Die Frage der Wiederwahl Trumps wird eben neben der Außenpolitik vor allem durch die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung der USA bestimmt (Clinton: It´s the economy , stupid!“). Folgender Beitrag in The Conversation verdeutlicht dies: Trump kann auf 2,6 Millionen neue Jobs hinweisen, wobei die Löhne und die Konsumerpreise auch reinspielen werden. Aber auch bei den Löhnen kann Trump auf einen 3,2%-Zuwachs verweisen, was das Argument, dass dies nicht das Niveau der Löhne vor der Finanzkrise sei recht schal aussehen lässt. Konsumentenpriese könnten da eher ins Gewicht fallen, da auch der Trumpwähler im Walmart einkauft, der zu 70% seiner Produkte aus China bezieht.Es liegt also im Verlauf des Wahlkampfs, ob die Demokraten den Amerikanern vermitteln können, dass Handelskonflikte nicht im Interesse des average citizens ist und ob das für Joe Doe und Joe, the Plumber vorteilhaft ist oder nicht . Die Staatsverschuldung unter Trump, die neue Höhen erreicht zum Wahlkampfthema zu machen, ist für die Demokraten auch nicht so leicht, da ihr linker Flügel wie auch Teile der moderaten Demokraten hier auch keine gute Bilanz vorweisen können, die Republikaner im Falle eines republikanischen Gegenkandidatens auch nicht, zumal diese infolge Reagans damaliger Totrüstungspolitik und dann durch die Kriege der Bush jr.-Administration auch explodierten, zumal auch die Finanzkrise als Gegenargument gebracht werden kann, die auch die Demokraten unter Obama zwang sich weiter zu verschulden. Ob da das Argument der Generationengerechtigkeit verfängt, wäre zu untersuchen.

Es wird also seitens Trumps ein Kampf um den Narrativ Jobwunder. Die Schwäche des Artikels ist, dass er die landwirtschaftliche Produktion auslässt, China und die EU mit ihren Gegenzöllen aber gerade auf diese Sektoren (Sojabohnen, Rindfleisch,etc.) zielen, um Trumps Stammwähler bei den Farmern und der Agrarindustrie in ihre Richtung zu bewegen. Schließlich sollte man auch nicht vergessen, dass Trump nur durch das Wahlmännersystem an die Macht kam, obwohl Hillary Clinton wie damals schon Al Gore gegenüber Georg Bush jr. mehr Wähler auf sich vereinigen konnte. Aber die Wahlmänner bleiben entscheidend und werden auch von den Demokraten nicht angezweifelt.

Is Trump’s trade war saving American jobs – or killing them?

May 15, 2019 9.52pm BST

The Trump administration says its trade policy saved the U.S. steel industry.

Jeffrey Kucik  Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Arizona

Disclosure statement

Jeffrey Kucik does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

With the U.S.-China trade war intensifying, there is a lot of talk about whether tariffs save American jobs – as President Donald Trump claims – or destroy them.

On May 14, for example, Trump said his tariffs helped save the U.S. steel industry. Whether or not that’s true, many economists and industry organizations argue trade protectionism is actually hurting workers in a range of other areas, such as the solar power sector, civil aircraft and auto manufacturing.

So is the trade war making Americans better off or worse? Political economists like me have been exploring this question since Trump’s trade war began about a year ago. The answer makes a big difference to the economic welfare of American workers. And, with the 2020 elections soon approaching, it may help determine whether Trump is able to remain in the Oval Office.

The winners

At first glance, the jobs data does look good for Trump’s argument.

Since Trump announced tariffs on more than 1,000 Chinese products on April 3, 2018, about 2.6 million new jobs have been added to the U.S. economy.

This includes 204,000 jobs in manufacturing, the sector of the economy that hemorrhaged over 5 million positions from 2000 to 2009, a problem blamed on free trade and China.

The good news for Trump doesn’t stop there. Some of the biggest gainers over the last year are industries like fabricated metals, machinery and electronic instruments, all of which saw gains of 15,000 to almost 30,000 jobs over the past year. All those industries enjoy at least some protection from Trump’s tariffs.

Those numbers seem to support Trump’s rhetoric that tariffs are providing a vital shot in the arm of America’s ailing manufacturing sector. And they may even show why the U.S. economy continues to hum despite economist fears that a trade war would hurt growth.

The losers

Unfortunately, not all industries are enjoying the same success.

Of the 20 major manufacturing categories in the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data, only six have grown faster during the trade war – which arguably began with the threat of widespread tariff increases in April of 2018 – than in previous years. The rest, which include chemicals, paper and textiles, either didn’t enjoy a boost or lost ground during the period.

And here is one lesson from the trade war. If Trump and his supporters want to claim that tariffs helped accelerate job creation in machinery and metals, then it follows that his policies should share some of the blame for the less encouraging performance of other sectors hurt by retaliation from other countries.

After Trump extended steel tariffs to the European Union, the EU hit America’s textiles industry. Canada targeted some paper products in retaliation for tariffs on steel and softwood lumber. And China, Trump’s primary antagonist, hit chemicals along with a large swath of other industries – with further retaliation on the way.

Beyond jobs

Nonetheless, the simple fact remains: The U.S. economy continues to add more jobs.

But this is only one part of the equation for how tariffs are affecting working Americans and their quality of life. What about wages, which account for 70% of an employee’s average compensation?

There’s less good news for Trump in this data.

The annual growth in seasonally adjusted hourly pay during the trade war averages out to around 3.2% across all private sector U.S. employees.

