Chapter 20 and at the WTO. It is simply ridiculous to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat to the US and we will continue to stand up for Canadian workers & Canadian businesses.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) May 31, 2018

The United Steelworkers don't support the Trump administration's latest steel-tariffs move, which extends the duties to Canada. "This decision is unacceptable and calls into serious question the design and direction of the administration's trade policy." @steelworkers

— William Mauldin (@willmauldin) May 31, 2018

President Trump’s trade war will not end well. Such recklessness alienates our allies and puts American farmers, businesses, and consumers on the hook to lose big. https://t.co/WNqdKAsPL8

— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) May 31, 2018

Trump just poured ice water on the economy in service of his trade war https://t.co/IwyjIRn49O (via @latimesopinion) pic.twitter.com/tclReH3xtU

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) May 31, 2018

#UPDATE Macron said he "deplored" the US move to impose harsh tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from the European Union, declaring it an "illegal" decision "not in line with international trade law" https://t.co/7MOrnZbErK

— AFP news agency (@AFP) May 31, 2018

To date, the Trump admin appears to be pursuing a trade policy that creates economic chaos and uncertainty rather than jobs for hard working Americans.

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) May 31, 2018

Tories said they could do a deal with Trump. They were wrong. “America First” meant Britain second. Trump’s protectionist rhetoric has now been matched by action and 31,000 UK steel workers have to face the consequences of their own government’s failure. https://t.co/JvDWlJBJyn

— Bill Esterson (@Bill_Esterson) May 31, 2018

On @Morning_Joe today, I discussed Trump’s incoherent trade policy management https://t.co/KIKCC78wyo

— Steven Rattner (@SteveRattner) May 31, 2018

Our allies are perplexed by his policies.

Ivanka Trump’s conflict of interest

Ivanka Trump's brand continues to win foreign trademarks in China and the Philippines, adding to questions about conflicts of interest at the White House https://t.co/GnQTIo4KbU

— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) May 28, 2018

Why is Ivanka Trump, who has no foreign policy experience and doesn’t even have a full security clearance, conducting diplomacy in a country where she holds business trademarks?https://t.co/YRfA5WtSzi

— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) March 19, 2018

Then the president wants to help Chinese firm ZTE.

The article states: “Even as Mr. Trump contends with Beijing on issues like security and trade, his family and the company that bears his name are trying to make money off their brand in China’s flush and potentially promising market.”

It sure looks like a conflict of interest to me!

Does anyone recall our still pending Emoluments Clause lawsuits vs. Trump? If Donald (and Ivanka) divested themselves of their businesses as required by the Clause, we wouldn’t even be *asking* whether the ZTE deal was a quid pro quo sellout of our national security. @NormEisen https://t.co/AXHr09OSdq

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) May 29, 2018

Yes they have a deal in mind. It is a great deal… for #ZTE & China. #China crushes U.S. companies with no mercy & they use these telecomm companies to spy & steal from us. Many hoped this time would be different. Now congress will need to act. https://t.co/ETMUCe9ia6

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 25, 2018

Many members of Congress oppose the ZTE deal.

China and the Trump administration are both wrong here

Congrats, you have an all-male panel https://t.co/RQ9PBa6owo

— Ana Swanson (@AnaSwanson) May 6, 2018

China is winning on solar power while Trump takes us into the past

“Republicans who for years have voted against subsidies for solar and wind power — arguing that the “free market” should decide our energy future — are now eager to have government subsidize coal.”

This column points out that while Trump is trying to take us back into the past with coal, China is moving ahead with solar power. Government policies have played a big part.

Sad!

Farmers are concerned about tariffs

I don’t feel sorry for anyone who voted for Trump who is hurt by his policies. He’s doing what he said he would do during the campaign. Trump voters have forced all of us to put up with an incompetent, lying bigot.

This is an excellent article in the New York Times. The writer got out of New York and spoke with Midwestern farmers about their concerns and the potential impact on future elections.