Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 10, 2018 at 13:16 answer added Joe timeline score: 4
S Mar 9, 2018 at 20:00 history suggested Federico CC BY-SA 3.0
tag, plus removed unnecessary spaces
Mar 9, 2018 at 15:36 comment added Giskard @Henry Post answers as answers so they can be voted on!
Mar 9, 2018 at 8:52 review Suggested edits
S Mar 9, 2018 at 20:00
Mar 8, 2018 at 18:59 answer added nathanwww timeline score: -2
Mar 8, 2018 at 18:39 comment added Henry Essentially because the United States has previously bound itself to charge no more than (for example) 2.6% tariffs on ordinary aluminium from other WTO members and in fact often charges less, such as 0% on the imports from its largest supplier Canada due to NAFTA. EU tariffs on imports from the US and elsewhere are similarly bound by previous WTO deals. The reason given of "national security" for a 10% tariff on aluminium is seen as implausible by most commentators, and instead it looks more like Trump wanting to start a trade war by ripping up previous rules.
Mar 8, 2018 at 17:57 history migrated from skeptics.stackexchange.com (revisions)
Mar 8, 2018 at 17:37 comment added Ben Barden I suspect, though, that if you look around you can find all sorts of specific people making specific claims around the idea that tariffs will destroy the US economy, and must be avoided at all costs. Some of those will likely be made by notable people or groups. If you wanted to bring one of those here to challenge, that would be an appropriate question for the format.
Mar 8, 2018 at 16:50 comment added Denis Stallings This may be better on Politics.SE or Economics.SE. There isn't a skeptical claim here.
Mar 8, 2018 at 16:48 history asked blacksmith37 CC BY-SA 3.0