SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump has signed a presidential memorandum directing the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to draw up a list of Chinese products on which tariffs could be imposed. The list will be made public in 15 days, and tariffs will take effect after a 60-day comment period:
The US plans to impose tariffs on up to $60bn (£42.5bn) in Chinese goods and limit the country's investment in the US in retaliation for years of alleged intellectual property theft.
The White House said the actions were necessary to counter unfair competition from China's state-led economy. It said years of talks had failed to produce change. China said it was ready to retaliate with "necessary measures". Beijing also said it would "fight to the end" in any trade war with the US.
US stock markets closed lower on Thursday, as investors responded to the announcement. [...] The White House said it has a list of more than 1,000 products that could be targeted by tariffs of 25%. Businesses will have the opportunity to comment before the final list goes into effect.
Reuters portrays the action as "far removed from threats that could have ignited a global trade war". Bloomberg notes that many industry trade groups and companies are opposing the tariffs.
Related: US Government Puts Tariffs on Imported Solar Cells, Solar Modules, and Washing Machines
Major US Solar Company Blames Job Cuts On Trump's Solar Import Tariff
U.S. Steel and Aluminum Imports to Face New Tariffs
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by cocaine overdose on Friday March 23 2018, @08:43AM (6 children)
If you would like to see someone who's really overdosing on cocaine, just watch that video.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @08:49AM (3 children)
Who gives a shit. The new Judas Priest album rocks. We don't need any other imports for awhile.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @10:42AM
I'd r8 it a decent 8.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @04:13PM (1 child)
Since when was Judas Priest Chinese?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 23 2018, @04:44PM
Well, they used to be English but then they were forced to train their H1-B replacements and now they are, in fact, Chinese.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday March 23 2018, @05:25PM (1 child)
Are you sure you were looking at the screen?
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by cocaine overdose on Friday March 23 2018, @05:29PM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by tonyPick on Friday March 23 2018, @08:53AM (10 children)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/23/china-promises-to-hit-us-with-tariffs-as-stocks-plunge-amid-fear-of-trade-war [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 23 2018, @09:33AM
It begins [xkcd.com] - except this is not a minor story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday March 23 2018, @02:44PM (1 child)
The Chinks have a stranglehold on rare-earth metals, even less rare ones like Neodymium that are used in fucking everything. And according to this, [investingnews.com] most other countries that have them don't have nearly as much or are Russia, and we've been pissing Russia off a lot lately.
We could go the India route, but their relationship with us has become more dubious in recent years, and they're in a powder-keg zone. I guess we could harvest what little we have domestically or enlist help from the Favela Monkeys of Brasil.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday March 23 2018, @10:08PM
Mmmm... China Russia India Brasil... how do you spell BRICS [wikipedia.org]?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 23 2018, @04:54PM (6 children)
It's almost like he's purposely trying to tank the economy. God only know why...
I moved most of my 401k into bonds and other safer bets earlier this month. Interest rates are going up as well (which I actually think is a good thing) and that makes them a bit more attractive.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday March 23 2018, @08:54PM (5 children)
When interest rates go up, bonds go down. Sorry for 101.
Now personal opinion. Bonds are in the mother of all bubble.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 23 2018, @09:29PM (4 children)
The bond market does. Actual bonds just pay whatever interest you get them at.
The fund I'm in mostly buys short term bonds and holds them until maturity. Hence, rising interest rates are good.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday March 23 2018, @10:18PM (3 children)
True, for the bonds hold to maturity, but the question is if the fund will be able to hold on its strategy when investors start to withdraw cash during the crisis.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 24 2018, @04:47AM (2 children)
Depends on how big the crisis is. We don't know how far Trump actually plans to take this or for how long, much less the damage that will result. But yes, a big, escalated crisis could result in a mass withdrawal from the US market. But that's not going to be specific to US bonds. And some things will be hit less hard than others or even be attractive (the money that gets pulled out won't just disappear though it may end up in another country). He may well have found a niche that is more of a place to flee to rather than flee from.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 24 2018, @09:11PM (1 child)
I actually don't' think it has anything to do with Trump. The reason I commented on your portfolio change is that I believe bonds are in the mother of all bubbles that is way bigger than 2008 real estate one. I think being in bonds is to take the highest risk right now and for almost no reward.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:25AM
In 2008, it was possible to be leveraged with 50 dollars of borrowed money for every 1 dollar of actual real estate asset. What that meant was that even a small decline in the value of such an investment resulted in a large decline in actual wealth combined with a modest threshold at which a forced sell-off (in order to maintain reserve) could happen.
