Trump Heaps More Tariffs on China, Still No Deal in Sight (bloomberg.com) 359
The Trump administration slapped tariffs on roughly $110 billion in Chinese imports on Sunday, marking the latest escalation in a trade war that's inflicting damage across the world economy. China retaliated. From a report: The 15% U.S. duty hit consumer goods ranging from footwear and apparel to home textiles and certain technology products like the Apple Watch. A separate batch of about $160 billion in Chinese goods -- including laptops and cellphones -- will be hit with 15% tariffs on Dec. 15. President Donald Trump delayed part of the levies to blunt the impact on holiday shopping. Investors sought the safety of the yen, which edged higher against the dollar as currency markets opened for trading. The offshore yuan pared some losses to trade at 7.1682 per dollar Monday at 10:38 a.m. in Beijing after the PBOC set the fixing rate stronger than all estimates. Asian stocks fell with U.S. equity futures after the tariffs kicked in, even though the measures had been widely anticipated. S&P 500 futures opened 1% lower before paring losses, and Treasury contracts advanced.
Apple Watch? (Score:5, Funny)
I was fine with everything else, but it affects the APPLE WATCH? The horrors! Impeach NOW!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Great Negotiator and Fearless Leader! (Score:5, Insightful)
I was fine with everything else, but it affects the APPLE WATCH? The horrors! Impeach NOW!
Don't worry. Trade wars are easy to win! Real soon now Trump will negotiate a great YUGE deal with China. Even better than his latest deal with Afghanistan! The only thing that's slowing it down is that the Taliban knew what they wanted, but Xi hasn't yet explained things to the Donald.
What could possibly go wrong?
P.S. As soon as Trump finishes wrapping up those deals he'll be able to finish the deal for Mexico to pay for the wall. But he's getting pissed with them, so he's probably going to insist Mexico puts up the down payment for buying Greenland, too.
What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tariffs are normally used to bring manufacturing back to your own country, by removing any competitive advantage that imported goods might have.
But these tariffs are only being placed on goods from one country, China. Isn't this just going to move manufacturing to other countries, and not back to the US?
I think the entire world benefits from having free trade and think tariffs are a bad idea overall, but if we're going to implement tariffs, why just one country? Seems completely pointless and self destructive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea is that it is used to force China to drop their import tariffs, allow increased import, and stop manipulating their currency. The Chinese don't play "fair". The attempt is to make them play for fair. It isn't necessarily a bad idea, but debatable if it is going to work, but China needs the US. If Obama did it, the same people would be calling it genius.
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4)
Um, why couldn't it work? And what economy is being "devastated"? Is it that important you get cheap Chinese crap cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, why couldn't it work? And what economy is being "devastated"? Is it that important you get cheap Chinese crap cheaply.
It is pretty much. (And most is not "crap" these days....) Not that obvious as long as it works, but look at the question again in a year or two.
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Informative)
I won't work because close to zero manufacturing is done in the US.
In 2018, American manufacturers produced $1.87 Trillion in output.
Chinese Manufacturers produced about $2.01 Trillion in output.
Manufacturing in the US has been shut down for most of the past 40 years.
Manufacturing in America, measured by employment, has declined. Measured by output, it is higher than ever before.
There's no infrastructure, knowhow, or labor available for manufacturing in the US any more.
Bullcrap.
Global manufacturing scorecard [brookings.edu]
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its about manufacturing the right things for the supply chain... with the global supply chain these days, certain countries specialize in certain things. In general, China is a massive manufacturer and supplier of component-level parts, where the US tends to manufacture the higher dollar level final products (aircraft/aerospace sector, consumer products, etc).
Increasing the cost on components coming in from China through tariffs makes these important domestic industries actually less competitive, because competitors in other parts of the world don't have to deal with the higher component costs, and so can undercut American manufacturing (think Airbus vs Boeing). So its a double whammy for manufacturing companies in the US who are trying to be successful on the world stage.
Re: (Score:3)
The amount of dollars is completely irrelevant. ... try to fix that.
