Tariffs are a problem?

[Seriati]

I suppose the best way to objectively evaluate tariffs would be to find the net tariff percentage on all goods and services bilaterally. I've not been able to get close to that number. You can always pull out Canada's high tax on dairy, or Europe's high tax on something else. You could look at US tariffs on footwear with an average rate of 12%.

I linked to an extensive write of trade barriers by country in the prior thread.  In any event, it literally seems to be the case that the US is net more open than virtually any of its trading partners.  It's incredible to argue that a tariff that moves the needle marginally in our favor, but leaves it firmly pointed to the other side is somehow an escalation.

There is this article, which I don't find terribly reliable or compelling, based on World Bank data. Partly this is because the data is not bilateral (a country could have high tariffs vs the US, low with other countries, and balance out low)

***

27 of the European Union's 28 members, for example, have an applied tariff rate of 1.6%

I don't see the calculation mechanics, however, if it's evaluating EU countries individually, it's very likely it's going to be distorted as the majority of their trade is with other EU members generally at or close to 0%.  Not saying that wasn't accounted for, but that could be materially misleading (think of a calculation of such trade done by US state, counting other US states as trading partners, the US would be at or close to 0% overall).

The point is rather that it is unlikely to get a better deal than the status quo, due to the relative strength of a united world front against the United States.

We are almost certain to get a "better" deal, when we are a larger customer of every economy, and the world than they are of us.  The only way we don't is if they just start selling their products in their local markets and take the hit.

[Seriati]

If you think the trade war is an "illusion," you need to check your glasses.

The illusion is that Trump started it.  The rest of the world has been running a "cold war" trade war for decades.

There have always been tariffs.  There will always be tariffs.  But the tariffs in the past, even the ones we've increased, haven't caused China to retaliate with billions of dollars worth of new tariffs.

They haven't "retaliated" instead they have just applied billions and billions worth of anti-trade measures and tariffs.  They have engaged in out right theft of IP that is the primary reason their industry is even remotely competitive, and they continue to engage in that theft.

SO they haven't "retaliated" they've just screwed us as a matter of policy.  Why on earth would anyone care about a headline grabbing tariff against that background?  It's absolutely irrational if you really believe what you claim about economics to ignore Chinese policy.

A competent President would have made only targeted tariffs, with plenty of diplomatic dialogue with the affected countries to make sure the effects were limited and temporary.

I read this as an argument that the definition of "competent" requires in your mind undermining any ability to achieve the stated goal.   That's the definition of "incompetent" in my book.

I'm just struck by how many people have bought into the idea that we have "free trade" and Trump is attacking it.

[TheDrake]

I'll even stipulate we have horribly unfair trade for sake of argument. That doesn't make "worse trade" better. Nor is it better to go from a subtle game of give and take in the WTO from a unilateral shot in every direction.

If we were smart, we COULD have targeted China as the worst offender given IP issues, unsafe products, labor exploitation, even currency manipulation. I might even get behind that. But why launch shots on every front at once, including Canada? You are much better off knocking competitors down one by one than uniting them.

Let's consider Canada. They may be the country we have the most leverage over. The US accounts for a whopping 50% of Canadian exports. Canada is also nearly our largest export market (about equal with Mexico and the EU). Canada is between 15-20% of our exports. Hey, no brainer right? Bigly win. Except that for both countries a similar amount of jobs are at stake (we just have more population). Meanwhile, since we're also picking fights with the EU and China, we're really risking more like 40% of our exports because we took them all on at once.

So even if there is a massive problem and it must be addressed, this seems an absolutely poor strategy.

Trump didn't start the fire, but he did pour gasoline on it.

[Wayward Son]

That's the thing, Drake.  A competent President would have united Europe, Canada, Mexico, India and hopefully Russian against China to change their policies.

Instead, this dufus unites Europe, Canada, Mexico, and China against us. 

Do you really believe, Seriati, that is the way of achieving any useful goal (except, perhaps, the weakening of the United States)? 