Sorry, that's not happening now. There's been huge games played with the bond markets by the central banks (particularly, "quantitative easing"), but for the most part, they got away with it in terms of short term consequences. The fallout from that is not massive leverage since, for example, the central banks could, and perhaps did, buy many trillions of dollars of junk bonds and then write it all off. They didn't trigger inflation (which would have been the primary short term consequence) and due to higher reserve requirements they didn't generate a lot of highly leveraged bonds. Similarly, there's probably a bunch of banks with weak asset sheets, but that's a straightforward sort of banking failure that's happened numerous times over the years, including during the real estate crisis.
My view is that any near future downturns will have little to do with the various investment bubbles that currently exist (though I don't see these bubbles helping matters any), and a lot to do with the fallout from a couple of decades of bad economic policy, triggered perhaps by a tariff war. I think a lot of the big problems of the next decade will have to do with the poor institutional and business behaviors that have been rewarded.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dltaylor on Friday March 23 2018, @09:16AM (19 children)
If the People's Republic of China, simply outlawed all shipments to the USA, or to subsidiaries of US-headquartered (where the execs work, not where the money is hiding), the USA economy would collapse in months. The USA has two major exports: dollars, and expended ammunition, and doesn't really charge for the latter; add a boycott of minor exports, like farm produce and videos, and the damage would be total.
The USA does have a colonial relationship with much of the world, but not like its current leaders imagine. Countries that ship raw materials and farm goods and buy manufactured goods are economic colonies of the manufacturing nations. Wall street's hunger for ever-increasing share prices, due to the stupid Reagan-era preference for capital gains, has driven the movement of most manufacturing to low-wage countries, particularly those with few, or no, environmental protections.
A trade war with the country that keeps your retailers and military (no, the USA cannot currently make everything that its military requires) going is amazingly stupid until you can function without them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Friday March 23 2018, @10:07AM (16 children)
And the Chinese economy would tank, too. The Chinese probably won't be that stupid.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday March 23 2018, @10:55AM
With a new Mao-like figure at its head? It will take decades for the economy to collapse, in which time they may even recover based on the investments in Africa (grow some countries in there, have a market in them). Besides... BRICS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 23 2018, @05:00PM (14 children)
It would harm both economies immeasurably, and take most of the rest of the world economy down with them.
However, the United States and Europe would prevail. China has no civil society to buffer the effects. Its government is strong, but it is brittle. They'd pretty much have to start a war with Taiwan or Japan to unify the populace and keep them from eating Beijing alive. At this time, it's still a war that China would resoundingly lose. It would redraw the global map for the next 100 years, and China would remain a smouldering ruin for most of that.
China has been playing its cards right so far. They've been beefing up their lines of supply with Africa and agreements with Central Asia. They've been building up their military and catching up in technology. They have constructed the infrastructure that serves a country well in war. They also have a military doctrine ready to attach the West on all fronts simultaneously. In 15 years they'll be ready to win, if current trajectories remain the same.
So it's in their interests to avert a confrontation now to allow those plans to ripen to fruition.
It may not be up to them, though. It may be the timing in the United States that brings things to a head first. Americans may not realize it consciously yet, but institutions of all kinds have suffered a catastrophic loss of authority. DC may try to pick a fight with China to keep citizens from eating them alive.
We'll see.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 23 2018, @05:27PM (13 children)
However, the United States and Europe would prevail. China has no civil society to buffer the effects.