You build 1 carrier per year and you already have screwed your stupid comparision by 10 billion dollars, bottom line perhaps by 50 billion.
Fact is that the US is a third world country with a first world army
Re: (Score:2)
The US is the #2 manufacturing nation in the planet. You are just dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately, countries that rely upon our military for protection from other countries like Vietnam, Taiwan, and South Korea.
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Informative)
Moronic Trump voters [but I repeat myself], who think that they don't care about the economy while Trump is making things difficult for immigrants and other "out-group" people.
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of idiot thinks "it's not a bad idea and might work" when it couldn't possibly work and is literally devastating the economy as he types it, then thinks there is even a chance that anyone else who has ever been President might have been this stupid and shown this much careless disregard for the welfare of humanity to do this?
Sadly, that's not how the #BillionDollarLoser thinks or does business. He's just been a puppet and a victim for his entire life, starting with how Fred used him for tax evasion before he entered elementary school. Trump's best hope now is to die with the most toys before anyone gets to study the laundry receipts (for dirty money) that "paid" for the toys.
I think the funny part is that this entire fiasco started as a publicity stunt. It just went horribly wrong, and again the results were mostly due to other people manipulating Trump to exploit his weaknesses. Which have only grown weaker.
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:3)
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Insightful)
TIf Obama did it, the same people would be calling it genius.
Obama was in charge for 8 years and didn't do it... so you point is completely moot. And this argument is quite silly as everybody knows that Trump is doing exactly the opposite of Obama and tries to remove all the things he did.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That isn't a surprise. Obama didn't do much at all except keep our military invading countries and passing Obamacare which was just a handout to the insurance companies. It didn't bring down costs, which is the real issue.
Re: (Score:3)
It did bring down costs for people with pre existing conditions. Abso-fucking-lutely. And, costs for everybody else are probably signifcantly lower than they would have been without it.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Informative)
And, costs for everybody else are probably signifcantly lower than they would have been without it.
Actually, some (red/purple) states sabotaged the ACA by refusing the subsidies. People who had insurance saw their premiums go up/benefits go down, and people who couldn't afford insurance still couldn't afford it.
You'd think Republicans would've caught hell for it, but there's a surprisingly large amount of Americans who don't seem to mind voting against their own best interests, as long as their "team" wins.
Re: (Score:3)
Amen.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Insightful)
here's a surprisingly large amount of Americans who don't seem to mind voting against their own best interests, as long as their "team" wins.
This is exactly what it is- the "my team" mentality:
Identity Fusion - aka “Sports team” mode
A majority of the United States is confused by the behavior of ~34% of the rest of the country. To grasp what has happened, you just have to realize that some political supporters have gone into “Sports Teams” mode. They have turned politics into an Identity Fusion issue.
Basically, they have stopped thinking about the representative government as a functional group of public servants. They are thinking about it as if it's their "team" and everything political has become "us versus them."
Some characteristics of a team fanatic (I'm using Trump Supporters as an example because it's currently the most obvious example, but it can apply to both sides to some degree.)
Once you realize this is what's happening, the common attributes are there to see:
- Wearing identifying clothing (hats, badges, colors, logos, slogans) in everyday life.
- Loyalty regardless of performance or behavior of their "team."
- Instant disrespect for any member of the opposing team based solely on team affiliation.
- Hatred of any perceived disloyalty from fellow team fans.
- Having rallies and parades even when there is no pending game with the primary goal to celebrate and re-enforce being loyal.
- At gatherings, fans chant slogans and/or sing.
- Team players (not fans, but players) are 100% supported unless they leave the team. Then they are ostracized and demonized even though they are basically the same person.
Re: (Score:2)
... costs for everybody else are probably signifcantly lower than they would have been without it.
Not for me as far as I can tell - costs for me went up as soon as it went into effect, along with a dose of worse coverage as a garnish.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally pay for heath care for more than 30 people, you stupid twat. It absolutely did bring prices down. You don't know what you're talking about.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Interesting)
It didn't bring down health care costs at all.