[TheDrake]

bye bye jobs

“A company that is as connected to America, and Americana, as Harley is probably going to be laying off U.S. workers in favor of foreign workers and going to be losing money as a result of this,” James Hardiman, an equity research analyst with Wedbush Securities, said of Trump’s trade battle with the EU. “There’s a lot of irony here, to put it mildly.”

[rightleft22]

The problem with Trumps “art of the deal” negotiating tactics is that it depends on aggressive bulling and truthful hyperbole (lying) to achieve a “Win – Lose” outcome.  (winning not always just economic but personal which involves “destroying” the other)
I for one would never do business with the man as it’s a 50/50 probably of seeing a return on any investment or getting paid is services were rendered. (unless its hush money)

As a politician such a negotiation style lacks the ability to understand nuance. Yes I know Trump is not a politician however he holds a political office so not sure how that works. Anyway, for some reason Trump followers don’t demand context to his tweets. Its enough for them for him to say a deal is bad for a deal to be bad in 280 characters.

Take the assumed trade defect with Canada – as in all things it how you look at it but over all its quite balanced.

The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $17.5 billion in 2017, a 59.7% increase ($6.5 billion) over 2016.
The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $26 billion with Canada in 2017, up 8.0% from 2016.

Its true Canada’s dairy supply chain management prevents US dairy farmers from exporting as much milk into Canada as they might like however this is in response to the massive US dairy subsidies that the government gives the dairy farmers resulting in a over supply.  For Canada the Supply chain management system isn’t primarily about economics but political and cultural - preserving the small family farm. Canada does not dump milk into the US (actually the US has a surplus when it comes to exporting dairy into Canada) 
Politically a Canadian politician that does anything to harm the small family farm is done so not a lot of wiggle room. 

Then theirs the softwood tariff which is being paid for by Americans as its pushed up the cost of wood, adding approximately USD $9,000 to the cost of single-family homes in the United States. (NAHB)

The thing is both the US and Canada have their special interest areas where it isn’t just about economics thus both sides have in the past looked for compromise – a Win – Win.   

Without demanding more context then a 280-character policy tweet I don’t see how any of this can end well for anyone.  Its absurd.

[TheDrake]

Mind you, this story is about tariffs destroying a vertically integrated company from shipping steel wire from its Mexican facility to a US nail factory.

Mid Continent Nail Corporation, a nail manufacturer located in southeast Missouri, lost 50 percent of its business in the two weeks since Trump signed a new tariff on steel imports, according to a MissouriNet report published on Friday.

The nail company said the updated impositions on steel goods resulted in the producer having to lay off 60 temporary workers. At the beginning of June, Mid Continent had roughly 500 people on staff, but the company may be forced to axe 200 more jobs by the end of July. There is a possibility the nail producer, which is one of the largest employers in Missouri's Butler County, may be completely out of business by Labor Day due to the tariff.

article

[Seriati]

Here's a fun little opinion piece on the unfairness in the China trade that's prompting this "trade war" https://www.creators.com/read/betsy-mccaughey.  Maybe you'll note the idea that doing nothing, means we'll be effectively locked out of a future market larger than our own, that will effectively be flooded with "Chinese" products generated from stolen American tech for which we were never really compensated.  Being a "knowledge" economy, dealing with a knowledge stealing economy isn't a great result.

If we were smart, we COULD have targeted China as the worst offender given IP issues, unsafe products, labor exploitation, even currency manipulation. I might even get behind that. But why launch shots on every front at once, including Canada? You are much better off knocking competitors down one by one than uniting them.

I feel like you're not really listening.  Dumping products anywhere in the global market undermines the entire market.  Any "window" you open for Canada ultimately results in releasing the pressure on China, unless Canada also agrees to freeze out China - and everyone doing business with China.  There's no economic argument that allows for any result other than subsidized dumped products driving out unsubsidized products in an otherwise fully open market.

Let's consider Canada. They may be the country we have the most leverage over. The US accounts for a whopping 50% of Canadian exports. Canada is also nearly our largest export market (about equal with Mexico and the EU). Canada is between 15-20% of our exports. Hey, no brainer right? Bigly win. Except that for both countries a similar amount of jobs are at stake (we just have more population). Meanwhile, since we're also picking fights with the EU and China, we're really risking more like 40% of our exports because we took them all on at once.