There are two important things to say about that 3.2%. First, it falls short of pre-Great Recession levels, when wage growth was typically a full point higher. Second, wage growth in manufacturing – the sector Trump has lavished the most attention on – actually lags behind the national average at just 2.3%.

Those wage numbers are good reason to hold our applause for Trump’s tariffs. Protected industries are adding jobs, but wages aren’t living up to expectations.

Looking for good news

The competing job numbers explain why the debate over Trump’s tariffs are full of confusing anecdotes – and why most anyone can find “good news” to support their favorite argument.

Americans have heard United Steel Workers thank Trump for helping bring over 1,000 jobs back to Birmingham, Alabama. They’ve also heard General Motors announce that it lost US$1 billion in 2018, partly because tariffs contributed to rising production costs, and that as many as 14,000 jobs are being cut.

A fuller picture of how well workers are doing requires looking beyond the jobs numbers at how much money they’re actually taking home – and how it’s affecting their living standards.

And none of this says anything about another crucial part of the equation: consumer prices. If the latest data from Goldman Sachs is on the money, things are about to get a whole lot worse for working-class Americans as the price tags attached to products affected by the trade war begin to rocket upward.

This is hardly good news for the average household.

https://theconversation.com/is-trumps-trade-war-saving-american-jobs-or-killing-them-117159

Folgender Artikel der Heritage Foundatio ist der Ansicht, dass Krieggswarnungen bezüglich Irans verfrüht oder falsch sind. Momentan wird scheinbar mehr auf regime change gesetzt. Ein Krieg mit Iran könnte auch einige Stammwähler von Trump abschrecken, die ihn wegen des Versprechens Kriege zu beenden und aufgrund der damaligen Kriegsmüdigkeit gewählt haben (und zuvor auch einige Obama wegen seines Disengagements von den Bush-Kriegen). Also, ein Krieg mit Iran während den Wahlen wäre wählertechnisch unklug, es sei denn Trump würde auf eine neue patriotische Kriegsbegeisterung der US-Amerikaner setzen. Das kann man ja noch immer machen, wenn man wieder gewählt ist und zumal seine letzte Amtszeit hat und nicht wiedergewählt werden muss. Falls er wiedergewählt werden sollte, wird er die Eskalationsschraube weiter drehen und kommt es zum eigentlichen Showdown, falls seine Gegner nicht einlenken sollten und einen Deal zu Bedingungen einer pax americana eingehen sollten, zumal er dann auch keine Rücksichten mehr auf die Wählerschaft nehmen muss, da er nicht wiedergerwählt werden kann. Trump dürfte also im Wahlkampf die Strategie verfolgen, dass er der US-Präsident ist, der ein Jobwunder bewirkte, zwar die Stärke der USA zeigte, aber keine neuen Kriege angezettelt hat, ja inzwischen mit Nordkorea und Rußland Gespräche aufgenommen hat, was er dann als Zukunftsempfehlung für seine Politik auch gegenüber Iran und China verkaufen wird.

US-Iran Standoff Is No Cause for Alarm

James Carafano / @JJCarafano / May 15, 2019

Comment

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research.

Iran says it’s not interested in a war with the United States. The U.S. says it’s not interested in a war with Iran. The only parties who are making war talk are the press and pundits who just can’t help fretting about all things Trump.

Still, there’s plenty to unpack and learn from the latest round of unsettling news from the Middle East.

One reason for the war talk is that Iran is threatening to stop complying with the Iran nuclear deal, the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015 to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program.

Critics were apoplectic when President Donald Trump withdrew from that deal. Iran’s announcement last week got them worked up all over again. They had convinced themselves that it was either the Iran deal or war. Now, they just assume there will be war.

But in their anger, they forgot that their support for the Iran deal was largely based on myths. Iran never stopped its destabilizing activity in the region after signing the agreement. The deal never improved prospects for better relations between Washington and Tehran.

Still, some expressed concern over new reports of a muscular U.S. military deployment to the region, which was provoked by intelligence of an impending Iranian covert action. Those concerns made no sense. The U.S. move was intended to pre-empt escalation, not prompt it. 

Finally, this week we saw reports of attacks or sabotage against Saudi tankers and pipelines in the Persian Gulf. The facts on this latest provocation are still in short supply. Some claim that Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen may be behind these malicious acts.

Still, there are many rungs in the ladder of escalation between what’s happening now and war—and there are no signs either side is really interested in climbing much higher.

From the U.S. perspective, the campaign to isolate and pressure the Iranian regime seems by and large to be working. Tehran is increasingly short on cash, faces serious internal dissent, and has little international support.

From Tehran’s perspective, this is an inopportune time for a showdown with Washington. They would rather wait Trump out and hope to get a more pliant next president.

Still, it does serve their interest to stir the pot of troubles, hoping to fuel a backlash against Trump that might help oust him from office. But they can’t press too hard. Unseating Trump isn’t worth provoking a war with the United States.

What Tehran doesn’t get is that if anything, Americans are likely to appreciate Trump being tougher on Iran. Americans know Trump didn’t start these troubles. Tehran did.

In 1978, Ayatollah Khomeini made America his enemy. During that same year, Trump was a 32-year-old real estate developer in New York City. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in high school. They didn’t start this dust-up. 

Seven American presidents before Trump have had to deal with Iran’s malicious meddling in the Middle East. Trump inherited this problem—he didn’t create it. 

What this latest incident shows is that Trump is perhaps the first president to commit to dealing with the Iranian regime in a sustained and serious way. He is pressuring them until they stop messing with America’s vital interests, and showing the willingness and resolve to do that for the long term, if that’s what it takes.

US-Iran Standoff Is No Cause for Alarm