It did for me. Private heath insurance was over $1500 a month for me before the ACA. After the ACA I was able to get some pretty fucking good health insurance for ~600/month.
Now, let's hear you explain how that didn't bring down health care costs for me. I'll wait.
Re: (Score:3)
Good point, Obama did put a tariff on a product that was being dumped at below cost price. Of course that is not quite the same as putting tariffs on $150 Billion of random products. So not quite a knockout point.
Re: (Score:2)
... It isn't necessarily a bad idea, but debatable if it is going to work, but China needs the US. If Obama did it, the same people would be calling it genius.
Not at all true. During the Obama administration, the Republicans were very much free-trade absolutists. They would have eviscerated Obama for putting in tariffs.
And the Democrats, on the other hand, wouldn't have particularly rushed to his defense-- China's trade barriers just wasn't their issue.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Informative)
During the Obama administration, the Republicans pretended to care about the deficit.
In reality, the Republicans care about nothing other than staying in power and promoting the interests of the super-wealthy (so those sweet dollars keep pouring in to support their reelection campaigns).
Republican voters care deeply about making life worse for darker-skinned people and other out-groups.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Republicans would have eviscerated Obama no matter WHAT he did. Just like the "Democrats" are eviscerating Trump no matter what he does. That is the point. You guys are being fooled (again)
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is that Trump is actually a senile moron so he only does something right only by accident.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republicans would have eviscerated Obama no matter WHAT he did. Just like the "Democrats" are eviscerating Trump no matter what he does. That is the point. You guys are being fooled (again)
If you truly see no substantive difference between Trump and Obama then you haven't been paying attention, or you're willfully ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that it is pretty clear that the Chinese can play this longer. Probably the reason Obama was smarter than this. And "fair"? That is just propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't clear to me. China NEEDS the US, the US employs China, just like Japan needed the US in the 1980s when the Chicken Littles were claiming that Japan was going to take over the US. The US can just shift its overseas manufacturing to the next place. Eventually it will be settled anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, I accidentally posted this to a comment below yours...
Sure but no one plays as unfair as China. Rampant IP theft, currency manipulation, product dumping from state industries, cyber espionage, and forced pairings with domestic companies to enter the market are all examples that don't apply to most of the rest playing the game. Couple that with a rising global super power with an appalling human rights record and territorial claims extending not only into international waters but also into US allies te
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, ignore that. Clearly I'm a bit of a mess today :)
Re: (Score:3)
Consider that China is still mostly self-sufficient and they've becomes substantially more so over the years. They have very little dependence on American goods. In the past, China depended heavily on U.S. Oil and on U
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd rather vote a pipedream than democrat? Cheesus...
I'm a register libertarian but I'm not naÃve. There's no chance that Donnie isn't going to be the only viable R candidate. I'm voting a straight D until we've course corrected. Democracy is under fire, personal freedoms are being trampled, legal citizenship is being questioned; how can any libertarian do anything but vote D now?
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Informative)
What does tax increases have to do with tariffs?
Tariffs are a tax on imports, so imposing a tariff is a tax increase.
No, Republicans are not fiscally conservative. From the historical record, spending always goes up when a Republican gets in office.
no matter if a D or an R is "in charge".
Not actually true. Government spending rose under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was pretty much flat under Clinton, went up drastically under George W. Bush, and went down under Obama (and then up again under Trump).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Say what??? The debt increased 74% under Obama. You guys are so strange. The whole "spending went down under Obama" myth is due to the effects of the TARP unwinding. The total federal outlay under Obama was up over 15%. I'm sure it will be worse under Trump.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Informative)
2010 - $1547
2011 - $1300
2012 - $1087
2013 - $679
2014 - $485
2015 - $438
2016 - $585
2017 - $666 (this still was basically an Obama's budget)
-- Trump budgets below the line
2018 - $779
2019 - $1092 (projected)
2020 - $1200 (projected)
Note something? Obama's budgets came very close to being balanced. A slight spending cut and a tax increase would have been enough to balance the budget entirely. Then Trump squandered it.