And if you don't pick the fight, the fight literally can not be won.

The EU knows this.  Their first response to US steel tariffs, was to place tariffs on Chinese steel. 

The US is in the position of consumer, with virtually all of material trading partners.  That means, a non-global bar can be shifted to maximize imports coming from another vector but FROM THE SAME SOURCE.

So even if there is a massive problem and it must be addressed, this seems an absolutely poor strategy.

Not clear to me that this is true.  All it really is, is a strategy that certain people despise.  It's one that is literally practiced by the EU, by China, by virtually all of our counterparties, who almost uniformly have higher tariffs and barriers on our products than we do on theirs.

It's like I'm trying to explain that the we, as the battered spouse, did not provoke the beating, and all you want to tell me is that we knew what would happen if we didn't give in.  That's not provoking a trade war.

 

Trump didn't start the fire, but he did pour gasoline on it.
[/quote]

[Seriati]

The problem with Trumps “art of the deal” negotiating tactics is that it depends on aggressive bulling and truthful hyperbole (lying) to achieve a “Win – Lose” outcome.  (winning not always just economic but personal which involves “destroying” the other)

Honestly, never read the book, but I'd be surprised if it's remotely based on a win-lose outcome.

In any event, that's not the point of the tariff strategy.  The point is that when the rest of the world is operating on maximizing its own gains and knows the US is favoring the total trade balance, it opens up great potential for unilateral exploitation.  The tariff strategy is effectively giving counterparties two options, either agree to maximize total trade and let the chips fall where they may (ie open up your protections), or realize that we will be protective to your detriment when you are being protective to ours.

The counter argument ignores reality, and seems to effectively be, no matter how much a counterparty is hurting us and trade as a whole in pursuit of their own selfish goals, we should not respond cause any response is bad.

China is even worse because they are operating on strategic as well as economic goals that really have no place in a free market.

I for one would never do business with the man as it’s a 50/50 probably of seeing a return on any investment or getting paid is services were rendered. (unless its hush money)

I'd happy to do business with him.  It's utter nonsense to believe that the vast majority of his business associates have not benefited.  Many many business interaction turn out to be win/win (finance transactions less so).

But frankly, I'm not sure how you can even make this claim - that you wouldn't do business cause it's 50/50 dealing with Trump - and not see that the odds are even worse in "doing business" with China.  You'll never win that deal cause they literally cheat. 

[TheDrake]

Actually, the EU implemented duties on Chinese steel almost two years ago, before Trump was elected.

It's like I'm trying to explain that the we, as the battered spouse, did not provoke the beating, and all you want to tell me is that we knew what would happen if we didn't give in.  That's not provoking a trade war.

Really? Over the past decade you feel like our economy is being battered by rampant unfairness? Did jobs plummet when I wasn't looking? Did median income fall apart? Isn't it just as likely that having lower than average tariffs benefits us with cheap imports, either as raw materials or finished goods?

This isn't a morality play where the righteous must fight the good fight - it is a cold calculation and projection of what happens next. I feel like you're not really listening...

There are already mechanisms in the WTO to address concerns. They've been used against China, and others. In March, we filed such a complaint against China on intellectual property.

I'm not dismissing concerns about China. They are very real and should be addressed. I just don't see the value in making all our steel imports more expensive in order to send them a message. Commodities are commodities. We shouldn't even be in that business. If you want to stop information transfer to China, you could make it illegal or difficult for US companies to do business with them. Because apparently US companies care more about their Chinese market penetration than owning their own ideas.

And if you want to leverage allies, the right way to do it is to build the tariff wall around China rather than building it around the US and leaving the status quo everywhere else. People are probably going to prefer to continue to leverage the Chinese markets than sell to us, long term. This is how international sanctions usually work - as they did with Iran and NK, and even in those stark cases it was hard to hold together.

