Elon Musk Sides With Trump On Trade With China, Citing 25 Percent Import Duty On American Cars (cnbc.com) 331
Elon Musk believes China isn't playing fair in the car trade with the U.S. since it puts a 25 percent import duty on American cars, while the U.S. only does 2.5 percent for Chinese cars. "I am against import duties in general, but the current rules make things very difficult," Musk tweeted. "It's like competing in an Olympic race wearing lead shoes." CNBC reports: Tesla's Elon Musk is complaining to President Donald Trump about China's car tariffs. "Do you think the US & China should have equal & fair rules for cars? Meaning, same import duties, ownership constraints & other factors," Musk said on Twitter in response to a Trump tweet about trade with China. He added that no American car company is "allowed to own even 50% of their own factory" in the Asian country, but China's auto firms can own their companies in the U.S. Trump responded to Musk's tweets later at his steel and aluminum tariff press conference Thursday. "We are going to be doing a reciprocal tax program at some point, so that if China is going to charge us 25% or if India is going to charge us 75% and we charge them nothing ... We're going to be at those same numbers. It's called reciprocal, a mirror tax," Trump said after reading Musk's earlier tweets out loud.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't have free trade if its free trade in only one direction.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Free trade is what ensures that consumers are able to get their goods at the lowest cost possible. I recently saw a homeless person with an Android phone. Were it not for inexpensive Chinese manufacturing, I'm not sure this individual would have had that phone. Tariffs on steel and aluminum will just mean that products become more expensive or that fewer are made. Trump is a fool for thinking that this will somehow help Americans. If he's truly concerned with predatory practices (e.g., dumping) the WTO already exists to handle such issues. As much as people want to rag on globalization, it's what is getting more consumer goods into the hands of people all around the world and has drastically reduced the cost of goods to the point where even the most impoverished are starting to have things like smart phones and internet connectivity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's so beneficial, then pray tell, why are so many americans so poor they can't afford retirement or basic housing, or are forgoing retirement to pay for their kids college?
The reason why we had a minimum wage was to ensure we didn't have companies competing to see how much they could subjugate their employee's; you can compete by selling a better product, compete by being more efficient, or you can compete by reducing the cost of labor. You put enough income in someone's pocket, they can afford to liv
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most debt is owned by Americans. In fact owning US debt puts China in USA's power not the other way round. There is a saying , if you owe the bank a 1000 dollars you are in trouble, if you owe the bank 2 trillion dollars the bank is in trouble (if you walk away from the debt).
The US could retire all foreign debt tomorrow by printing dollars and infalting the debt away. China would have no legal recourse. US doesnt do it because most debt is still owned by US citizens.
Homeless !=jobless (Score:2)
Many homeless have jobs but cannot afford housing in the areas the jobs are. In California this is being driven by hot Chinese money being invested in residential real estate. Thousands of homes are kept vacant as investments while working people are homeless. The trade imbalance with China means China has excess dollars and invests it in residential houses in California. If the trade imbalance would go away the housing market would correct and the homeless guy could actually afford housing rather than a ph
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. It's not a bilateral game. It's a very very complex web. Tariffs *can* be useful but not as a blunt tool. Some things (especially basic materials and even labor in some cases) you want to drive down the cost of and it serves relatively little economic use to have it within your borders or not.
For those, you let foreign governments subsidize so you can import them on the cheap.
For other things, high-margin things like cars, planes, etc. You want people to buy your stuff -- the finished product
Re: (Score:3)
It's a very very complex web.
Not just complex, but complicated.
In response to the threat of steel tariffs, the EU countered with proposed tariffs on "American" products: Levi's Jeans and Jim Beam bourbon.
Levi's aren't even made in the US anymore . . . so the tariffs will hit teenage Chinese and Bangladeshi sweat shop slaves.
Jim Beam is a Japanese company, Suntory. Jim Beam offers a "factory tour" in Kentucky, but, who knows. This could just be Las Vegas knock-up like the Venetian Boat Ride. The raw base hooch in could come from
Re: (Score:3)
Hehehe. I'm reminded of when Obama tried to put a tariff on tires. That ended up gutting jobs in the chicken industry.
China will reap the protectionist ramifications of what they sowed soon enough. There's no reason the US should go down the same doomed road.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that they're targeting important Republican's districts. Politicians don't like going home and having to explain that the local factory laying off people is good.