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, do you know WHY the deficit in 2014-2016 was so low? Because the REPUBLICANS forced a government shutdown - sending a million people home! - rather than accept Obama's proposed budget, which would have been an $800,000,000,000 deficit in 2014 and risen each year, to pass $1 trillion by 2017.
That's incorrect, as all Republicans you can't but lie (or be a moron). The shutdown of 2013 ended with Republicans passing a CR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Moreover, Obama's 2014 proposal ( https://www.nationalpriorities... [nationalpriorities.org] ) would have drastically cut the deficit. But you guessed it, Republicans scuttled it.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, to follow someone I don't always agree with, show us some numbers on Obama spending going down. I ask because your claim is blatantly not true. Obama significantly increased government spending to combat the depression of 2008.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the first 2 years of his presidency, Obama spent money on infrastructure which helped the American economy out of the nosedive it was doing under Bush. Then he started reining it back.
Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year, Bush’s budget and in the teeth of the Recession)
Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
Fiscal 2012: $1.1 tril
Re: What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:3)
"A China centric world will be more or less at peace once Emperor Xi has conquered, subverted, or otherwise subjugated the entire world."
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Import tariffs are stealth taxes on consumers, should go some way to mitigate for the tax cuts for the rich and corporations though. More upwards wealth transference. Got to hand it to Trump.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure but no one plays as unfair as China. Rampant IP theft, currency manipulation, product dumping from state industries, cyber espionage, and forced pairings with domestic companies to enter the market are all examples that don't apply to most of the rest playing the game. Couple that with a rising global super power with an appalling human rights record and territorial claims extending not only into international waters but also into US allies territories and any rational person shouldn't be asking "why?", they should be asking "why has it taken so long?"
For several decades our lax trade policies have helped fund our new and growing geopolitical adversary. We should have gotten the clue in '89 when they butchered hundreds of people peacefully protesting for democracy.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am. The US government does not engage in wide spread IP theft to serve state owned industries, our currency is managed by a relatively independent of politics body that is vastly more concerned about inflation than direct economic success versus other nations, we do not have state run industries to fund product dumping, and foreign companies certainly aren't required to pair with a US to open up shop here.
It's like you took your already made up opinion in regards to the trade war and fashioned a response that has nothing to do with my post.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Informative)
Not even close.
Here's a laundry list of WTO actions that the US brought against China, and in nearly every case China was in the wrong.
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/def... [uscc.gov]
Now here's the list of China's claims against the US...much smaller, and they lost a few.
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/def... [uscc.gov]
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's great you have the Democratic talking points against Trump memorized. A thinking person doesn't adhere to blind partisanship though and right now it's boggling my mind that fellow "Leftists" are upset over punishing our most significant global adversary and one that is hardly a "workers paradise".
No, I've actually been studying foreign trade long before Trump. And he is NOT making anything better - the US manufacturing output is now declining instead of growing.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A very reasonable suggestion. Although it is not why the Republicans say that the tariffs are being applied. The story is that it will drive manufacturing back to America and that is obviously not going to happen in any big way with all the other low cost offshore manufacturing opportunities available.
Re:Don't put all your eggs in one basket (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is to diversify manufacturing across multiple sources (countries), even if not in our own country. Relying so heavily on one entity (China) is a very bad idea. Remember what happened to hard drive prices when a tsunami hit Thailand and crippled every manufacturer?
And that works both ways of course. I can assure you that here in Canada diversification of trade is high on the list of every farmer, manufacturer and resource company. The US has been our number one trading partner for generations, but the US is no longer run by sane, normal people. The faster we can find other markets the better.
Rest assured it's not just the Chinese. The entire western world now considers America sketchy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:5, Informative)
1) China manipulates is currency to keep the U.S. dollar value high, so that Chinese companies have a 30% to 40% cost advantage.
Actually, it's more complicated than that. [cfr.org] Look, I'm no apologist for China, but the fact is that China has been propping up the yuan to keep it within a certain value-range compared to the US dollar. Recently, they propped it up slightly less, and that's when Trump labeled them a currency manipulator. Rashly so, IMHO, but that's Trump's style.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general, manufacturer inside a country ask for tariffs if they feel at a disadvantage compared to the imports.