[yossarian22c]

Trump has managed to screw diplomatic relations up with our friends enough that average Canadians are starting to boycott things from the USA.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/623518328/canadians-are-livid-about-trump-and-are-hitting-back-by-boycotting-u-s-goods

[Fenring]

Trump has managed to screw diplomatic relations up with our friends enough that average Canadians are starting to boycott things from the USA.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/623518328/canadians-are-livid-about-trump-and-are-hitting-back-by-boycotting-u-s-goods

I'll believe a boycott when I see it. I don't think most people have the will to closely examine every product they buy to see if, anywhere on the chain of production and distribution, the USA had any part in it. Certain sorts of products may prominently display messages such as "Made in the USA", such as honey or something, but other than that I doubt if it will be immediately apparent. In this day and age a product can have ingredients or materials from one country, be produced in another, distributed by yet another, and sold in another. Good luck parsing all that.

[yossarian22c]

Trump has managed to screw diplomatic relations up with our friends enough that average Canadians are starting to boycott things from the USA.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/623518328/canadians-are-livid-about-trump-and-are-hitting-back-by-boycotting-u-s-goods

I'll believe a boycott when I see it. I don't think most people have the will to closely examine every product they buy to see if, anywhere on the chain of production and distribution, the USA had any part in it. Certain sorts of products may prominently display messages such as "Made in the USA", such as honey or something, but other than that I doubt if it will be immediately apparent. In this day and age a product can have ingredients or materials from one country, be produced in another, distributed by yet another, and sold in another. Good luck parsing all that.

I agree the economic impact is likely to only be felt by a few farmers. The real issue is that Trump has soured our relationship with our closest ally to the point where common citizens would consider boycotting American goods. Him provoking the sentiment is more damaging than any immediate economic harm from the boycott.

[TheDrake]

I agree the economic impact is likely to only be felt by a few farmers. The real issue is that Trump has soured our relationship with our closest ally to the point where common citizens would consider boycotting American goods. Him provoking the sentiment is more damaging than any immediate economic harm from the boycott.

Agreed. What it does signal is that the Canadian people are going to back Trudeau, so he can confidently avoid capitulation to the Trump demands. In fact, it almost makes it politically unviable to make any kind of new deal under the circumstances.

[rightleft22]

I live in Canada and can say the coverage on how the Tarriffs will impact both the US and Canada if far greater then Us Coverage
I suspect the reason is that most Americans don't care about what happens in other nations thus such comments as "I agree the economic impact is likely to only be felt by a few farmers"
Most people don't understand how interrelated the two economies have become. How often for example car parts cross and recross the boarder as they are being built

Right now anyone in the US building a new house is having to add $9,000 to the cost due to the softwood tariffs leveled against Canada - the tarriffs are not actually impacting Canada much as its supply and demand.

[yossarian22c]

I live in Canada and can say the coverage on how the Tarriffs will impact both the US and Canada if far greater then Us Coverage
I suspect the reason is that most Americans don't care about what happens in other nations thus such comments as "I agree the economic impact is likely to only be felt by a few farmers"
Most people don't understand how interrelated the two economies have become. How often for example car parts cross and recross the boarder as they are being built

The limited harm was talking about some Canadian citizens specifically boycotting American goods. A generalized trade war with Canada will be harmful to significant numbers of people on both sides of the border. I have a feeling we are going to have a recession start within the next 12 months if Trump keeps this up.

[rightleft22]

Do most Americans still believe that Trump is a good business man and deal maker?
 
His history - pre- presidency - would indicate that he isn’t. His first big deal with dad's and government money is questionable... and if life was fair he should have gone broke in 2008 - saved by his “brand” value. Proving he is a great self promoter but not a great business man in the traditional sense.  (maybe that definition has changed)
And there is a reason he will not release his tax documents.

I just don’t understand why people would think that Trumps win – lose, obfuscation strategy can lead to positive outcome for international negotiations? Sure its working domestically but internationally...

Based on his rhetoric it does not seem to me that he understands the role compromise plays in negotiations… except when dealing with dictators. It all very odd…

[yossarian22c]

Do most Americans still believe that Trump is a good business man and deal maker?

I never did.