I don't know about that. China has weathered famine and uprising in the recent past on the back of that rigid society. You think the US won't collapse the first day Big Macs aren't available? Hell, our president would probably be the first one in the streets!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @05:59PM (1 child)
We don't have as many people but we could probably resort to cannibalism like the Chinese did.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 23 2018, @06:02PM
That's a good point, as Americans we have the largest strategic fat reserves on the planet!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 24 2018, @01:23AM (10 children)
The difference is that the US wouldn't have a famine to weather. Despite all the talk, I don't see either economy being all that susceptible. But if it comes to food security, the US has a glaring advantage with far more food produced than its local economy can eat. There would be a substantial decline and retrenchment on both sides, but nobody would collapse. While the US hasn't suffered through anything serious in a while (and probably won't even in the case of a trade war), parts of the US have so suffered through disaster, and they've turned out well. People pull through when they have to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @01:55PM (9 children)
China can also easily produce enough food for itself to eat. They export food too you realise?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 24 2018, @03:58PM (8 children)
They import [csis.org] (see graph which has the US exporting over $17 billion, while the largest Chinese exports to Japan are around $2.5 billion) a lot more food products by dollar value than they export, but yes, they're currently self-sustaining.
The US is a lot more than just self-sustaining however. From the above link:
It's also worth noting that 27% [worldbank.org] of Chinese workers currently work in agriculture compared to 2% of US workers. And that the US has about 50% more land area [cia.gov] (in link, "arable" means crops that have to be replanted each year like rice and wheat, "permanent crops" means plants that grow multiple years like fruit trees or olives) under cultivation than China does.
And of course, the US only has to feed a little over a quarter the population of China in order to achieve food security.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:16AM (7 children)
They import more expensive food because they are becoming wealthier and like more and varied stuff. They would be unhappy maybe if you told them to stop.(Unless there was a good reason like a trade war.) But they are far from dependent on food imports like you tried to imply..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:30AM (6 children)
I quite agree which is why I noted that China is self-sufficient. But there's two important points to make here. First, the US has enough land under cultivation that they probably could feed both the US and China - it's 50% more than China has (keep in mind also that the US wastes a huge amount of food). And they're doing it with more than an order of magnitude less labor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:31PM (5 children)
Congratulations, your agriculture sector is equivalent to a first world one and China's is equivalent to a developing world one. (no surprises there.)
The 2 key points are, China is self sufficient. China is easily rich enough to buy any food it wants from any other country it wants to if America decides to take it's ball and go home.
How much food America can or can't produce is irrelevant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:56PM (4 children)
Exactly - which is quite relevant to talk of food security.
No, the 2 key points are that China is barely self sufficient using a much larger fraction of its population as a workforce and that the US can do all the same things on an even greater scale, in the even more unlikely event that they need to.
Thus, when someone boasts
They are basically talking out their ass. Let us also keep in mind that China had said famine and uprising due to a level of incompetence and tyranny that the US has yet to stoop to. This could of course change in the moderately long term future. China is definitely getting its act together and the US, well, is kind of regressing at present. So what is true today need not be true (and probably won't be) in the future.
But if tomorrow, food were to become scarce enough that even the US were facing collapse, China would go first.
My view is that the tariff war of the story would harm both sides, but it wouldn't result in a threat to their societies. Sorry, we're all dependent on trade, but not to that degree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:23PM (3 children)
This is idiotic. Neither country is going to starve. So China can make enough food to eat. And all those widget makers can go grow more food when the US stops buying their widgets. Yay, now they can throw even more food straight into the bin.
Quickly tell me how the mighty US of A can already throw even more food into the bin, I'm sure everyone will be super impressed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:12PM (2 children)
Ok, if it's so idiotic, then why are you agreeing with me?
Keep in mind that I was responding to someone who claimed the US would fall to pieces, if Big Macs were no longer available while China would somehow soldier on, ignoring that most such situations which would do that to the US would do far worse to China due to its considerably weaker food security.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @02:13AM (1 child)
The difference is China will happily boycott American everything for the good of the country. And Americans will happily ship all their jobs overseas to make that widget a tiny bit cheaper, screw their neighbour. Which country is living on the edge with no safety margins when prices rise even a tiny bit from a trade war. Those people won't be able to afford big Macs any more and quickly fall to pieces.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 26 2018, @04:26AM
So what's supposed to be the difference again? You can find both categories of people in both countries, for example, people who deliberately "buy USA" or who knowingly sell [wikipedia.org] poisonous fake protein merely because it's cheaper.
