Free Trade

Trump's Tariffs Are Making Colombian Windows Great Again

A Colombian company is undercutting its U.S. competitors, who have been forced to raise their prices because of tariffs.



A Colombian window manufacturer is taking advantage of President Donald Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum to undercut its American competitors and expand its market share in the United States.

Technoglass, which is based in Barranquilla, Colombia, can export finished windows to the United States without paying tariffs on them. Domestic window makers, by contrast, have to pay Trump's 10 percent tariff on imported aluminum and 25 percent tariff on imported steel—two crucial components of window frames. Those higher production costs for American companies have given Technoglass "a leg up," says Bloomberg's Ezra Fieser. Technoglass COO Christian Daes says the company plans to make the most of the situation by keeping prices low and expanding sales in the U.S. "I love Trump for that," Daes tells Fieser.

Since tariffs are taxes on imported goods, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that they have punished American companies and benefited those located elsewhere, which don't have to pay the taxes. That's why some American companies, such as iconic motorcycle manufacturer Harley Davidson, are considering moving some operations overseas in response to Trump's tariffs.

Counterintuitively (but not unexpectedly), tariffs that were supposed to protect American businesses end up punishing American businesses. Steel- and aluminum-consuming industries bear the brunt of the tariffs, but even one of the largest domestic suppliers of aluminum is now seeking relief from Trump's tariffs. It turns out that even aluminum producers have to buy steel and aluminum products.

The winners in Trump's trade policy, then, are not U.S. businesses or consumers but companies in other countries. Motorcycles made in Poland and windows made in Colombia are only part of that story. When retaliatory tariffs from China targeted American soybean farmers, it was Brazil that emerged as the real winner of the Sino-American trade war. Brazilian soybean exports have increased dramatically in the months since China slapped tariffs on America, and Brazilian farmers are now tearing out other crops to plant more soy.

While uncertainty about future U.S. trade policy has slowed investment in additional aluminum output in the U.S., Reuters reports that China is set to expand production in response to high prices created, in part, by the American tariffs. China already produces more than half of the world's aluminum, Reuters notes, and with Trump disrupting aluminum supply chains in the United States, Trump's main trade adversary could be "the main beneficiary" of the trade war.

Any effort to raise trade barriers will create more losers than winners, but there will always been some industries, businesses, and countries that benefit from the shake-up. The fact that America seems to be losing Trump's trade war might, eventually, get the president to reconsider his course of action.

Then again, Bloomberg notes, Colombia-based Technoglass has provided windows for Trump Tower in Hollywood, Florida, and Trump Palace in Sunny Isles, Florida. So it seems like everything is working out just fine for the president.

NEXT: Ex-Librarian Sentenced to Write a Book Report (in Jail) After Spending $89,000 in Public Funds on Game of War

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, Aretha Franklin died.

    I presume that Reason will do an article paying its respects.

    1. Why would you post about Aretha’s death in an article about windows? That’s so racist.

      1. I’m pretty sure she was on OS X.

  2. Welcome to your daily trade anecdote.

    1. Yeah, heaven forbid that a libertarian magazine point out the detriments of unlibertarian principles. I mean… geesh.

      1. Libertarians have no problem with Government per se.

        Getting the USA from managed trade to free trade would be Libertarian acceptable.

        1. I’d take it further even. There’s nothing about libertarianism that would make it specifically an anti-tariff philosophy. The libertarian anti-tax position is generally neutral about the type of taxation. And tariffs as a revenue generation mechanism are actually preferable to many libertarians over income taxation.

          And finally, as you say, as a matter of trade policy, this may in fact lead to freer trade. I’m skeptical, but it’s at least plausible.

          Thus, the daily tariff anecdote is simply annoying, as anecdotes do not make an argument.

          1. This is just another type of business negotiation. Not exactly the same.

            Are Some American importers and exporter hurt by higher costs to do business because of trade restrictions and trade restriction negotiations? Yes.

            Are a company’s suppliers and customers hurt when a business plays hardball and refuses to negotiate some business deal that lowers prices or costs? Yes.

          2. Empirical arguments rest on data, and what are data but a bunch of anecdotes?

          3. These are very good points. Nice comment.

            The problem with tariffs was never that tariffs are uniquely evil, and we distort the underlying liberty issue by presenting them as such. It’s just another tax, incentivizing the misallocation of resources and tax avoidance, as taxes do.