Re: (Score:3)
If the trade is only in one direction, than China is giving us all their stuff for free.
I'm not sure why that should bother me.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has been subsidizing agricultural products and export to China. Then China will also impose reciprocal tariff on US farm products.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
We've had a 25% tariffs on trucks for decades. Trucks also happen to be the most profitable cars people make.
We've just never bothered with low-margin cars (sub-20k) because it's not useful to have the low-margin stuff done domestically.
Anyone who tells you America has not been "America First" is either ill-informed, deceiving you or both.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a reason why current free trade is set the way it is. Because US was the party that set it up in Bretton-Woods, and because for US, free trade is not about trade. It's about security. US itself didn't actually invest into the free trade mechanisms it created, and foreign trade as a portion of national GDP in US is very low compared to developed world average. As a point of comparison, even Afghanistan, a land locked, war torn country has a higher portion of foreign trade as national GDP than US. Look it up if you don't believe me.
And of that foreign trade, overwhelming majority is within NAFTA. I'll talk why in a moment.
Essentially US bribed together a coalition of the willing to fight Second World states by opening its markets to allies and neutral states. The only market that survived WW2 more or less intact. And it worked great. It won the Cold War. And ever since then, free trade has been coasting on inertia, with US still upholding the security apparatus that enables it to function, while having no security benefit from it any more.
And in the end of last year, the last primary chain that linked US to global trade markets broke. NAFTA as a region became a net exporter of oil and its derivative products. US is now in a position where it could have an absolutely devastating trade policy, and economically, it would only take a minor hit. The rest of the world on the other hand, having been built on the economic order that requires backing by the US security apparatus would likely collapse. Consider China for example. It is completely dependent on global maritime routes. At the same time it does not have any capability of guaranteeing security of any of the long haul routes. It is completely dependent on US good will in continuing its role as a security guarantor. Same applies to all potential major antagonists in a potential trade war - Russia, Germany, France, Brazil, etc. Name a major state, it depends on safe maritime trade, while having no ability to guarantee security for this trade against hostile state actors.
In this geopolitical situation, it's clear that renegotiation of free trade in relationship to US and services it provides to enable it will be required to keep US involved in the system. It will have to either be a new kind of a security pact, or it will have to be more of a give and take relationship. So far, Trump's actions indicate that he's interested in give and take. And make no mistake - this would have happened regardless of who got elected. Under Clinton, this would probably have been an eight year process with full powerpoint presentations and long and complex negotiations.
Trump is more impulsive and rash, so the process is moving much faster. But the push in this direction has been present ever since Soviet Union fell, and with shale severing that last link that kept US dependent on free trade as it is currently operating, current direction is inevitable.
We live in interesting times.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, what do you mean with 'save maritim trade'?
If the US capture Chinese ships, or any other nations, it is called: war
You might think the US can winany war, well, unless you are ready to use nukes: no.
Do you really think the US could win a war against a randomly picked european country? Why? Becuae you have more carriers?
The US carriers would not run any more after they get cut from european suppies after 6 weeks.
The US has not even the technology to craft the ropes that capture the landing panes on a ca
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a strange world to live in, where there is only black and white.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable explanation was in fact provided above. You chose to answer with black and white nonsense. There is zero arrogance in pointing out that it is in fact black and white nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be trivial for the US to win a naval war against China. Invading China, no, but sinking her pretty insignificant naval assets and probably downing a boatload of aircraft, absolutely. Not that I think it's a good idea, but I can't imagine even if there is an actual war in the South China Sea that anyone would go nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
You start sinking China naval vessel in the South China sea I could pretty well guarantee they will strike that US carrier fleet with nukes until it is gone. Will the US fire nukes at cities in China, sure if they want cities in the US to glow in the dark. This has been covered before, if US attacks China it will also attack Russia because the US could not stand for an unharmed Russia with a crippled US, exactly the same goes with attacking Russia, a crippled US could not stand a unharmed China, hell, a cri
Brains (Score:5, Interesting)
You forgot the US is still severely dependent on one import even after Shale. Brains. The US does not domestically produce enough smart people to keep running the high technology economy and is severely dependent on importing brains. If the US plays hardball with the home countries the US will lose its image of a nice country to emigrate to and will suffer from a brain shortage. It could then downgrade its economy to a less technological one or reverse its trade policies.
Re: (Score:3)
Raising barriers doesnt make you the only stable state. Countries like Germany and Japan would attract more Elon Musks and Sergey Brins if USA creates an image of itself being in it only for its own interests.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Been there [wikipedia.org].