The other AC was saying that no one was living on the edge. So why do you disagree with him?
But to follow the implications of your claim, Big Macs are a well-known US food and pretty damn cheap. I've already discussed why it's laughable to claim that US food security is somehow worse than Chinese food security. For example, there are such things as the US producing several times as much food as US citizens eat and doing so with a vanishingly small portion of its population. And most things that would wreck US food security would have Chinese dying in droves.
(Score: 2) by Teckla on Saturday March 24 2018, @12:50PM
Which is simply not going to happen. Why entertain fantasy scenarios?
The U.S. already has a terribly lopsided trade imbalance with China -- almost $400 billion in 2017. Despite that terribly lopsided trade imbalance, China still smacks the U.S. with plenty of tariffs.
The tariffs the Trump administration are enacting impacts a pretty small amount of trade with China, maybe 10% to 20%. This isn't the end of the world, and frankly, China has been cheating the U.S. for years. These tariffs are long overdue. If China wants free trade, then maybe they should consider dropping their tariffs on U.S. goods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @02:23PM
Apparently comrade, you were absent when they discussed the concept of economic dumping at the University of Moscow. No worries, I will enlighten you.
The Yuan has been kept trading at an artificially low exchange rate for decades. The Chinese government also subsidizes shipping for finished goods to the U.S. This has resulted in a slow bleeding to death of U.S. manufacturing, and a dramatic growth in Chinese manufacturing.
The problem with this, is that having a functional domestic manufacturing base is actually important for a lot of reasons that are not emediately apparent to those whose realities are defined by what they watch of TV.
Yes, prices are going to rise for consumer goods. But they are really just catching up to an existing disproportionaitely high inflation rate for durable goods and materials. We are going to suffer for a few years. The state will probably report 9% inflation, but we will probably see something closer to 13%. Note that this is just public debt being paid off by inflating it out of existence. This inflation has already happened, it just hasn't been booked yet. This correction has to happen, and sooner is better than later.
The great American pimping experiment is over. Hustlers and drama queens (the banking at media sectors) are going start seeing less money, and people who actually do things are going to start seeing more money. But over the next few years, we are all going to take it in the ass. Or more to the point, we already have, we are just going to realize it.
If the Chinese were smart, they would negotiate. And what you would see it as a result is either the Yuan float, or the exchange rate change in our favor slightly. But really, I think the trade war is the way to go. We need market stability for our manufacturing base, and that is never going to happen as long as the Yuan is state managed. Even if they changed the exchange rate, they would just change it back in 6 years, when some new enron or AIG style banking scam is operating under the colors of the executive branch. (both parties can be relied on to support whatever scam that happens to be)
China is to manufacturing, what OPEC is to alternative fuels.
Of course we could talk about more important things, like the latest whitehouse beavergate.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday March 23 2018, @11:12AM (6 children)
Start with food. Last thing we need is a weak agricultural industry. Remember how ancient troops burnt the wheat fields of their enemies? That's what we're watching right now, an economic war that we're slowly losing because we let them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday March 23 2018, @11:36AM (2 children)
I believe the argument is that economic cooperation is better for both parties than war. So yes, china's economy is improving, but this *helps* the US economy. If Chinese folks have more disposable income, they can spend that on US manufactured goods.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday March 23 2018, @04:37PM
A trade deficit indicates that's not happening. They are also making more stuff for their own domestic market, and copying the technology needed to rip off and create their own versions of smartphones, cars, etc.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:09PM
US manufactured goods that the chinese spend their money on?
Aside from buying Starcraft so they can play online, nothing else comes to mind. And the Asian servers are by orders of magnitude more powerful and populated than the rest of the world.
US manufactured goods! That was a good one.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday March 23 2018, @02:50PM (2 children)
Pass a law mandating that all American property bought by the Chinks will be repossessed by the state, and possibly with detailed information about the buyers passed back to the Chinese government so that they are compelled to investigate those buyers for corruption and laundering.
Alongside that pass a law mandating that Chinks and other hostiles are not allowed to purchase American property. That ain't gonna hurt anybody but fat cats and other big-city folk, and those muh property values types are cancer anyway.
