Trade Cases

SMU Market Trends: Most Feel Auto Imports Not a Real Threat
Written by Tim Triplett
July 9, 2018
Are imports of motor vehicles and auto parts a threat to the security of the United States? More than three out of four respondents to last week’s Steel Market Update market trends questionnaire say no.
Citing the same argument that it used to justify the tariffs on steel and aluminum under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trump administration contends imports of cars and trucks are a danger to a healthy domestic automotive industry. “Core industries such as automobiles and automotive parts are critical to our strength as a nation,” said the White House.
In late May, President Trump instructed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to investigate whether imports of foreign-made vehicles and parts pose a threat to U.S. automakers, and thus to national security. The administration reportedly is considering tariffs of 25 percent, up from the current 2.5 percent. Public hearings on the proposal, which faces strong opposition from both inside and outside the auto sector, are set for July 19-20 in Washington.
Only 24 percent of the steel industry executives polled by SMU support the administration’s plan for automotive tariffs. Following is a sampling of respondents’ comments:
• “Stupefyingly ridiculous!”
• “None of this is justified, but it’s still happening.”
• “The current administration is determined to rebalance trade deficits and will do whatever they feel they need to do in order to achieve this—at the expense of all common sense and with disregard for the negative long-term high-cost effects on the U.S. economy.”
• “Ford, GM and Fiat also import parts from other countries for their assembly plants. The Big Three could end up as collateral damage.”
• “Yes, it’s justified on cars made outside of the United States. Especially luxury cars. Tax them more; they are bought by the wealthy anyway.”

Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest in Trade Cases

Leibowitz: Trump takes aim at trade with a tariff ‘punt gun’
The tariffs are intended to produce more investment and jobs in US manufacturing. But first, there will be a cosmic change, potentially wiping out millions of jobs in the short run. While administration officials will no doubt cringe at the comparison, it reminds me of the effort to undercut fossil fuels production to address climate change. Led by Democrats, the effort was to destroy fossil fuels so that renewable energy sources would have more space to grow. The result: inflation and electoral defeat in 2024.

Price: Expect new trade shocks as Trump’s ‘reciprocal’ tariff negotiations continue
President Trump cast a wide net with the proposed, reciprocal tariffs. The negotiating stage will be critical to determining the success of his strategy. And for those suffering tariff whiplash, don’t expect the pace of change to slow down just because the reciprocal tariffs are entering a negotiating phase.

SMU Survey: Less support seen for Trump tariff policies
Meanwhile, an increasing number think it's too early to say whether the penalties are going to bring more manufacturing to the US.

CRU: USW seeks exclusion for Canada from Trump’s tariffs
The union is also urging stronger enforcement against countries such as China which break trade rules, and a coordinated Canada-US strategy to protect union jobs across the North America

Price on trade: A lot happened last week – and it wasn’t all about tariffs
Should foreign investment be allowed to reshape the American steel Industry? Not to be lost in the recent on-again-off-again tariff frenzy, Nippon Steel’s proposed takeover of U.S. Steel has also found itself in President Trump’s crosshairs when it comes to trade and industrial policy. Nippon Steel initially announced its nearly $15-billion bid for U.S. Steel […]