The government is asking for taxes to have more money to spend.
The point of tariffs is to keep everyone more or less honest. If you disregards the rules of trades to much, you get hit with tariffs.
You can have extra tariffs for some products out of a country, but it also can be products from an individual company. This is nothing new and always happens, only most of the time it isn't of general
Sadly these tariffs are likely a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
First, there are some problems with the China-US relationship that need addressing.
Second, Tariffs are a blunt tool, not the best, but realistically they are the only tool the president has at his discretion that is sufficient and can't be worked around.
Third, their bluntness also is useful for negotiation-purposes.
Fourth, sadly but true Tarrifs simply fit tumps, knock the chess board over negotiation style, so of course its is his go-to tool.
What are the issues. First, I'm going to ignore any sense of hyp
Re: (Score:3)
The tariffs are not exactly a new measure. While Europe has been reluctant to address issues like the trade deficit, corporate spying and Chinese protectionism, they have and still are imposing tariffs on goods that they feel are being dumped to kill local markets. The US have been doing the same. What is happening now is heavy tariffs across the board to bring the situation to a head. Painful for all concerned in the short term, but if China can be forced to play nice, i
The reason is... (Score:3)
"Tariffs are normally used to bring manufacturing back to your own country, by removing any competitive advantage that imported goods might have.
But these tariffs are only being placed on goods from one country, China. Isn't this just going to move manufacturing to other countries, and not back to the US?"
While Trump talks a big talk about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US to get votes any thinking person easily comes to the same conclusion you have because it's quite obviously true.
What this is ac
Re: (Score:2)
Already happening. Soybeans for the Chinese will now come from South America and you can bet these sales will never come back to the US. Since a lot of the affected farmers voted Trump, they basically did it to themselves and I have zero compassion. Stupid decision have consequences.
Also, Trump well knows that universal tariffs would be an immediately obvious drastic catastrophe. He is probably hoping that with just China as a target he can make claims to be keeping his promises but at the same time the una
Re: (Score:2)
But these tariffs are only being placed on goods from one country, China.
Perhaps you don't follow the news much, so you have not noticed the tariffs that Trump has placed on Canada, Mexico, and the EU......
It will take the US a long time to rebuild the global relationships Trump delights in destroying.
Re: (Score:2)
We already had:
1980's: War On Drugs
2000's: War On Terror
Now: War On Trade
You can't have a War On Trade without tariffs.
Re:What exactly is the point of these tariffs? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Trump probably knows how self-destructive his tariffs are. I suspect he knows he is driving the world into recession, and throwing away his re-election chances if that happens before the next election. It's about ego to him, as everything is. He can't back down from this colossal blunder without looking bad, so he won't. He'd rather sit in a burning hut than admit he started a fire indoors.
China has something to prove here; they're in a stage equivalent to Europe in the 1800s. They want to prove they have the bigger schlong. They don't back down,
Re: (Score:2)
I think Trump probably knows how self-destructive his tariffs are.
Or, at least, he's aides, staff, cabinet and the Republicans in the House and Senate do. I'm not sure Trump actually knows anything or cares.
China had it coming for a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
An adjustment of the way trade happens with China has for a long time been overdue. China - and also many American corporations producing in China - were skilfully exploiting the loopholes in the system. Time to correct this. I've recently been in South-East Asia and most people I met thought Trump does the right thing. Few people outside China like the Chinese.
What are going to be the consequences?
* Stuff from China will become more expensive, thus reducing the margins from those profiting most from it.
* Stuff from other places, which aren't as blatant in exploiting the loopholes, will become more competitive.
* Perhaps even some American products might become more interesting. Walmart might put some American products actually produced in America on the shelves again instead of the crap out of China.
* Perhaps, but probably unlikely, the Chinese will get a little more cooperative and start to take the concerns of their business partners more seriously.
