Trump's Tariffs and Possible Trade War

[CrimsonJazz]

Can you imagine the outcry from MAGA World if Obama announced a tariff to protect Hollywood?

Honestly? No. The libertarians, on the other hand.........

 

[Bamaro]

Can you imagine the outcry from MAGA World if Obama announced a tariff to protect Hollywood?

And exactly how do you tariff a movie? Would they just levy a fee on ticket prices for foreign made movies?

Trump's never been good on details!
He called it "a National Security threat"

 

[CrimsonNagus]

Jon Voight met with Trump before president proposed tariffs on foreign film productions

Jon Voight has submitted a “comprehensive plan” to President Donald Trump mapping out ways to boost domestic film and television production, the Oscar-winning actor’s manager announced Monday.

Voight and his manager, Steven Paul, met with Trump over the weekend at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, according to a news release. Voight and Paul pitched their suite of ideas, including federal tax incentives, changes to various tax codes, co-production treaties with foreign countries and infrastructure subsidies for production companies and theater owners.


The meeting took place before Trump called for duties on “any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands,” decrying other nations for offering financial incentives that have lured producers away. Trump's Truth Social post Sunday night was met with a mix of confusion and fear by the entertainment industry.

===========================

Just to avoid confusion: Jon Voigt the actor, not the periodontist.

These are good ideas if you want to try and pull production back to the US but, I guess all Trump heard was other countries steal and immediately jumped to his tariff rant.

The UK and Canada have the most production outside of the US. For many years now Marvel movies have been mostly shot in Atlanta, but the next Avengers (Avengers Doomsday) movie is going to the UK. The next DC movie is going to the UK and, so far, all Star Wars movies have been made in the UK. Currently, the UK offers 40% tax incentives to shoot in their country, so 40 cents on every qualified dollar is returned to the studio. A 300 million dollar movie could only cost $180 million in the UK (that's a simplistic example, not all cost qualify and postproduction may happen in other countries but, you see the issue).

Now, would voters in this country support federal tax incentives for movie/TV production? I'm not sure where I stand. As someone who used to dream about working on movie productions, I hate seeing everything moving to other countries. It is really hurting the below the line workers in this country. So, I think I would support this cause. I'd hate to see the Atlanta area productions die out after they spent the last decade building it up. If that were around back in 1999/2000, I probably would have made a stronger attempt at working in the industry, I just had no interest in movie to California or NYC.

How would tariffs work on movies? Would it include TV and companies like Netflix and Amazon? Productions are considered services more than goods. They are not things that are loaded onto cargo ships and pass through ports. Plus, the US "exports" far more movies/TV shows than it "imports". Foreign movies don't normally make much money in the US but, the big US blockbuster movies make most of their money from foreign box offices. Retaliatory tariffs from countries made at tariffs on their movies could cripple Hollywood.

Something needs to be done to lure productions back to the US, but tariffs are the exact wrong way to go.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

These are good ideas if you want to try and pull production back to the US but, I guess all Trump heard was other countries steal and immediately jumped to his tariff rant.

The UK and Canada have the most production outside of the US. For many years now Marvel movies have been mostly shot in Atlanta, but the next Avengers (Avengers Doomsday) movie is going to the UK. The next DC movie is going to the UK and, so far, all Star Wars movies have been made in the UK. Currently, the UK offers 40% tax incentives to shoot in their country, so 40 cents on every qualified dollar is returned to the studio. A 300 million dollar movie could only cost $180 million in the UK (that's a simplistic example, not all cost qualify and postproduction may happen in other countries but, you see the issue).

Now, would voters in this country support federal tax incentives for movie/TV production? I'm not sure where I stand. As someone who used to dream about working on movie productions, I hate seeing everything moving to other countries. It is really hurting the below the line workers in this country. So, I think I would support this cause. I'd hate to see the Atlanta area productions die out after they spent the last decade building it up. If that were around back in 1999/2000, I probably would have made a stronger attempt at working in the industry, I just had no interest in movie to California or NYC.

How would tariffs work on movies? Would it include TV and companies like Netflix and Amazon? Productions are considered services more than goods. They are not things that are loaded onto cargo ships and pass through ports. Plus, the US "exports" far more movies/TV shows than it "imports". Foreign movies don't normally make much money in the US but, the big US blockbuster movies make most of their money from foreign box offices. Retaliatory tariffs from countries made at tariffs on their movies could cripple Hollywood.

Something needs to be done to lure productions back to the US, but tariffs are the exact wrong way to go.

I think as a country, our government needs to pick the things that are the most productive to keep here and decide which things they don't mind being sent to other countries. But we cannot realistically keep "everything" in this country. We don't have the workforce to do it, nor the infrastructure. We need to pick which "things" we want to attach our wagon to and get those "things" back in our country, with the understanding, we're not going to be able to keep everything here in the States.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

Oh, when I used the word "everything", in that context, I was referring to Hollywood productions. We do have that workforce in this country and they are struggling as more and more productions leave the US.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Oh, when I used the word "everything", in that context, I was referring to Hollywood productions. We do have that workforce in this country and they are struggling as more and more productions leave the US.