His history - pre- presidency - would indicate that he isn’t. His first big deal with dad's and government money is questionable... and if life was fair he should have gone broke in 2008 - saved by his “brand” value. Proving he is a great self promoter but not a great business man in the traditional sense.  (maybe that definition has changed)
And there is a reason he will not release his tax documents.

Yep he isn't as rich as he claims and the money he has made is super shady.

I just don’t understand why people would think that Trumps win – lose, obfuscation strategy can lead to positive outcome for international negotiations? Sure its working domestically but internationally...

I have no idea why anyone thinks alienating every ally we have in the world helps us at all.

Based on his rhetoric it does not seem to me that he understands the role compromise plays in negotiations… except when dealing with dictators. It all very odd…

Based on his rhetoric he doesn't understand lots of things. His excessive praise for dictators is scary. It is all very odd and troubling.

[Gaoics79]

I'll believe a boycott when I see it. I don't think most people have the will to closely examine every product they buy to see if, anywhere on the chain of production and distribution, the USA had any part in it. Certain sorts of products may prominently display messages such as "Made in the USA", such as honey or something, but other than that I doubt if it will be immediately apparent. In this day and age a product can have ingredients or materials from one country, be produced in another, distributed by yet another, and sold in another. Good luck parsing all that.

The chances of everyday Canadians significantly boycotting U.S. goods and services en masse to the extent that it really hurts the US is pretty much zero.

The government, on the other hand, could probably do some damage with reciprocal tariffs.

The trouble is we'd be picking a fight we can't possibly win.

My fear is that Trudeau is going to see his own political advantage in being seen to battle Trump, given that Trump is pretty much the devil incarnate here. Even if there is a deal to be done, I'm scared that Trudeau simply won't do it for political expediency, and it's going to hurt us really badly.

[TheDrake]

New tariffs were imposed by Canada on beef, and more retaliation will come this week when China and Mexico take aim at pork. China’s also planning a 25 percent tariff on soybeans this Friday in addition to hikes on pork duties, and Mexico’s 20 percent levy on "the other white meat" is set to begin Thursday.

Separately, China is preparing to unleash a wave of new tariffs of 25 percent on 545 U.S. products valued at $34 billion, including soybeans and some dairy products. The duties become effective this Friday, with U.S. autos also a target of Chinese import duties.

next stage

President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters.

That’s more than double the about $1 billion in new spending plans announced by firms building or expanding U.S. solar panel factories to take advantage of the tax on imports.

thousands of jobs lost to solar tariff

Good thing these trade wars are easy to win, everything should be all wrapped up by midterms and all the people who are losing their jobs will probably be back to work by then.

[Seriati]

Lol, so if you believe what you say you do, isn't all Canada doing with their tariffs hurting themselves?  After all they're just bringing higher prices to their own citizens.

The reason it's hard for Americans to win a trade war, is that we're always willing to paint ourselves, in our own minds and publicly, in the worst possible light and to undermine our own goals.  You see this all the time in our international relations, where we flip and flop back and forth dramatically on big picture goals, and it's even worse in the area of economics where most people barely pay attention on a good day.

For goodness sakes, anyone remember the TPP provision that lets a corporation sue a national government and take the matter to unreviewable international arbitration?  This would let a company use an international arbitrator to undermine US (or other country's laws), or maybe even just a state's law - like say imposing an international restriction on California setting a clean air guideline for automobiles. 

The joke is that everyone is a reactionary on Trump, fighting and screaming to protect a corrupt trade web that has absolutely nothing to do with freedom or fairness.  Even if you hate Trump, you still ought to be opposed to the current state of international trade.

[Wayward Son]

Lol, so if you believe what you say you do, isn't all Canada doing with their tariffs hurting themselves?  After all they're just bringing higher prices to their own citizens.

Why, yes, they are.  They are bringing higher prices and lower selection to themselves.  They are losing from this tariff.

But so are we.

Trade wars are a LOSE-LOSE situation.  Every side loses in a trade war.  Which is why tariffs need to be used sparingly.

But unfortunately no one explained that to our 4th-grader President.  He thinks he can win them. 