Capitalism is the best system to optimise the benefits under given rules. If the result is too lopsided, it's time to adjust the rules. Capitalism in turn will adapt to the new situation and optimise for the new situation. All those cry-babies calling foul when the rules change don't get capitalism. They want a nanny-state catering to their benefits.
Re: China had it coming for a long time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: China had it coming for a long time (Score:4, Interesting)
Which economic system is better? Can you show us a country that has said economic system, and is successful?
Generally the response to this is normally "any Scandinavian country". But usually what then happens is a bunch of excuses why they don't count for some reason.
Capitalist [Re: China had it coming for a long...] (Score:5, Informative)
Which economic system is better? Can you show us a country that has said economic system, and is successful?
Generally the response to this is normally "any Scandinavian country".
All the Scandinavian countries are capitalist.
They tend to be capitalist with effective government social programs paid for by taxes, but that doesn't counter the fact that their economic system is basically capitalist.
But usually what then happens is a bunch of excuses why they don't count for some reason.
They don't count because it's inaccurate to say that they're not capitalist.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't count because it's inaccurate to say that they're not capitalist.
Well the original poster wasn't necessarily positing a completely non-capitalist system:
Capitalism is thus flawed, and should be patched or
I would say a Democratic Socialist capitalism is certainly "patched", and different, from the American system.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you can find lots of flaws in capitalism if you look. Personally I think I properly regulated and safety-netted capitalism is the best we have.
Centrally-planned economies don't work well because the bureaucrats can't have the foresight or capacity to react to the world around them. Highly nationalised industry gets more and more stuck because if you think regulatory capture is a problem in private industries, imagine starting out with the regulators already part of the same organisation.
At the same
Re: China had it coming for a long time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To capitalism, they're drains that consume resources without creating value. Yet almost everyone can plainly see the value of taking care of them. Capitalism is thus flawed, and should be patched or replaced so that maximizing profit is tied to maximizing human potential.
Actually, only if the rules allow for it. The way capitalism was lived in the USA in the recent past, where the companies made their own rules, is broken. Don't put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Capitalism is for a big part just local optimisation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, engaging in a trade war with China because of unfair trade practices is the same as the colonial practice of forcibly introducing opium to the Chinese market to hopefully pacify the population.
Those two things have nothing to do with each other and you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
> Few people outside China like the Chinese.
Ok.
> I've recently been in South-East Asia and most people I met thought Trump does the right thing.
Sure, if you don't like Chain, you'll say anyone that says something anti-China is doing the right thing.
I'm sure if he was saying the Chinese were bad because they don't support their currency enough, the same people would be agreeing with that too.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Few people outside any asian country like any other asian country because of a long history of wars fought among them.
If companies move out of China, they'll go to Viet Nam or other up-and-coming developing nation. And you know who's already there? The Chinese.
While we "bring back coal", the Chinese look to the future and invest in other countries against the time when Chinese labor or tariffs become too expensive. They're building infrastructure throughout Africa and Central Asia. They're investing in
Re: (Score:3)
Thinking the trade war against China is a good idea is not at all the same as thinking Trump is a good president. You're stupidly confabulating two completely different things.
Helping to fund the creation of our new and growing global adversary is what is stupid and is what we have been doing for the last few decades. At least if we can curb their unfair trade practices like IP theft, currency manipulation, product dumping from state industries, and forced company pairing to enter their market we would at l
Re: (Score:2)
While China's illegal (counter to the WTO agreements) restraint of trade laws have long needed to be addressed, doing it all at once is really punching a lot of American companies right in the breadbasket.
Why is it that it's okay to fix the trade situation with China all at once, but we can't fix the minimum wage not keeping pace with inflation all at once?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points, because this is exactly right. My handle is nearly 25 years old, and is from a time when social engineering fascinated me. Capitalism works because it is evolutionary- it adjusts better to change.
I hate change. I'm actually to the point that I would support a distributist monarchy, which many people think is communism but is really just capitalism with a mandatory ownership requirement for citizenship.