            Of course, taxation is theft and slavers should fuck right off. But there’s nothing about tariffs that make them extra-special taxes built from supercharged badness.

            The main thing is to keep the main thing, the main thing.

    2. You know what’s even better than Colombian windows? Venezuelan windows. They have excellent ventilation properties.

  3. T Tariff Terror!

  4. See, America does prosper. South America.

    1. MSAGA

      1. That is Trump’s 2020 election slogan.

        After all, the illegals and South Americans in the USA will be a major voting block.

        1. Good. I urge them to read and listen to audio translations of the libertarian party platform in their own languages. Green card holders are allowed to donate money to the LP, and I make sure they know that.

          1. Unless the LP changes, Trump is doing more Libertarian-ish things than many ‘Libertarians’.

            There is a serious problem with the LP, if Trump is accomplishing more Libertarian-ish things than people that are power players in the LP.

            1. The “power players” in the LP can’t do anything if they don’t actually, you know, hold power? You could say Elizabeth Warren is actually doing more for the libertarian cause than the LP too, it’s a true statement by fiat, but that doesn’t actually transmit any useful information.

              1. Trump is doing great things for the libertarian cause in some areas. There is no denying that he is doing more to reduce regulatory state than any President since the regulatory state came into being. He is also by appointing 2nd Amendment friendly judges doing a lot for the cause of gun rights. And he is lowering taxes which is always good for freedom. And Trump is taking concrete steps to reduce mass incarceration and reduce the drug war.

                Trump is bad for the libertarian cause when it comes to opening the border and the freedom to buy things from overseas.

                Whether Trump is good or bad for Libertarians depends on how you value the issues he has been good and bad. If you are like reason and value open borders and trade more than you value gun rights and reducing the regulatory state, Trump has been very bad. If you value those issues differently, he has been pretty good.

                1. In the interest of conversation, my personal priorities are:

                  1. The national debt

                  2. Civil liberties/privacy rights

                  3. Regulatory reform

                  4. Trade

                  5. Foreign policy

                  Borders doesn’t even make it on the list for me. But I would say, SO FAR, Trump has been terrible in items 1, 2 and 4, he has had a mixed bag (leaning towards successful) on item 5, and has been a homerun on item 3.

                  1. I don’t see how Trump has been terrible about 2. I honestly don’t see how he has done anything to justify an opinion one way or another on that.

                    And as far as the debt goes, Trump doesn’t set the budget Congress does. Congress passed the budget. The only way you could blame Trump and not congress for the budget is if Trump had vetoed a budget and forced Congress to spend more. Trump has done nothing of the sort.

                    1. @John, for the budget, I would have liked to have seen more fight from him. In addition, he has said he doesn’t want to do anything of note with entitlements which is the by far largest source of the problem. My grading in this regard is more about my expectations going forward and less about what he has done, which may not be exactly fair, but hey, that’s my line of thinking and I don’t think it is unreasonable.

                  2. I was hoping Trump would attack numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 with a vengeance.

                    #1 is stymied by Congress and they probably would override the veto of Trump anyway. I would have liked more fight on that. As with you, national debt is very important to get down and spending is really the only way.

                    #2 Trump has not really fought the deep state on this. I also think he might actually be doing things behind the scenes and the media doesnt know or refuses to cover it because they are fine with the Nanny-State.

                    #3 Trump is doing awesome. Imagine how much would be cut if Congress would help cut.

                    #5 Trump is not expanding our endless wars much but I wanted him to pull troops back to the USA and pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq quicker.

                    1. I agree with every point here.

  5. TariffTReason at it again.

    1. If they didn’t publish any such reports, you’d howling “citations! Show me!”

      The first one or two, you said “Data is not the plural of anecdote.”

      And now? All you say is “Ho hum.”

      (“You” does not mean just lc1789, I include all you Trump tariff apologists.)

      1. Kewl spin. This is still and tariffs bad article.

        Reason acts like its got reasonable arguments based on facts. Just like the MSM that is full of shit.

        According to Reason refusing to cover any good from the tariffs, the perception is that tariffs are the worse thing ever.

        Americans have caught on to media lying via omission and are not taking it anymore.