We're on the right track already going after the Confucius Institutes on our college campuses.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jelizondo on Friday March 23 2018, @03:22PM (1 child)
Are you a fucking pinko communist? Property is sacred pal, or at least in Capitalistic countries it is.
China owns about 1.2 trillion dollars in U.S. bonds, and the deficit was increased this year, so quoting Fortune Magazine: [fortune.com]
That the average American thinks its good to start a trade war I can understand, that the POTUS doesn't even listen to his own experts, that is scary.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 23 2018, @05:07PM
No, this is where the old adage must be recalled: "When you owe the bank a little money, the bank owns you. When you owe the bank a lot of money, you own the bank."
China's economy has been growing, and they have been strengthening their military. But a nation's strength rests on many levels, and the United States still has far, far greater power than China does or will have for some time to come. Also, it's worth mentioning for all the moaning and gnashing of teeth about the death of manufacturing in the United States, it still has an incredibly strong manufacturing economy.
The United States still does have legions of scientists and engineers who can mobilize if required (as much as they have been disgracefully abused in the last 20 years).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bobs on Friday March 23 2018, @11:22AM (12 children)
Serious question: I haven’t found a clear explanation of what he is expecting China to do differently.
Is this another one of his thoughtless actions, where he wants to do something to look tough, or has somebody thought this through with a specifc end goal that will benefit the US?
I agree there are many issues with China, and with US economy, but how is this supposed to make things better for anyonei other than Trump?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @12:35PM (1 child)
Has somebody else thought this thru?
Those that have are not named Trump.
Trump just knows. Like BDO and my redneck neighbor loves him for it. Stick to your guns Donny!! Damn liberals trying to fuck you up!!
Can’t wait til Alex Jones gets his cabinet position.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @04:18PM
Not til he's had a position at Fox News.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday March 23 2018, @12:40PM (3 children)
If there's a rational explanation to what he does, the only one I can find is to put the global(ized) capital market to make a choice where it is going to invest - US or China.
It is clear that, assuming status-quo, he doesn't have enough leverage to make capital market to unconditionally prefer US (in spite of China asking for the control share in enterprises and know-how transfer and what-not), the bean-counters still prefer to go China - no offense meant, but there's the quarter-after-quarter growth that the shareholders like, long-term be damn'd.
Trump gave already what carrot he had - took a hit of $1T+ in US budget over 10 years, demolish consumer and environ protection legislation, etc; and yet the response has been lukewarm.
He hopes that the stick - a war-like situation - will polarize the situation enough to force a pro-US choice and decided to start a trade-war.
If I'm right (and that's a big if), I'm afraid to think what will happen when the capital market will still prefer China as an investment destination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Funny) by Sulla on Friday March 23 2018, @01:39PM (2 children)
I have some sweet sweet securities I would like to sell you if you are looking for year after continual growth and security. 16% average over 14 years, for details contact Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 23 2018, @02:22PM (1 child)
Madoff was a patriot, all the squandered money was spent into the American economy.
Unlike the others with accounts in Cayman and other such places.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Friday March 23 2018, @05:06PM
He certainly played to his audience. Can't find the story now, but supposedly he had some nice art in his office for prospective investors to gawk at. But it went into hiding when auditors were about. I think the above shtick you mention was a real thing that helped him rope investorsof the patriotic sort, but it was only one of many tricks he employed. Here's another article [npr.org] speaking of his approach:
[...]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @02:48PM (1 child)
Serious answer, China has been doing the exact opposite of Tariffs for a long time. China disguises DUMPING (selling below cost of production) by allowing the regional governments to give "rebates" to the manufacturers. This artificially lowers cost of production for a variety of products, and gets around the pesky anti-dumping rules of WTO. It is the only way China has been able to gain share in a lot of the most competitive industries, and the only way they can lure foreign investment at this time (because cost of labor is rising steeply).