So celebrate when you lose your job and you're paying more for everything.  Because you can tell yourself that the Canadians have lost a few hundred more jobs, and have a fraction of point more inflation.  We're winning!

You can comfort yourself with that thought as you stand in the unemployment line.

[TheDrake]

Here we go again. Trump decided to move to another order of magnitude against china, adding 200bn to the 34bn already in place.

It will be interesting to see the response. This now makes it impossible to go tit for tat, as China doesn't import enough to match.

This represents 40% of imported goods from China.

If you feel like buying anything, now might be the time.

[Wayward Son]

Yeah, I can't wait to see how well the GOP House's new election slogan goes over when the effects of the tariffs finally hit home.

[rightleft22]

trade wars are easy to win and a positive outcome either way

[TheDrake]

Oh, and, lest someone think this is spin, out of Trump's twitter:

"We agreed to the denuclearization of North Korea. China, on the other hand, may be exerting negative pressure on a deal because of our posture on Chinese Trade-Hope Not!"

Yeah, odds are China isn't going to give you things you want while you are escalating a trade action against them - no matter or righteous or justified.

[TheDrake]

Whirlpool shares fell sharply in extended trading on Monday after the appliance maker posted disappointing quarterly earnings amid weak sales in the region encompassing Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA).

After grappling with raw material inflation and declining unit volume last year, Whirlpool had hoped for a smoother ride in 2018 after the Trump administration slapped tariffs on washing machines imported by rivals LG and Samsung.

But its second-quarter results showed the effects of Trump’s global trade war, which has driven up the cost of steel and resin, the company’s biggest raw material inputs.

For the quarter, Whirlpool earned $3.20 per share on revenue of $5.14 billion. Analysts had expected earnings of $3.69 per share on revenue of $5.29 billion.

The company also lowered its full-year guidance for adjusted earnings per share to between $14.20 and $14.80 from between $14.50 and $15.50. In after-hours trading, its shares dropped 9.2% to $136.75.

[TheDrake]

No debate about these costs.

The Trump administration plans to offer billions of dollars in aid to farmers hit by tariffs on their goods, an emergency bailout intended to ease the pain caused by Trump's escalating trade war in key electoral states, people briefed on the plan told CNBC.

The total aid amount is reportedly about $12 billion. A senior administration official told NBC News that the aid would be temporary.

Government bailouts are pretty sweet. Not costly at all. Rock on, Mr. President. We lose taxes on revenues, and then fire up some subsidies to go with it. At least now we know they'll never miss having access to illegal labor.

[rightleft22]

The great thing about subsidies is that it feeds back into justification for counter tariffs.

[Seriati]

Well this is an interesting twist.  Too soon to say if it was worth it, falls apart or represents a real improvement, but still interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/25/trump-announces-trade-concessions-from-eu-officials-on-soybeans-energy-tariffs.html

[TheDrake]

Coca-Cola plans to raise its soda prices this year in part because of President Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports.

The White House’s tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods have caused higher freight rates and metal prices, president and chief executive of the company James Quincey said in a CNBC interview.

Effectively a Cola tax

Thanks for the expensive soda pop, Trump. I needed to cut back anyway...

[Crunch]

Yeah, I can't wait to see how well the GOP House's new election slogan goes over when the effects of the tariffs finally hit home.

Current news: GDP 4.1%.

”During each of two previous administrations, we averaged just over 1.8 percent GDP growth. By contrast, we are now on track to hit an average GDP annual growth of over 3 percent, and it could be substantially over 3 percent," Trump said. "Each point, by the way, means approximately $3 trillion and 10 million jobs."

You know, I can’t wait either.

[TheDrake]

Trump's math is terrible as usual. GDP is somewhere around 19 Trillion. So each point of growth would be 190 billion, not 3 trillion. And the total number of unemployed people is now 7.9 million, so I guess he's going to welcome in millions of immigrants to fill these new jobs? Also-

Illustrating the volatility of some elements of GDP, net exports contributed 1.06 percentage point to the pace of growth, the most since 2013, partly on a surge in soybean shipments ahead of retaliatory tariffs. Inventories subtracted 1 point, the most since 2014, also on a decline in soybean stocks as well as those of drugs and sundries and petroleum and related products.