        1. You can’t even shoot the messenger, let alone the message. Had a brain vasectomy?

          1. You have no message.

            You yell that nobody is listening to you.

  6. And yet

    The Congressional Research Service estimated that, between March 23 and July 16, the U.S. reaped $1.1 billion and $344.2 million from levies on foreign steel and aluminum, respectively.…..eport.html

    Companies are still finding some way to buy and use the steel profitably or they would not be collecting any money from the tariffs. It is almost as if economies adjust to tariffs like they do to any other taxes and this whole thing is not a simple as reason’s daily trade anecdotes make it appear.

    1. 1965 freedom riders found a way around police beatings, therefore the beatings aren’t bad.

      1775 smugglers found a way around the Intolerable Acts, therefore the Intolerable Acts aren’t bad.

      Jews found a way to rebel in Warsaw, therefore the Nazis and Communists aren’t bad.

      What a sorry way to excuse incompetency and failure.

      1. Thanks for begging the question. Why are tariffs the same thing as Jim Crow and police beatings? Why are they incompetence and failure rather than a good idea? That is kind of the entire issue, isn’t it?

        Come back when you are prepared to actually debate the issue.

        1. How about you come back with some understanding of “not so bad” and what an analogy is?

          Pathetic, but I expect nothing less from anyone bragging about how Trump’s tariffs are MAGA.

          1. Maybe the truth is that they are not so bad and neither as good as their proponents claim nor as bad as their critics claim? Whether tariffs are good or bad depends upon your definition of the terms. They are nothing but a tax on imported goods. Like all taxes, the effects of them depends on their amount and what they affect. Not all tariffs are created equally just like not all taxes are created equally. And like all economic policies, there are winners and losers created by it. Why consumers’ interests are somehow morally superior to producers’ interests is beyond me. Neither is more or less legitimate than the other.

            If you want to say these tariffs are a bad idea, fine. But make a fact-based argument and explain why. Don’t just claim that every tariff is Smoot Hawley and has catastrophic effects or that only harm can come from it. That is just not true. And making such claims just discredits the case for free markets. Lying never helps your cause.

            1. Whether tariffs are good or bad depends upon your definition of the terms.

              No it depends whether you are the crony getting the seen benefits or the vast majority of the population getting screwed by the unseen costs. That you are unaware of this shwos how pathetic your economic ignorance is.

              1. There were already crony benefits pre-Trump.

                There is a slight pain while negotiating lower international trade restrictions.

              2. No it depends whether you are the crony getting the seen benefits or the vast majority of the population getting screwed by the unseen costs.

                And consumers can’t be cronies? You don’t like tariffs, so anyone who benefits is a “crony”. That logic applies equally well to someone who does like tariffs. You want to buy your cheap shit from China. Good for you. Why you think that is some morally compelling interest is something you can’t seem to explain.

                If you want to claim your principles demand the freedom to buy from China, fine. That is a perfectly reasonable point. That point, however, says nothing about the effect of tariffs on an economy. It only says that we should not have them as a moral matter regardless of their effects. It just avoids the issue at hand and begs the question.

                1. So now cutting taxes on people makes them cronies?
                  Removing restrictions makes people cronies?

                  China is going to do what China is going to do. Taxing certain Americans to try and force them to change is putting the good of the country over individual rights. Fuck off, slaver.

                  Tariffs in general are distortionary. These tariffs in particularly are designed about as bad as they could be. Taxing intermediate goods, and having the tariffs cover most of the world at once is terrible. Empowering unelected bureaucrats to pick and choose who gets an exemption, with little information on the process, is worse.

    2. To pound the same thing over and over again:

      Tariffs are an internal tax, they reward cronies, they decrease efficiency, they are a drag on the economy.

      These tariffs in particular are arbitrary, capricious, and unpredictable, which is the last thing any business wants from a government.

      Every excuse you MAGA fools make for these tariffs just shows your economic illiteracy, your lack of principles, your craven corruption, and general lack of intelligence.

      Fuck off, slavers. Keep your goddam government hands off my private dealings. Learn the difference between individualism and socialism.

      1. Yes Tariffs are a tax. You are absolutely right. If you object to all taxes, then you object to government and are an anarchist. That is your right but in that case your objections to tariffs go much deeper than whether or not they are a good idea as economic policy and really beyond the scope of this debate.