Five years after the passage of the tariff, American trading partners had raised their own tariffs by a significant degree. France raised its tariffs on automobiles from 45% to 100%, Spain raised tariffs on American goods by 40%, and Germany and Italy raised tariffs on wheat. This customs war is often cited as one of the main causes of the Great Depression.
Re: (Score:3)
"America First" should be our mind set when negotiating trade, not other people first.
Well . . . where is the 25% tariff on foreign imported H1-Bs . . . ?
Re: Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With that mind set I can only point out:
USA has some 375 million inhabitants
the rest of the world about 7.5 billions
Good luck pissing everyone off!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
and by not having to comply with the same environmental standards that the US has to comply with.
I understand this sentiment, but it's really infeasible to try and balance. Plus, they ARE paying for it. One way or another. If a US company has to spend $5 million dealing with pollution, and a Chinese company can dump it out the back door, the Chinese company will have the advantage, no doubt. But there's no way we could expect Kenya to have the same standards that the EPA sets forth. The nation just isn't there yet. And China wasn't NEARLY as advanced in years past when these deals were set up. To an extent, their infrastructure is still pretty rickety, but they have the cash to at least try and fix it now. But even with developed nations, imposing trade deals on the basis of how their EPA equivalents operate isn't likely to work. Trade deals take years and last decades while environmental policy fluctuates each term. It got cut to the bone this time. It sucks. Anyway, I just don't think it's viable.
And, they're paying for it. China is hella polluted. To the point it's killing people. This is, essentially, the Chinese government abusing it's people to make a buck. It might make the nation more money, but the people are paying for it with their health. As a democracy over here, the people got pissed at that sort of shit and we formed the EPA way back during the hippy era under that notorious greeny weeny Nixon. China's abuse of it's peasantry for the good of the economy goes deeper too, and more directly results in the trade deficit. They suppress their currency. They used to keep it strictly pegged to the USD, but they've let it slip a bit. It artificially REDUCES China's buying power, and makes selling Chinese goods that much easier. Imagine if Trump came around and said "We're devaluing the USD, now it'll cost you twice as much to purchase anything abroad. But hey, if you export, you'll make twice as much." That's what China did. If you're exports, hey, goooood times. If you earn Chinese Renminbi, and want to travel or buy foreign goods.... sucks to be you.
Both of these are, in short, taxes. Not quite the same as a direct tax of cash out of their wallets, but a tax all the same.
Now.... when it comes to the US's policy towards this. We could:
A) Punish China and limit trade in an effort to get them to stop abusing their workers.
B) Buy the highly discounted goods that they're selling at discount at the cost to their citizenry
And you're advocating for option A. That's uncharacteristically altruistic considering the "America first" and "MAGA" slogans that side's been throwing about. Realize that prices will RISE for everyone and the only people that would benefit from this sort of trade war would be competitors to Chinese manufacturing, pretty much US manufacturing. If you work in manufacturing (or own a car manufacturer), sure, this is voting for the wallet. And I get that. The rest of us essentially have to pay for it though. Also, trade wars are not a zero sum game. Blocking trade (or restricting via tariffs) hurts BOTH sides more than either side was losing prior. A trade-war between giants is a godsend to the little manufacturing nations out there.
I'd buy that if we tied tariffs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but it shows a certain amount of hypocrisy in the matter of asking for vehicles to no longer have unnecessary tariffs.
The truck tariff, or chicken-tariff, is based off events in a completely different industry, and the other tariffs imposed by the same event have all been raised, but the vehicle industry clutches to this one.
My biggest surprise... (Score:5, Funny)
...was learning there are Chinese car manufacturers.
Ya know why the English don't build computers?
They haven't figured out how to make them leak oil yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know why the English don't build computers?
They haven't figured out how to make them leak oil yet.
Yeah, we just seed designs and then outsource the grunt work to other countries... wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
China makes some surprisingly good cars. They also have a lot of electric vehicles and patents on EV technology. European manufacturers that ignored EVs for too long are buying in Chinese tech to catch up.
The only reason you don't see more of them outside of China is that they can't make them fast enough. Demand in China is huge, and expansion into other markets is expensive so they are saturating the home market first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know why the English don't build computers?
They haven't figured out how to make them leak oil yet.
What does FIAT stand for?
"Fix It Again, Tony!"
