Quin_Dub wrote: » In relation to the Solar energy tariffs , the consensus from the industry is that they will cost something in the order of 23,000 jobs. A very small minority of the jobs in the renewal sector are in the manufacture side of things , most are in Installation/Service etc. so the tariffs will increase the price of the average installation thereby reducing volumes , hitting jobs.. Or in simpler terms - Making people more likely to stick with the Fossil fuel based solutions they have right now.. So - Cui Bono ??
Leroy42 wrote: » Unless it's Carrier of course! What this tariff means is that the working American will now have to pay more for the standard products. And that US companies are protected from external competition, therefore reducing the need to compete. The only winners here will be US companies profits.
listermint wrote: » Coal = Good, republican american jobs Solar = Bad lefty googley california type jobs booo. Id assume the methodology is actually as basic as that.
Pepefrogok wrote: » It's just the same things the EU putting tariffs on Chinese steel only on this occasion its another opportunity to slam trump.
Leroy42 wrote: » That may well be true, but it is not the argument you are trying to make. You are saying that Trump is correct to place tariffs on the basis on the Chinese giving state handouts to solar panel producers. And that that is wrong. So I showed you an example of Trump doing exactly that, and that was sold as America First. Why do you think there is a difference? I am not slamming anyone, I am merely questioning your position.
Pepefrogok wrote: » Sorry, you gave an example of trump giving state aid to an American company? Where?
Leroy42 wrote: » Carrier! I mean come on, you even included it in the post you quoted from me.
Pepefrogok wrote: » Did trump give illegal state aid to carrier?
Carrier to get up to $7m in state aid from jobs deal with Trump
Noel82 wrote: » How does it feel to be wrong for 2 years straight? :pac: Garbage speculation and hysteria pandering.
Leroy42 wrote: » Sorry I don't understand? 2 years?
Leroy42 wrote: » Is it illegal, well not in the US, but then I guess it is not illegal in China either. Is i against WTO rules, the ones you seem to have hung your argument on? Yes, they are exactly the same. How can you not have looked this up already?https://www.ft.com/content/3a5c846f-be21-3570-98f4-2503f762d2da Right, so now that you are aware of what Trump has actually done, do you still stand by you position that he is right to start a potential trade war, and cost Americans more money on the cost of the products.
Noel82 wrote: » Unfair comment, I deleted it before you responded. It's just I see this constant speculation/hysteria in the media and it irks me. In fairness to you you've been pretty fair overall so undeserved. I don't think the possibility of an all out trade war is likely. These new texts are pretty interesting. Apparently the FBI "lost" the ones right up to the day the Mueller investigation was opened. Comical timing. Strzok talking about Mueller investigation, so there's at least one more person who has the same gut feeling. https://twitter.com/SenRonJohnson/status/955868725600800769
Pepefrogok wrote: » Sorry your linknis behind a pay wall, If you give me a link showing trump has, by WTO rules, gave illegal state aid to carrier you will truly influence me, it won't be a waste of your time and I would appreciate it.
demfad wrote: » 'carrier' is not a company name: it is a shortened description of 'aircraft carrier'. Nothing interesting about those texts apart from more desperate clutching at straws to undermine the Mueller investigation. Since Strzok made that comment 4 people have been indicted including Mike Flynn. We know he lied about talking sanctions with Russia. We know another indictee Papadoupolous lied about trying to organise a quid pro quo with Russian intelligence for Hillarys emails. We know Don Jr (by his own emails) admitted to holding a meeting with Russians to discuss dirt on Hilary for dropping the Magnitsky sanctions. The chances that Strzok still thinking there is nothing there is zero.
A definition of the term « subsidy » contains three basic elements : (i) a financial contribution (ii) by a government or any public body (iii) which confers a benefit.
Leroy42 wrote: » The link gives you the headline, it should have given you enough to go out and dig for yourself. It seems like a waste of my time as I have given you reasons to question Trumps stance, yet you have provided no evidence for your claims. Google is your friend. But taking you last line in the spirit it is intended here you go.http://fortune.com/2016/11/30/trump-carrier/https://thinkprogress.org/trump-carrier-deal-pay-a-damn-tax-ab3bd64e63d8/https://www.wired.com/2016/11/trump-carrier-plant/http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-carrier-deal-2016-12?r=US&IR=Thttp://indianapublicmedia.org/news/trump-unveil-details-carrier-jobs-deal-109970/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/08/more-layoffs-planned-at-carrier-plant-trump-promised-to-save.html While it is dressed up as a tax incentive, it clearly falls under the definition of a subsidy according to WTO ruleshttps://www.cairn.info/revue-reflets-et-perspectives-de-la-vie-economique-2004-1-page-25.htm The fact that it was given to one company, over any others make it even more like state aid.
Pepefrogok wrote: » Thanks for digging all that out for me, I will read it all and get back to you, I am pretty sure if it broke WTO rules it would be presented as such, I mean it's not like people are holding back on trump! Mabey there is a threshold? I notice the carrier incentives amount to £700,000 per year, I suppose that is chicken feed in relative terms.
Pepefrogok wrote: » China has broken the rules and used state funding for panel makers so they could flood the market and get a global monopoly on a future massively important industry, trump is only doing what Obama did! Obama also put tariffs on Chinese panels! and upholding global trade law. It's a stepped tariff that will reduce pretty quickly and hopefully give American company's the chance to compete.
spacecoyote wrote: » https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/24/trump-border-wall-daca-chuck-schumer-364625 Guess there'll be another shutdown in a couple of weeks time based on this
Leroy42 wrote: » And Trump and the GOP pushing the DNC noses in it that they lost and Crying Schumer is not going to help the situation. Whilst clearly the DNC lost on this, the GOP didn't win much either. A stay is all they got. Whether the DNC can do anything different in a few weeks is up in the air.
jobbridge4life wrote: » I hadn't realised until today that the whole "Cryin' Chuck Schumer" thing came from an occassion when Schumer teared up will discussing the death of his relatives at the hands of the Nazis.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Interesting article here about Pepe the Frog and how it became a symbol of racism and hate. The article includes tweets from The Donald and Junior showing The Donald as Pepe the Frog. Another article here showing the character's transformation into a symbol of racism and the alt-right. Another article here on how the cartoonist who created Pepe the Frog tried to kill off the character as it became a symbol of the far right. These are interesting insights into the reality of the mindset and racist far-right beliefs of people who associate themselves with Pepe the Frog.
Pepefrogok wrote: » Interesting article! I wonder if there is an element of a cartoon frog making grown men cry to it also though? Mabey some people like that?and the over analysing of it, that must surly entertain some? Who knows?
Quin_Dub wrote: » Is it not because he teared up during a Press conference about the impact of the travel ban on Immigrants? Not saying that either reason is anything less than utterly pathetic infantile behaviour , but one is a little bit less repugnant than the other..