        If you are not and do not object to taxes and government in some form, then either explain why tariffs are any worse than other taxes or give up on the histrionics.

        1. Well that’s a first step, admitting they are a tax. Now try admitting they are a tax on the people they are supposed to help instead of the dastardly Chinese enemy.

          1. Now try admitting they are a tax on the people they are supposed to help instead of the dastardly Chinese enemy.

            And income taxes are a tax on people who work for a living. What is your point?

          2. Taxes help build roads, a military, and courts.

            You have a problem with THIS tax. Not all the other managed trade taxes before Trump though.

            1. Gods, I’m sure disagreeing with you is not going to end mildly, except you’ve made the Muh Roads argument, and this is a libertarian website, which means you basically sent up the flag, man.

              Point of order: Road taxes increase the cost of roads by inserting an expensive, inefficient, and frequently incompetent middleman between the companies which build roads and the customers paying for roads.

              *girds loins, puts up dukes*

              1. Road taxes increase the cost of roads by inserting an expensive, inefficient, and frequently incompetent middleman between the companies which build roads and the customers paying for roads.
                This exactly.

                1. Of course, government building roads is more expensive. My point was that is a Constitutional and common use for government taxes.

                  Technically many roads in the USA are built by contractors and not government agencies. Fine difference but refusing to build roads unless they got a good low bid would help. The lowest bid for a road just means that all bidders pad the lowest bid…because government.

                  Government agencies do pay the contractors, so in the end- inefficiency like you mention.

      2. We should work toward free trade which is what Trump is doing.

        Otherwise we have pre-Trump trade restrictions and the slavers had their hands on your private dealings.

        1. Now we have more restrictions. The slavers are winning.

          1. The slaving democrats are losing. Which is why they get so upset.

    3. “It is almost as if economies adjust to tariffs like they do to any other taxes”

      Nobody is arguing that they don’t, at least at the macro level. The argument is the inefficiency caused by market distortions, and the victims at the micro level that can no longer compete given the market distortions.

      That, and to point out the hypocrisy that tariffs actually hurt the very job growth they are intended to support.

      Eric’s doing a fine job. Keep the “anecdotes” coming!

      1. John’s got his MAGA cap tilted so far down that he can’t see past the end of his nose.

        1. To be fair, you and Leo have your TDS scarves pulled extra tight cutting off blood circulation to your brains.

          1. No, Trump’s done a lot of good and is far better than Her Highness. You who think Trump is all good are the deranged ones.

            1. I dont think Trump has done all good.

              In fact there are a few things that I send emails to Trump about.

              One is signing the bloated budget. I think he should have refused to sign the budgets.

              I believe he wants to tackle trade restrictions first since Congress will fight him on the budget. Trump wants to use the political capital from a trade restriction lowering against Congressmen to get them to lower the budget. Just a guess though.

        2. No. I am making reasonable arguments about how tariffs actually work. Do yourself a favor and re read everything I have written. Never once do I say that these tarriffs are good or bad or even give an opinion on the subject. I merely point out that reason’s claims are wrong.

          But since you really can’t refute what I am saying, go ahead and pretend this is all about TRUMP. God forbid you actually think about something instead of emoting.

          1. Your arguments are only reasonable if you hate economic reality.

            You haven’t responded yet to a single economic argument. You are so economically illiterate that you can’t see them. You are an astronomer reading goat entrails because you haven’t got a telescope and they are the next best substitute your pathetic mind can come up with.

            1. As John said, he is not picked a pro- or anti- tariff side. He is pointing out the utter ridiculousness of Reasons positions.

            2. our arguments are only reasonable if you hate economic reality.

              Why is that? I have explained multiple times why tariffs are not catastrophic and economies adjust to them. You haven’t explained anything. You just keep making the same unexplained and unsupported assertions. They are no more persuasive the second time than they were the first.

      2. Nobody is arguing that they don’t, at least at the macro level. The argument is the inefficiency caused by market distortions, and the victims at the micro level that can no longer compete given the market distortions.

        Yes, they are. Every time Reason comes on and writes an article like this one that assumes that the cost of a tariff is whatever the actual rate of the tariff is, they are pretending that markets don’t adjust. If you want to admit the truth that markets adjust, stop making hysterical claims about the negative effect of tariffs and be honest about what is going on.

