Il l'a dit lui-même qu'il faisait juste du copier coller trouvé sur d'autres forums. Y'a aucune recherche là-dedans. D'ailleurs c'est toujours l'argument qui sort, faire des recherches. Mais ça vient toute des mêmes forums.Quelqu'un qui base son opinion sur ses propres recherches et non ce que la télé dit?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/12/goldman-trump-tariff-costs-fall-entirely-on-us-businesses-households.html?__source=twitter%7CmainGoldman Sachs said the cost of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump last year against Chinese goods has fallen “entirely” on American businesses and households, with a greater impact on consumer prices than previously expected.
The bank said in a note that consumer prices are higher partly because Chinese exporters have not lowered their prices to better compete in the US market.
Trump has repeatedly — and inaccurately — claimed that China will pay for tariffs imposed by the U.S.
“One might have expected that Chinese exporters of tariff-affected goods would have to lower their prices somewhat to compete in the US market, sharing in the cost of the tariffs,” Goldman said.
“However, analysis at the extremely detailed item level in the two new studies shows no decline in the prices (exclusive of tariffs) of imported goods from China that faced tariffs.”
In addition, US producers have “opportunistically” hiked prices in response to protection from Chinese competitors, the bank said.
Goldman also said the risk of a final round of tariffs on the roughly $300 billion of remaining imports from China has now risen to 30%.
Further escalation of the trade war could also result in a 0.4% hit to GDP, and if trade tensions instigated a sell-off in the equity market, the growth impact could worsen, Goldman said.
“Our baseline expectation is that the U.S. and China will strike a deal later this year. We think this would come in the form of a gradual, staggered reduction in tariffs on a last-in, first-out schedule,” the bank said.
“There is, however, a risk of further escalation,” Goldman said.
Investors have been grappling with whether the trading relationship between the U.S. and China will actually worsen.
The most recent round of trade talks, which ended on Friday with no final agreement, was overshadowed by President Donald Trump’s decision to more than double tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods, from 10% to 25%.
White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday said that Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will likely meet at the June G-20 summit in Japan. He said that he expects China to retaliate against the U.S., and acknowledged that the U.S. will pay for China tariffs.
Goldman Sachs said the cost of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump last year against Chinese goods has fallen “entirely” on American businesses and households, with a greater impact on consumer prices than previously expected.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/12/goldman-trump-tariff-costs-fall-entirely-on-us-businesses-households.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain
Great claim, did he give evidence or details?
If you think Goldman Sachs is a person, you don't know much about the economy.
Is that where all the gold is stored?
If you think Goldman Sachs is a person, you don't know much about the economy.
Geez nitpik. Let me rephrase to make you happy, did the bank give evidence or details? Maybe this time you can provide an answer?
Why don't you call them if it's that important to you? Let us know their answer.
Le même genre de réponse que : you can google it.
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, was directed by the State Department not to appear Tuesday for a scheduled interview with House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
State Department blocks ambassador from testifying in Trump impeachment inquiry
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1063636
Accountability and transparency in government!
I'm no expert on "draining swamps" but I doubt ordering people not to testify before elected officials is the best way to go about it.
If somebody is looking to get you fired, would you make easy for them to fire you, or make their life miserable?
LOL@ accountability and transparency. EVERY government got something to hide.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
IDK. Am I the president of a Banana republic or the "leader of the free world"?
Did I take any Oaths, like this one?
Is it my job to uphold the constitution? You know, the system that effectively lays out the framework and scope of government?
Do I get to disagree with the constitution I pledged to uphold if it doesn't suit my purposes anymore?
I guess I'd need to consider these factors.