[Wayward Son]

Economists are already warning us that this growth is a blip due to very short-lived factors.  It ain't gonna last until November.

If the trade wars continues, there will be layoffs by November.  And even the $12 billion bail-out ain't gonna help those truckers and distributors and food-freezing companies who will get hit.  Not to mention Alaska's fisheries.

So enjoy it while you can, Crunch.  Winter is coming...

[Crunch]

Yeah, sure. “economists”. These same “economists” warned how we’d see the stock market collapse after Trump’s election. Since Trump got the nomination, you guys have been demanding American’s economic collapse and hoping it came soon and praying for our demise. Sorry chicken little, you guys  have been dismissed. 

Will the economy continue its historic expansion and remain the best its ever been? I don’t know. But I do know all you guys hoping for America’s failure have been wrong over and over and over and over. The rationalizations for Trump’s success and how they’re just one off evens have been as weak as they are transparent.

I will enjoy it. So will all of America as they get new jobs, achieve new personal and professional success, and, after 8 long years, finally renew their pursuit of the American dream.

So far, the only cold weather is for the left. Winter is here for Democrats, for all Americans sake let’s hope it’s a long and lustrous one. 

[Seriati]

Economists are already warning us that this growth is a blip due to very short-lived factors.  It ain't gonna last until November.

Economists like Krugman?  Who told us we wouldn't be seeing 3% growth?  https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/trumps-rosy-scenario/

Maybe they too are  under accounting for regulatory relief and a truly optimistic business climate.

If the trade wars continues, there will be layoffs by November.  And even the $12 billion bail-out ain't gonna help those truckers and distributors and food-freezing companies who will get hit.  Not to mention Alaska's fisheries.

Maybe. There are definitely going to be specific consequences to a trade war.  Of course, if we still have strong job numbers, and high consumer activity, that means that additional work and consumption is coming from somewhere right?  There are winners, as well as losers, in every trade war.

So enjoy it while you can, Crunch.  Winter is coming...

Great!  We'll sell lots of skies and new snow blowers.

[TheDeamon]

If the trade wars continues, there will be layoffs by November.  And even the $12 billion bail-out ain't gonna help those truckers and distributors and food-freezing companies who will get hit.  Not to mention Alaska's fisheries.

Trucking industry is doing fine, you'd need a near market collapse to significantly hurt the trucking industry as a whole right now. There is an ongoing shortage in drivers, and they're retiring faster than they're being replaced. If freight rates drop, the retirement rate will increase, and the new hiring rate will decrease. Sounds like a win/win for the Drivers who ride it out, as the shortage will be even more pronounced once things start gaining speed again. 

[D.W.]

Given we are fast approaching the advent of driverless trucking being the norm, this sounds like one problem we shouldn't try and fix.

[TheDeamon]

Given we are fast approaching the advent of driverless trucking being the norm, this sounds like one problem we shouldn't try and fix.

They're having enough teething problems with single vehicles. Multiple combination vehicles with special routing requirements, among other things, makes me think that the earliest implementation you might see in wide use is "road trains" with a human babysitting the lead truck. If they're not actually driving it directly.

Fully autonomous trucks on public roads is going to likely lag the better part of a decade behind self-driving cars. Although truck fleets will probably still hit 90+% adoption of said technology before it happens in small vehicles.

[D.W.]

Interesting.  My guess (an uneducated one) would be that freight trucking would be an early adopter.  Their MAY be manned transport from a local warehouse to the end destination or not.  While an extra step may seem wasteful; it could allow for highway only (or near that) for the autonomous long haul part of the transit.

A huge lumbering, and at truck posted speeds which are slower, autonomous truck would be obvious to all, do minimal lane changes.  This sounds like a MUCH easier goal to achieve than city driving dodging pedestrians and cyclist and other erratic motorists. 

But your timeline sounds right.  A decade compared to the time it takes to convince a younger generation to adopt trucking and get them trained up.  Just in time to make that skill set obsolete?

[Fenring]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how exactly does a driverless truck get gas?