Babbage and Turing (Score:2)
Funny you knock the English given they invented the computer.
Since when did commie capitalists play fair? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you have the leverage to negotiate.
The US imports next to zilch cars from China. They won't feel a thing. And the stuff we *do* import help local industries more than it hurts when it's subsidized by China (steel workers hate Chinese steel; everyone else from car makers to soda can makers to home builders who employ 1000x more people love it).
China simply has the leverage here. And chest thumping won't help. You gotta be sneakier than that.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need "leverage," the party with lower tariffs can unilaterally increase their tariffs to match the other party, and now the relative harm of the one-sided tariff is mitigated. Plus, you can build into that increase that it will go down automatically after the other party is found to have lowered theirs in practice. So you can build a reasonable and fair negotiating position into the rules even absent any extant negotiation.
Also, consider, do we mean just "cars" or do we mean "cars and car parts."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are anti-tariff
The indifference to foreign tariffs and other unfair trade policies that our own leaders have shown for decades belies their real motivations. Just as illegal immigration has tacit support from both ends (the R's have powerful constituents that want to drive down working class wages while the D's want to displace white Americans with dependent and loyal immigrants,) our highly biased trade regime also has bilateral support; the R's want to leverage cheap foreign labor while avoiding the domestic regulatory
Re:Since when did commie capitalists play fair? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actual change — the thing we've been told we need so much — has arrived
How patient are you willing to be with this "change"? People at the Carrier plant [google.com] Trump promised to save were laid off.
Many people who didn't vote for your Trump believe in many of the underlying causes you state -- but believe in Trump fixing the problem about as much as Microsoft releasing a good operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
were laid off
Employment is growing rapidly. Every layoff anecdote you can cite I can cite more wins; coal miners, steel workers, gas and oil field workers; 235,000 jobs last month; five solid months of employment growth like we haven't seen in the US since the 90's. But CNBC taught you your little Carrier anecdote and here you are parroting it.
believe in many of the underlying causes
Name your alternative. Or don't bother; it'll be more swamp creatures delivering the same globalist answers and the same PC platitudes. But they flatter the crazy value set th
Re: (Score:2)
I'll concede that my example was an anecdote, but according to this handy chart [bls.gov], employment growth started under Obama and has continued into the current administration.
Your point (I thought?) had to do with the distribution of wealth -- specifically with everyday working people. An real income rise (>5%) hasn't happened under previous administrations in decades and won't happen during this one -- I hope I am wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Them I'm sure you saw that they follow right in line with BLS. They even add a chart:
https://www.adpemploymentrepor... [adpemploymentreport.com]
If China charges us 25% (Score:5, Interesting)
Then let's charge them 24.9% in order to show some leadership toward reducing tariffs. Then if they lower theirs to match, we'll lower ours again. Let's race to the bottom, because reciprocal tariffs ("an eye for an eye") won't get us to that goal.
Re: (Score:3)
Just build it in that if they lower theirs, we lower ours. Easy. No need to imagine that we could instead appease them into fairness by simply offering them an advantage. You don't lead yourself to fairness by offering to receive less.
About fucking time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it should be called, but why are your tariffs for China being applied to Brazil? Brazil is one of your biggest steel suppliers and much bigger than China!!
On the other hand, Brazil is also the US' biggest coal buyer. And the coal is used exactly to... wait for it... make steel. So It seems Trump is killing coal after all!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but Trump's steel tariff is not going to hurt China much. It's almost perfectly incompetent, in fact.
China is the 11th largest supplier to steel to the US. Obama introduced tariffs which pushed them down to that level already. So 25% on steel won't hit China much, but it will hit America's allies. And Trump needs to work with those allies to deal with the oversupply issue.
What's worse is that the tariff will hit US workers the hardest. US steel workers might benefit a little, but there are far more
Re: (Score:2)
He should be hitting Aluminum, Titanium, Rare Earths Minerals, and then steel. TI and REMS are controlled by Russia and China, respectively, while AL, is Canada, China, and Russia, with China/Russia dumping it on our market as of late.
Steel should have had a small tariff, to encourage more steel production locally, but in general, the steel that comes here is from allies and it makes little to no sense to speak of national security on materials from them.
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the CNBC (and Slashdot) headlines Elon Musk didn't actually side with Trump.
He just tweeted at Trump that China was charging duties on US cars, and restricting US ownership of car factories in China, but the US wasn't doing the same in return.