I'm all for bringing as much as we can back and if that means the movies, I'm on board with that as well. I'm not sure what the industry is getting elsewhere that they couldn't get here, other than specific scenery. I watched a segment on the news last night about this, and several producers said certain movies have specific scenery that plays a big role in a lot of their movies. Scenery that they cannot replicate in the States. So, I get that aspect of it.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I don’t see that there is a strategy. There certainly isn't an economic justification. I think it's a lot simpler than that. Trump's doing it because he can and because he enjoys the feeling of power.

Two ironies here. First, Trump (or any President) can freely assess or revoke tariffs only because Congress ceded that power in the mid-70s.

So to stop it now, you have to make the case to a federal court (with inevitable appeals, probably ending with SCOTUS) that Congress didn't have the authority to cede the power in the first place. Therefore, the action was invalid from the outset and the President can't in fact levy tariffs without the consent of Congress. Trouble is, you have to make it 50 years after the fact. A bit late, isn't it?

Of course, Congress could rescind and take the power back. But regardless of who's President that would be vetoed instantly -- when's the last time you saw a President of either party stand idly by while a power the office has held for 50+ years is rescinded? -- it would require a veto-proof vote of both the HoR and the Senate. You might as well yell at clouds.

Second, today Democrats are jumping up and down and yelling and stomping and burping about the effects of tariffs on the US economy. They're right.

The irony is that, 50 years ago, they were on the opposite side....actually advocating tariffs. Reasoning then was pretty much the same as what Trump says today: "To protect American industry and manufacturing jobs." That argument was just as flawed then as it is today.

If you had told me in 1980 that Democrats would be denouncing tariffs and Republicans would assess them willy-nilly, and that Wall Street would support Democrats and union rank-and-file would support Republicans, I'd have called the guys in the white coats.

The world turned upside down.

When I started first learning about economics in the mid/late 1980s, the GOP leaned free trade, and the Dems leaned hard protectionist. Now it's much of the GOP that is protectionist. As you said, the world is upside down. The Dems are opposed currently to tariffs, but that seems more rooted in opposition to anything Trump. The left still likes their non-tariff barriers to trade.

My disgust with Trump's tariffs was tempered a bit when I thought that maybe on the back end of this the insanity will finally convince the non-Trumpers of both parties that tariffs are just a form of taxation which raises prices, constricts consumer choice, costs jobs, stifles innovation, etc. Tariffs make almost everyone poorer. The net loss writ large is substantial. And maybe that lesson learned can be expanded to taxation as a whole. Maybe our political leaders and the general public will be smarter on taxation/economics going forward, right? Who is holding their breath with me?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Oh, when I used the word "everything", in that context, I was referring to Hollywood productions. We do have that workforce in this country and they are struggling as more and more productions leave the US.

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The US opted to elect a hammer...

 

[jthomas666]

I'm not sure what the industry is getting elsewhere that they couldn't get here, other than specific scenery.

1. Massive tax incentives
2. Lower costs due to using non-union labor

Plus, there's at least one massive stage in the UK, at Pinewood Studios--the 007 Stage, that was built for The Spy Who Loved Me.

In what is likely not a coincidence, Pinewood built a studio in Atlanta, which was used for many of the Marvel movies. Pinewood sold their share in the Atlanta studio several years ago.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The US opted to elect a hammer...

 

[crimsonaudio]

I'm all for bringing as much as we can back and if that means the movies, I'm on board with that as well. I'm not sure what the industry is getting elsewhere that they couldn't get here, other than specific scenery. I watched a segment on the news last night about this, and several producers said certain movies have specific scenery that plays a big role in a lot of their movies. Scenery that they cannot replicate in the States. So, I get that aspect of it.

MUCH cheaper production costs.

For example, it's why so many of Netflix's in-house productions are from overseas.

 

[Bodhisattva]

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The US opted to elect a hammer...

Well, to be fair, it is the best hammer. A bigly hammer.

 

[AWRTR]

Well, to be fair, it is the best hammer. A bigly hammer.

haha, Bigly!

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Well, to be fair, it is the best hammer. A bigly hammer.

We have the best hammers, folks.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I think as a country, our government needs to pick the things that are the most productive to keep here and decide which things they don't mind being sent to other countries. But we cannot realistically keep "everything" in this country. We don't have the workforce to do it, nor the infrastructure. We need to pick which "things" we want to attach our wagon to and get those "things" back in our country, with the understanding, we're not going to be able to keep everything here in the States.

History has shown that markets are the best "pickers," not governments, and the markets are now global, a fact he's in denial of. Even the ChiComs finally understood that, although there's more government involvement than in the West. I don't think Trump, with his childlike outlook, does. Today, he blew off helping small business. He doesn't understand what our economy is built on. Having to follow his thinking is maddening...