How does China finance these rebates? I don't really know, I'm not an economist, but I'm sure it involves a house of cards with walls thinner than the US Treasury Bills. When faced with such obvious malfeasance, I think Tariffs are the only response.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday March 23 2018, @04:31PM
> It is the only way China has been able to gain share in a lot of the most competitive industries
Because using US/Euro greed with tax-free zones, cheap labor, lax regulation enforcement, giant market, in exchange for the designs of every product we used to make, wasn't enough?
The "first world" sold its mojo for a few quarters of profits, and didn't manage to overturn the Chinese government to keep it going forever. Chickens coming home to roost now.
Well, at least until the Trump International Biggest Luxury Beijing gets approved. China will get back to being a partner and friend, then, jobs be damned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Friday March 23 2018, @05:36PM (3 children)
I don't think that's the right question to ask; President Trump may not expect China to change a thing.
I don't keep up with his daily antics (for which I apologize on behalf of my birth country to the civilized world), but when he was campaigning, one of his most cohesive messages was that American factories can't compete because of cheap imports, mostly from China, and if there were tariffs on Chinese products, that would "level the playing field" or some such so that it would be profitable to open and operate American factories making Made In America American goods; the factories would then be able to sell these goods to happy Americans who can't buy cheap imports instead, any longer.
Basically, this:
1. Problem: Cost of American goods is higher than that of Chinese goods, so American factories are not profitable.
2. Solution: Make Chinese goods cost more with tariffs.
3. Result: American Products are now cheaper than Chinese ones and so American factories are now profitable.
4. Secondary Result: America Is Made Great Again.
5. Expected Change On China's Part: Nothing, we are taking care of everything on this end with points 2-4. Just keep doin whatcher doin.
This plan seems simple, but it leaves a lot out.
Like 2.1, all products become more expensive for all Americans.
And 2.3, American factories can't afford their imported raw materials anymore.
And 3.1, sure, while domestic products would be relatively less expensive than artificially inflated Chinese ones, both of them would still be too expensive for anyone to really afford, making the profitability (and entire economy) questionable.
And 4.1, possibly heading for recession/depression from isolationism, but "Great" nonetheless.
Just as your question is serious, I give this answer in all seriousness. Further, I believe that such a plan could actually work if implemented gradually, quietly, and intelligently, but that's three things that the President tends to eschew.
A comparison: It's like saying it's intolerable for imported oil to be cheaper than domestic, so we will tax imported oil, making domestic oil cheaper by comparison. Requires nothing from OPEC -- we just tax their oil and theoretically buy less of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @06:56PM
I think the continued success of certain American companies makes it clear that Americans will pay more for quality goods. Shitty shit will be too expensive, regardless of origin. High quality US stuff will be worth the price, like it has always been.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @02:02PM (1 child)
Except the competition isn't between China and the US. If China is too expensive, Americans will buy from the next cheapest source, unlikely to be America.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday March 24 2018, @03:49PM
That's true across many markets, but specifically in the area of certain manufactured goods, China is such a world leader that it's priced basically all others out of the market. Though the price difference would be local and artificial, on products where "nobody beats China" this could at least theoretically work.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Friday March 23 2018, @12:53PM (10 children)
So we are getting raped by China and one side wants China to keep up the good work and the other wants to tell them to fuck off. If anyone is an expert on not-strictly-concential-sex then it might well be Trump. Tariffs will hurt us with higher good prices but if Americans decide that they can buy American instead because they are already paying more it will help when increased buying leeds to more production and lower prices of American made goods. Rome, England, etc etc were all killed by sending more treasure out for goods than they were taking in from trade or conquest, we are on that same path although our end of the tunnel is probably closer to post fall Russia than Rome.
I don't know if tariffs are right for us, but I do know that everybody but us seems to think they are great unless America uses them. Ideally we would say no to tariffs and out compete our trade restricted opponents until they collapse, but when China has all of our tech and four times our population I don't see us winning that war.
I was listening to a Kissinger talk from back in the day about building more consumers of American goods abroad. Take a country, build factories, buy their goods, eventually they have cultural revolution, they become first world, buy our stuff, go someplace else. Worked in Japan and S. Korea and limited success in Vietnam and India. Kissinger said China pegging their currency to keep their people in bondage is what broke the system. Our plan was to out compete them and break their economic back - that plan failed. So do we keep buying from them or tell the Chinese gov't to fuck off and take our business elsewhere?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 23 2018, @01:12PM (1 child)
This decision is hard to take by someone who may want to buy American but can't afford it.