And since Trump was in a mood to make tariffs Musk's reasonable sounding tweet is now well on its way to becoming policy.
Is anyone here really famous and has a 140 (280?) character argument about why a certain tariff should be enacted?
This is your opportunity to write US policy!
Define reciprocal (Score:5, Insightful)
So which reciprocal is the right way to do it?
tl;dr - There is no right answer. A policy which is fair in one dimension is unfair in an orthogonal dimension. And vice versa. Everyone wants there to be one best, right solution. But in a lot of cases, no such solution exists [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I lived in Korea until 2000. Cheapest Hyundai back in 1980 was Hyundai Pony and it costed about $3000, not $30K. And oh yea, we did have ridiculously high tariff to protect our auto industry. Up until 2000, we never thought of owning a foreign car. I had never heard of BMW until high school. And we had one Audi-VW dealer around my area and I though the car brand was "AUDI VOLKSWAGEN' because that was the title of the dealership. No one I knew ever owned any foreign car because it was ridiculously expensive.
Thanks to the NHTSA, that shouldn't be problem (Score:3)
Re:Thanks to the NHTSA, that shouldn't be problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What station did you hear that on? It's AM right?
Re: (Score:2)
And then they'll change the name and the color of the paint, and start selling a different car that's just as bad as the old one. Rinse, repeat. The quality of goods designed in China doesn't seem to be improving at all, from what I've seen. If anything, it seems to be getting worse, on average, because
Elon for President! (Score:4, Insightful)
Protectionism Doesn't Work That Way (Score:5, Interesting)
India charging a 75% import duty on American cars would be to protect domestic production. They don't care if we won't buy their cars... because they're not trying to sell us any, anyways. What they WOULD BE trying to do is make sure American auto manufacturers can't outcompete the domestic producers, in the domestic market, thus driving the domestic producers out of business. Having the independent ability to manufacture cars is useful if, say, India were to go to war with the USA, or if India were blockaded by China.
I'd expect Musk to care more about Chinese solar panels than Chinese cars.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Musk cars very little about Chinese solar panels since it's not a competing market (rooftop PV's mostly come out of Malaysia and Vietnam these days). The cheap chinese stuff are being phased out.
There's very little coming cheap out of China that we don't want to come out of China. Most of it are basic materials and/or stuff that's assembled from cheap labor (but even that's not happening too much anymore).
I'd say they're getting the shaft end of the trade.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Tata Motors owns Jaguar and Land Rover, which they bought from Ford in 2008...
Re: (Score:3)
And the US does the same with Wheat and Corn . In a fair world no way can a high cost of living country like the US afford to export cheap agricultural produce but thats where farm subsidies come in. I was really hoping the govt shutdown had gone on longer like 6 months or so. Then the red states would realize that how much they suck at the federal teat.
We are Free Traders but (Score:5, Insightful)
So lets do this, our tariffs will be the exact same as yours!
You free trade with us, we free trade with you!
I have no problems with these tariffs
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That statistic is misleading as fuck:
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
http://www.worldstopexports.co... [worldstopexports.com]
China's car industry is *for the most part* a domestic industry. They don't export much period ($5B in auto exports in 2016 compared $151B for Germany and $55B for the US).
Of that tiny amount of exporting, the US is 9% of China's exports of automobiles. China mainly and mostly exports to the EU (20%). We're ranked just above Egypt for imports from China (WOOOOO!!?).
"4th largest" does not imply 1 - 3 were p
Meanwhile in Brazil.... (Score:5, Informative)
Japan only allows so many American cars to be sold (Score:5, Informative)
Japan exported more than 1.6 million vehicles to America in 2015, while the U.S. sold less than 19,000 vehicles to Japan, accounted for about .03% of the five million cars and light trucks sold in Japan.
Japan taxes engine size and emissions. The annual tax on a vehicle with a 4-liter engine, an American pickup, is ¥76,500. Japan is the only developed country in the world with such a tax, so over a 10-year period, it would add up to the equivalent of a 12 percent import tariff.
I couldn't find the import limits, but remember seeing a limit on how many cars per maker was allowed. Not sure if thats still a trade issue.
Of course, the new theory is Americans gave up importing cars, because Japan has high tastes and want quality customer service and its too hard to serve them.
Obama even tried to fight for American imports into Japan.
https://www.detroitnews.com/st... [detroitnews.com]
hummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see, someone who makes overly expensive electric cars wants to slap a tariff on cars made in China. Call me Capt. Obvious.