But yes, if we're going to monkey with the rules, it is true capitalism that wi
Trump is likely to be the first GOP president (Score:3)
And right now companies are paying those taxes, and very likely will continue to. They'd love to raise prices, but wages are down [marketwatch.com], the Job Numbers were overstated [marketwatch.com]. Consumers can't, not won't, pay more. So companies are eating it.
I keep saying this, but that won't last. Pretty soon stock-price boasting layoffs are coming, followed by mandatory unpaid overtime for the survivors. It'll be 2008 all over again but bigger and badder. For one thing this [dailymail.co.uk] thing [cnn.com] wasn't going on in 2008. And the people we have in charge in the US are quite a bit worse at what they do then the last bunch who tanked the economy between 2000-2008.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxes already did go up for many Americans. Trump is just a Republican for convenience sake. He is really just another Democrat from NYC.
Re: (Score:2)
..and he was a registered Democrat til 15 years ago.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course. Hillary Clinton was once a Republican too. She just found that being a Democrat at one point was more expedient/or profitable. People who think there are differences are fooling themselves. The Trumps and Clintons and Obamas all live within a 3 block radius of each other in DC.
Re:Trump is likely to be the first GOP president (Score:5, Informative)
That must be the most moronic claim that I have heard for a while.
I don't think that Donny has any principles, besides promoting himself and making money for himself (which he isn't good at), but to suggest that he promotes Democratic principles ..... that's laughable. Yes, I know he mulled a run as a Democrat in years past, but just look at the actual policies he has enacted, the people he nominated to the Supreme Court. They are all diametrically opposed to the principles of Democrats.
You are also promoting the idea that "they are all the same", which leads naturally to the suggestion that people should not bother to vote. All of this are partisan memes, intended to keep Republicans in power.
Republicans are the masters of vote (and voter) suppression. You are just the useful idiot doing their work for them.
Re: Trump is likely to be the first GOP president (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Folks keep forgetting Tariffs are taxes we pay.
Tariffs are raised more or less at the beheads of the local manufacturer to even out advantages foreign manufacturers have.
Taxes are raised by the government to have more money to spend.
Now if you depend on having cheap sneakers available at $9.99 from Walmart, you'll be disappointed when they can't be imported at this rate form China any more. Either Walmart finds similar priced sneakers in Bangladesh or Vietnam or you'll have to pay $14.99.
But those aren't taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not a tax, regardless what your dictionary claims, that is a laymans definition
Otherwise it would be called tax and not tariff.
Especially when you have a tariff on a good and an import tax ... oops. So one is a tax and is a tariff, can't be so hard to grasp.
Re: (Score:2)
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 (Score:2)
I haven't seen this mentioned on any of the major news programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]–Hawley_Tariff_Act
"Although there is disagreement about the scale of its effect, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.""
Re:Nauseating. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would welcome intelligent action to curb China's abusive behavior (like the TPP for all its flaws). I would also like to incentiveize domestic manufacturing and tariffs are a good way to do that. But Trump's strategy is hampered by his inability to count past two: U.S. vs China, U.S. vs North Korea, U.S. vs Iran, U.S. vs NATO.
There is no reason to invest in manufacturing in the US when the tariffs are going to be lifted once we have a deal. And the money from the tariffs is going to soybean farmers (11 billion thus far, just as much as "Government Motors" got under Obama.)
So the tax cuts brought stock buybacks and a trillion dollar deficit that won't be covered by the tariffs.
If Obama did this, the AEI would be calling it communism, the Tea Party would say that we are on the edge of insolvency, and nobody would be calling him a stable genius.
You're correct if you assume the wrong thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
"There is no reason to invest in manufacturing in the US when the tariffs are going to be lifted once we have a deal. And the money from the tariffs is going to soybean farmers (11 billion thus far, just as much as "Government Motors" got under Obama.)"
You're caught up in Trump's hype he spins to voters. These jobs will never come back to the US and he and every thinking person knows it. What this is actually about is fighting China's rampant IP theft, currency manipulation, product dumping from state indus
Re: (Score:2)
watch and learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Nauseating. (Score:2)