[TheDrake]

Technically, trucks are much easier. You could replace regular hub routes first - Port to Warehouse. You could avoid pedestrian areas, have reinforced data gathering, etc.

Trucks first?

Economically, there's much more incentive than replacing other fleets. And, you can negotiate with limited government entities to get your permissions, much like ride share is doing now, as opposed to a "go anywhere" autonomous vehicle.

[Mynnion]

My nephew is a computer engineer currently working on autonomous trucks.  Fueling can be done autonomously also.  There is a massive amount of interest in this especially for long haul since an autonomous truck can run 24/7 and will eventually be safer than human drivers.  I believe the initial model might use a convoy style with a single driver controlling a small fleet but I could be remembering wrong.

[TheDeamon]

My nephew is a computer engineer currently working on autonomous trucks.  Fueling can be done autonomously also.  There is a massive amount of interest in this especially for long haul since an autonomous truck can run 24/7 and will eventually be safer than human drivers.  I believe the initial model might use a convoy style with a single driver controlling a small fleet but I could be remembering wrong.

It already exists, it has been happening in the Australian Outback for several years now. It is what I was calling a "road train" as the driver in the lead truck basically plays "train engineer" for the following trucks.

Of course,  the outback iteration is on private/closed(to the public) roads. So it hasn't had to deal with traffic.

The bigger bottleneck in the US is liability among other things. Oddly enough, it's going to be the lawyers that end up keeping truckers behind the wheel for a while longer.

[TheDeamon]

Technically, trucks are much easier. You could replace regular hub routes first - Port to Warehouse. You could avoid pedestrian areas, have reinforced data gathering, etc.

Trucks first?

Economically, there's much more incentive than replacing other fleets. And, you can negotiate with limited government entities to get your permissions, much like ride share is doing now, as opposed to a "go anywhere" autonomous vehicle.

Which isn't to mention that if you can get the human completely out of the truck, then you're able to reduce the amount physical space and vehicle weight which were dedicated to driver comfort and safety. Which means more freight capacity, not that most freight comes anywhere near the legal limits.

Warehouse(or port) to Warehouse Freight will automate first. Then Warehouse to store for certain operations(WalMart in particular comes to mind)

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying that even with the incentives being what they are, the Regulatory and Liability side of things is going to keep drivers largely safe for at least the next decade, if not longer. And the Liability side is also part of why I think full-scale adoption by commercial trucking will initially lag self-driving cars.

A jury trial in a civil court over the serious injury/death of a family member "due to an encounter with an autonomous truck" without respect to who or what was operating the other vehicle, is likely to be one trial the major carriers are very cautious of being party to. Even if they have access to far better telemetry data about said incident than anything we could dream of currently.

But as the jury pool starts to skew heavily in favor of using self-driving vehicles themselves... (Which isn't to mention the "knock-on" effect that would have on safety in general as the (safer) self-driving vehicles begin to outnumber the Human operated ones.) A jury that are majority self-driving car users, vs a jury that is majority human operated car users is likely to render very different verdicts regarding "human operated vehicle has tragic collision with autonomous truck."

[TheDrake]

I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying that even with the incentives being what they are, the Regulatory and Liability side of things is going to keep drivers largely safe for at least the next decade, if not longer. And the Liability side is also part of why I think full-scale adoption by commercial trucking will initially lag self-driving cars.

A lot depends on whether they wind up having to settle fewer lawsuits than they currently do - the basic math suggests as soon as the vehicles get in fewer accidents than humans - they win. But of course, it may bring up a higher standard versus their human drivers. Or bigger punitive damages.

If I had to guess, we'll see more ride share applications first, then trucking as you describe, followed by personally owned vehicles. Unless Musk continues to make technology available too soon for passenger vehicles. It will be a long time, maybe forever, before anyone trusts this for hazmat, wide load, and other more challenging freight. Ice road trucking is interesting though.

But the economics will win over. Although it may wind up being more like 50 years than 15. It really depends on the test cases - people still fight against surface trains for being dangerous with human operators, dedicated track, well marked warnings, etc.