If I remember correctly China is pouring a lot into electric vehicles.
Does America even import any Chinese cars? (Score:2)
Does America even import any cars made in China? Would an increase in the tariff to 25% make any difference?
FWIW.... (Score:4, Insightful)
But the tariff's aren't just for China (Score:2)
I thought Trump was proposing a tariff that affected all nations, not just China. I don't see how a discussion of Chinese trade practices is relevant to a tariff that isn't being placed solely on China. That's like punching everyone in the face, and justifying it by saying one specific person is a bully.
The thing to remember (Score:4, Insightful)
China's 25% tariff versus US 2.5% tariff (Score:2)
Why are we comparing tariffs on cars? When is the last time you saw a Chinese car here? Okay, yes, a quick search on the intarwebs says there's a Geely built Volvo that's sold here.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that, e.g. GM, builds the majority of the cars it sells in China, in ,shockingly enough, China. So presumably no tariff there.
Does someone really think that if China was forced to knock the tariff down to, e.g., 5%, that Foxconn workers would buy more Cadillacs? I suspect that most of the Cadilla
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you think the Volvo XC90 is being made? Sweden? How cute!
Who cares where a Volvo is made? Not I. I drive a Ford and I'm not interested in a Volvo...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A focus? LOL... Yea, they said that about a year ago, right after they changed their "we are moving the focus plant to Mexico" plan. My guess is that Ford's plans may be a changin' again soon...
In the mean time, the plant in Michigan keeps building the Focus... Maybe they will just give up the attempted move and set up a NEW plant for the new Ranger someplace? Seems more likely now doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You assume I don't understand where parts come from.... Cute..
I was saying I don't care where a Volvo is built because I don't own or want one... At this point on this little rabbit trail, I'm just pointing out that it's not ALL bad here. There might actually be a benefit or two to consider if you think about it.
A trade war with China, might have some other good affects on the global economic and geopolitical worlds too. Such as applying pressure on China to force North Korea to the table, harming China
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If an American company made cars there, I'd worry about substandard materials substitution, like the Kobe Steel scandal but far worse and more common. Also, their designs would almost certainly be stolen and reused by domestic companies
If? Ford and Chevrolet (Buick and Cadillac) both make cars there that are then imported into the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that's news to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, which is it, are their designs different and inferior, or copied and actually the same?
You don't seem to have any idea what your complaint is, other than China.
Ignorance of the details of the Kobe Steel QA issue does not, in itself, tell you anything at all about Chinese manufacturing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And you might also ask "better for whom?" as well.
Re:Trump needs to create a red line! (Score:4, Insightful)
You do know that "since he took office" doesn't necessarily imply that he's "making things better", right? My income has increased also, quite a bit in nominal terms for this and near-term years. But I still think the guy's a disgrace. I can still live quite comfortably netting somewhat less, and I'd prefer to do so if it meant not living in a ruthless shithole of a society that had the respect of very few, and respected back in similar amounts.
Re: Trump needs to create a red line! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If he can herd the idiots towards real protectionism instead of ham-handed economic flailing, surely many people will be glad. People from a wide variety of political sides!
Elon Musk, Cat Whisperer.
I'd love to be able to either wholly own a company in China, or else require Chinese companies to also use a local intermediary. Then we could compete. I don't mind letting China set up the rules if we're going to mirror them. We have a big trade deficit, anything that improves parity helps.
Re: Oh boy (Score:2)
An engineering firm...
No doubt... and no doubt it went down something like this [thetruthaboutcars.com]...
Re: (Score:3)
Elon can do no wrong.
He is wrong about this. Steel tariffs in retaliation for China's car tariffs make no sense. Less than 3% of steel imported into America comes from China. So 97% of the "punishment" is collateral damage against our neighbors and allies. The biggest exporter of steel to America is Canada, followed by Brazil and South Korea. China is #10.
Top steel exporters to the US [reuters.com]
Re: Oh boy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While you are of course welcome to come up with a counter-argument what you just produced is something completely different - misdirection.
It's possible to be praising something while still arguing something negative for the same thing. Your post would only be relevant if the engineer retracted the earlier statement in praising the driving experience.
One of the charms of a Harley-Davidson is that it is primitive mechanically (or was: have not seen one or read about them in 20 years) but being a joy to ride
Re: Two way street (Score:2)