        1. And when I pointed out several adjustments made to government fuckups, you wrote them off as unrelated.

          Try addressing the actual arguments and you might gain a little respect.

          1. And when I pointed out several adjustments made to government fuckups, you wrote them off as unrelated.

            And that claim is irrational. First, it begs the question of whether a tariff is a fuck up at all. Second, it concedes the point that the effects of these things are not a simple as reason pretends. Moreover, there are benefits to tariffs. Domestic producers do benefit. The question is whether that benefit is greater than the harm caused to consumers. You have done nothing to explain your answer to that question.

    4. It is a supply/demand curve. Not a supply/demand cliff.

      1. Hence the negotiation to reduce or end trade restrictions.

        More and more trade restrictions just got piled on pre-Trump.

        1. He could unilaterally drop American tariffs any time and win for Americans, but he’d rather make a few cronies happy and fuck up everyone else.

          Here’s a direct challenge: try explaining why unilaterally dropping American tariffs doesn’t get most of what you claim to want but will never get.

          1. Why would Trump offer to end all US trade restrictions then if all he wanted to make some pals of his happy?

            Why would Trump run for president and endure a faster aging process if he only wanted to make cronies happy?

            Why would Trump endure the expected media hailstorm of lies and revenge when he beat Hillary if it was only to make some cronies happy?

            Maybe, just maybe, you can admit that Trump wants to help Americans and himself by rolling back the Leftist tide.

      2. Sure, but if an industry receives a price shock, demand drops off dramatically. The fact that it hasn’t, is pretty strong evidence that these tariffs are not sufficient to create a price shock.

        1. Really? Reasons posts articles showing American companies going out of business or firing workers, you complain it’s just anecdotes and ho hum. Doesn’t fit your story, does it? Must be fake news.

          1. Reason keeps posting a bunch of anecdotes. It is a huge economy. You can find an anecdote that shows anything. The actual data shows nothing of the sort. The economy is booming, employment is way up, productivity is up, inflation is still in check and we are still importing things with people just paying the tariffs. The actual data is completely contrary to all of reason’s claims. So, reason goes out and finds anecdotes because they have no data to back up their claims.

            Maybe the negative effects of all of this haven’t fully manifested themselves. Perhaps the economy will drop off a cliff some quarter the way reason is predicting. If it does and the data shows that tariffs were to blame, then we can conclude the tariffs were as bad as reason claims. But until that happens, anecdotes don’t make their case. And beyond that, what if it doesn’t. What if we have all of these tariffs and the economy continues to do better than it did before them. At what point are you willing to admit you are wrong and re-examine your views? I am not saying become a believer in protectionism, but at least admit that perhaps this issue is more complex than you realized? Is there any point at which the data could ever cause you to even think about your views on this?

            1. John, Reason did their obligatory single articles on low unemployment, high black employment, and a economy that gets stronger by the day.

              Its back to butt sex, forcing bakers to bake cakes, TDS, Mexicans, and dope.

    5. Companies are still finding some way to buy and use the steel profitably or they would not be collecting any money from the tariffs. It is almost as if economies adjust to tariffs like they do to any other taxes and this whole thing is not a simple as reason’s daily trade anecdotes make it appear

      Companies are still finding some way to buy and use labor profitably or they wouldn’t be collecting any money from payroll taxes. It’s almost as if economies adjust to the minimum wage increase like they do to any other regulations and this whole thing is not as simple as Reason’s Seattle/San Francisco anecdotes make it appear.

      Why don’t they do stories about the people helped by the minimum wage increase?

      Anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal. Some companies are hurt and some are helped by any economic policy. The stories of the ones being hurt are no more helpful in judging the policy than the stories of those being helped.

      That, too.

  7. ” it was Brazil that emerged as the real winner of the Sino-American trade war’

    The one that is still in progress?

    Make no mistake I hate the tariffs, but this framing is stupid, no one has “won” anything yet.

    1. Yes. And I am going to go out on a limb here and say that China isn’t the only place US companies can buy steel from. Reason acts like the entire world economy is comprised of the US and China and any tariff put on Chinese goods necessarily raises the prices of those goods by the amount of the tariff in the US.

      1. Reason acts like the entire world economy is comprised of the US and China

        says the clown who thinks there is such a thing as a trade deficit with just China, who thinks Trump’s tariffs are aimed at just China, who hasn’t got a clue about the simplest economic matters.