And some put at least 13% of American households in this category [wikipedia.org]. With a sudden jump in the cost of living, the proportion may grow quite higher as the money are sucked by the 0.1%-ers.
Unless you are part of the 0.1%ers, the "we" pronoun you use is pointless - you have no power of decision in this concern.
Even Trump barely has decision power, he has limited influencing power at best - proof: he took a $1T+ hit into the federal budget over 10 years to attract investment in US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @03:25PM
I remember back in the day a lot of cheap shit was made in the more backward parts of the US. The poor people that worked there could afford to buy their product at their local Kmart. Back then those stores competed with how much of there wares was made in the USA.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @01:38PM
Oh, Sulla, you are better off letting the empty rhetoric to Cicero, he's less scrupulous and so much artful at it.
Is it a legitimate rape or just-a-rape? Because in the later case you'd remain ay least with the child, while in the first Todd Akin gave us assurance pregnancy doesn't happen.
You say it like the American people have enough money to decide. Long gone are those times.
Oh, yeah. Kissinger you say? I see him and I'll raise you to the higher authority of Nostradamus - even if he lived much earlier, he's more accurate and more to the nowadays point than Jissinger,.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @03:10PM
“So do we keep buying from them or tell the Chinese gov't to fuck off and take our business elsewhere?”
Yes. It is better than tariffs. But requires due diligence by each consumer. And a willingness to pay abit more. More planning and less keeping up with the Jones. Which is funny enough what it sounds like the Chinese plan to do to us.
Remember when Walmart was buy American? I used to shop there.
But it isn’t only buy American that would be to hard. But buy American and from countries that don’t fuck us like China.
Tariffs won’t accomplish what a good Rosie Riveter style campaign to unite us into buying from those who play mostly fair with us.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Rich26189 on Friday March 23 2018, @03:31PM (5 children)
I agree with most of what you said especially
Citing my own self as one example. I’m retired, living on a fixed income. I’d consider myself to be, economically, lower-middle class, not flush but not living month to month. When I want to buy something other than food those products are mostly made in China (or India or some other Asian country). Not there is anything wrong with those countries making and selling products in this country. But, given a choice I would buy a US made product, it’s where I live and I want to support its economy but those choices are few and far between.
Common, everyday products such as stationary items like index cards or a silicone pastry brush are made in Asia. The quality::value varies quite a bit, the index cards aren’t even proper card stock, more like blotting paper, touch ‘em with a pen and the ink is sucked out into blot. The pastry brush though it may be of higher quality than a typical Chinese product (branded as OXO) and is still quite expensive for what it is IMO.
I wanted to use the brush for spreading glue in woodworking, it’s supposed to clean up more easily than other types of brushes. The woodworking is a recent pursuit since retiring and I wanted to go all hand tools. Initially I bought a few things at a Habitat for Humanity ReStore (a second hand shop for those unfamiliar). For the tools I wanted to buy new I bought from Canada, UK, France, Austria and the Czech Republic, countries whose economies I choose to support. If what I wanted was made anywhere in Western or Central Europe I’d buy it. Yes, it was more expensive, but I simply waited a little while saving my pennies and made the purchase.
My contribution to those economies was a drop in the bucket but I had the choice and made it. What I really dislike is there not being a choice. There are few US companies that "make things" and many companies with US names that just "import things", just middle-men taking their cut.
Recently there was a news item (I paraphrase) ‘Kidde, the maker of a smoke detectors was recalling a number of these unit because of a defect’. My first thought was Kidde didn’t make these smoke detectors they contracted with some nondescript factory in China to make these and then imported them. Fake News, all of it!
And another things that pisses me off is why it’s so expensive to ship from Europe to the US (east coast no less) while shipping from Asia to the US is so inexpensive. Damn economy of scale.