      2. From one of the links:
        “[Tecnoglass] has gained 22 percent this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. U.S.-based rivals Apogee Enterprises Inc. and PPG Industries Inc. are up 7.6 percent and down 8 percent, respectively.”

        There must be a reason for this little “anecdote” beyond your claim that US companies can just buy from somewhere besides China.

        1. I am sure there is lots of reasons. How much of the reason is due to the tariff is an open question. Beyond that, even if it is all do to the tariff, so what? Anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal. Some companies are hurt and some are helped by any economic policy. The stories of the ones being hurt are no more helpful in judging the policy than the stories of those being helped. Show me the overall effect on the economy of these things and then we can judge.

      3. In other words, the tariffs are ok to the extent they are ineffective and the cargo ships just change their courses a bit.

        Sounds like the logic to uphold various gun control laws.

        1. Hit the big fish (China and EU) first and the rest of the nations will fall in line and lower trade restrictions.

          Plus, it shows that the USA does not need China and the EU. This will lead to quicker begging for the USA to stop pressuring them to lower trade restrictions.

          1. You show your economic ignorance with that “the USA does not need China and the EU” crap. Business is between people and companies, not countries. You Trump tariff apologists show that all the time when you talk about the fictional US-China trade deficit.

            It also shows your appalling lack of principles over individualism. It’s just a word you can freely ignore when it doesn’t suit your rant.

            1. Americans and American business doesnt deal with Chinese individuals in business. They deal with the Chinese Communist Party one way or another.

              You can think otherwise, but you would be fooling yourself.

              Only the Chinese Commies and the US Government can get China to lower its trade restrictions.

        2. In other words, the tariffs are ok to the extent they are ineffective and the cargo ships just change their courses a bit.

          If the point is to force China to work with us on North Korea or open up their markets more, then yes they are very effective. Since when is protecting domestic industry the only purpose of trade policy?

          We have the largest market in the world. It is completely retarded to say that we can never leverage access to that market for larger strategic purposes or to open up markets more for our own companies. And that is exactly what you and reason are claiming.

          1. *Americans* are the largest market, not the US government. *People* buy and trade and sell.

            1. Sure they are. And they elect a government that has the authority to control who from overseas accesses that. You really are not making much of a point here.

              1. Libertarians know that the government should not have such control.

                Democrats and Republicans have elected this authoritarian government.

                1. Libertarians believe that the government should have no such control. Good for them. But believing it doesn’t make it a compelling argument for anyone who doesn’t.

    2. Brazil has looter tariffs McKinley would be proud of, and more income taxes and domestic excise robbery than you can shake a crooked stick at. A mafia of election judges subsidizes about 33 looter parties and carefully blocks all attempts to organize an LP. Portugal’s LP pressed for and got complete decriminalization of all enjoyable substances nearly 15 years ago. There has been a brain drain exodus of productive Brazilians to that European nation ever since. Blank ballots typically win first place in Brazil’s large city elections, so if a libertarian party were legalized there, Brazil could improve quickly.

  8. Before the income tax was imported from the 1848 Communist Manifesto, 10% tariffs were what funded governments. Protectionists like Morrill (of the 1860 Tariff of Abominations) referred to the 10% tariff as “Free Trade.” If we are to roll back the last vestiges of Altrurian communist looting, we might as well recognize that we were better off with Free Trade than with communist taxation or protective tariffs. The hidden costs of the 16th and 18th Amendments (and accomplices such as the Harrison Act) are kept hidden by dishonest historians. The Income tax as an asset-forfeiture weapon against yeast and sugar wrecked the economy in 1929-33, and again (with different plant leaves) in 1987 and 2007. Even the flash crashes revealed the same thing until suppressed by coercing securities markets. Free Trade without communism is a 10% tariff, and all nations improve to the extent that they shed communist legislation.

    1. Check out the Georgist

  9. I just looked up Columbia’s prime exports:

    (1) Hot women

    (2) Drugs

    (3) Raw materials (primarily coca leaves for drugs)

    (4) Bright yellow shirts

    (5) Drugs

    1. Surprised kidnapping didn’t make the list, honestly

      1. My apologies to any Colombians that might take offense

        1. They’re so high on drugs, they wont care.

          If they do, some other Colombians will kidnap them.

  10. The Dotard is telling his cultists to boycott Harley Davidson.

    Really, he couldn’t be more like Bernie Sanders.

    1. Or President Obama, which is the real irony here

      1. Obama actually finished a massive free trade agreement that Congress shat on (both parties) because JERBS! and two idiot populists like Teump/Sanders.

        1. I’m talking about calling for a boycott against a company for not being “patriotic” which President Obama accused Walgreens of being, just to name one company.

          But, good job exposing yourself as a partisan

        2. TPP was never free trade. Not even close.

  11. Bernie Sander is a Communist and does not think there should be more than a single state version of motorcycle.

    1. Trump applause for the boycott of Harley Davidson.

      1. Lefty applause for the boycott of HD.

      2. Harley is already going to have massive financial trouble when they try and sell their electric motorcycle.

        Only pussies will right that.

        Someone did say that the meek shall inherit the Earth.

  12. Once again the Trumptarians are here to explain how this helps US businesses. Thank you all for your inciteful commentary.

    1. It does. It just doesn’t help every business. Whether that is a good idea or not is kind of the entire question. But, hey lets not have an intelligent discussion about this. Thinking is really hard. Let’s just yell TRUMPTARD and TRADE WAR. That sounds like something much more your speed.

      1. Awesome. Let’s have an intelligent conversation. You start by showing one reputable economist who thinks restricting trade is good for firms as a whole.

        1. He notes that trade deficits caused by free trade destroy manufacturing jobs: the increase in the “value of the dollar will lead to larger trade deficits and fewer manufacturing jobs”. Moreover, he admits that if manufacturing industry recovers through protectionists measures, skilled jobs would be created, even if they would be fewer and different from the manufacturing jobs lost in recent decades: “Advanced manufacturing technologies, including robots, mean that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be placed in different locations from the jobs lost”
          Joseph Stiglitz

          1. Really? Stiglitz?


            Really, anything from here:

            1. Oh stiglitz is a georgist and he supports restricting trade as brandybuck requested.

              Guy seems like a raging socialist to me but I just wanted to provide a name.

        2. Nothing says intelligent discussion like immediately appealing to authority.

          Beyond that, every economist says exactly what I am saying. They just differ on whether it is a “good idea” or not. Economics doesn’t answer value questions like good or bad. Stop treating like it is a religion.

          1. They can answer the economic effects. They can answer the question if it can meet its stated goals.

    2. Where would we be without people like you and chemjeff to whine about people?

  13. Free trade via Trump plan. MAGA!

    1. We’ll tariff our way to free trade!

      “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” – George W Bush

      1. Your First mistake was quoting BOoosh for anything, except “Mission Accomplished”.

        Your Second mistake was offering no concrete examples of how a country can get a Communist Dictatorship to do anything they dont want to do or have to do because of economics.

        1. Easy. You don’t.
          They do what they do. Companies can choose to sell to them under their rules or not.

          The US can remove all tariffs tomorrow. It would lead to lower prices for goods, making people richer. It would lower the value of the dollar (up sharply against the Yuan, offsetting the tariffs) making our exports more competitive worldwide. It would make the economy more efficient. The savings from efficiency could be used to compensate the ones who are losing their protections.

          1. No thanks. I want free trade for all parties or really low trade restrictions to begood for America.

            1. Well then you should be for what we had before Trump vs what we have now.

              Before Trump we didn’t have the Chinese retaliatory tariffs (bad for our producers).

              Before Trump we didn’t have high tariffs (taxes) on imported goods (bad for our consumers).

  14. Now if only he can make Colombian coke great again… it truly will be the 80’s all over again.

  15. Foreigners need jobs, too. Or do you only care about white Americans, Reason?

    1. We’ll build a wall around our trade and make China pay for it!

      1. China plans to expand their Great Wall and make Americans pay for it.

  16. So, clearly Trump needs to levy a tariff on this company. Individually.

  17. Since the tariffs went into effect, the dollar is up about 8-9% against both the Euro and Renmibi.

    That about equals the aluminum tariff. Foreign aluminum is about the same price as before the tariffs. American goods overseas are now 8-9% more expensive.

    The trade deficit has widened.

  18. Chanandler provides no citations, so bullshit as usual.

  19. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.