/Rant; Getting off of my own lawn; going back to my shop but first, read some more Soyletnews.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday March 23 2018, @06:07PM
In general when looking to buy I try to stick to western Europe, the States, Canada, Japan or South Korea. If I need something cheaper I will opt for anywhere except China. I can compete with a person from the first set of countries, and I am okay with money going to build up the economies in the second set because most places aren't repressing their own countries from advancing.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday March 23 2018, @09:34PM (3 children)
What really bugs me is when I can't tell if the product is produced in China or Malaysia, but is hidden behind a distributed by US company, random US city. Hershey's chocolate is a prime example, after some research I've come to the conclusion, that almost all the Hershey's chocolate produced for the US market is in fact manufactured in Mexico. Only a tiny fraction is made in Hershey, PA to make it look like the company is American. More Ghirardelli chocolate is made in SF than Hershey's chocolate is made in the US.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:31AM (2 children)
citation?
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:09PM
Do the fsck'n look up yourself you lazy bastard, form your own opinion. That was the whole point of the article. Here is a quick clue though...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hershey_Company [wikipedia.org]
But almost every label reads Distributed by Hershey Chocolate company, Hershey PA
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:14PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardelli_Chocolate_Company#Production [wikipedia.org]
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday March 23 2018, @09:02PM (5 children)
The WSJ runs surprisingly ballanced (given media hysteria about Trump) article today. Highly recommended.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-started-the-trade-war-not-trump-1521797401 [wsj.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday March 24 2018, @06:58AM (4 children)
Kindergarten rhetoric aside, Trump withdrew from the TPP three days after assuming office. Now, whether it was a brilliant false flag or just a septuagenarian shooting his own foot, it nevertheless served as the opening volley in this over-hyped trade war.
As for the rest of the article, paywalled.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 24 2018, @09:00PM (3 children)
Yeah, sorry for the pay-walled link. I was able to read it from my phone. What I found interesting, it reminds us how China forces the US companies to transfer technology and how it is impossible to fight using the regular WTO methods.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:36AM (2 children)
But, that's by design. The WTO is there to make nations resolve their issues through fair, non-discriminatory trade without tariffs that lead to warfare. If China restricts foreign ownership on joint ventures and investments to make members transfer IP to Chinese companies at the expense of low-cost labor, they're operating under the TRIPS technology transfer requirement the US signed on - and in fact, proposed. Moreover, if the US feels China is going too far, there's a dispute resolution process in place. Of course, transparency and disclosure during such a process is required so if the US is found to be, for instance, discriminatory in patent application of foreign nationals (hint hint), then the resolution might end up disadvantageous to the US...
compiling...
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:28AM (1 child)
The article says that the US companies are not taking matters to WTO because they fear Chinese retaliation. As far as I understand it's simple blackmail. Yes, a company would eventually win its case, but meantime it would be denied access to cheap Chinese labor and loose the competition; perhaps permanently.. If true, only the government is powerful enough to step in and perhaps Trump really wants to start a trade war to let high tech off the hook.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday March 26 2018, @05:59AM
First off, companies don't take matters to the WTO. Member states do.
That aside, apparently the USTR launched the challenge to the WTO[1] on the 23rd so state-level retaliation wasn't a concern. Moreover, reading it alongside the report[2] clarifies corporate level retaliation was never a widespread concern either. Rather, following the mentioned articles(27,29(3) and 43(4)[3]) makes it pretty obvious that, while China is indeed violating TRIPS, the USG chose not to act since the mid-90s when TRIPS was signed because the Chinese could have got the same results through taxing patent licensing.
That is, what Trump doesn't like is how the Chinese effectively limit patent terms to 10 years, how patent improvements are awarded to the party that made the improvements rather than the original patent owner in China, and how 3rd party licensing is allowed there. But, putting aside Trump's notion that patents should keep the Chinese paying for the same patents, and their own development of those patents, indefinitely, what he fails to realize is that the tariffs won't amount to anything since China can just match them while it re-implements the disputed articles through a tax on patent transfers. e.g. A 300% tax rate on profits derived from a patent transfer with a 1-5 years expiry, 200% on 5-13 and 150% on 14-18 would force permanent tech transfers without violating TRIPS. Throw in a German author's right style law to supplement your internal needs for IP-like laws to promote innovation/inequality, and China is WTO/GATT/TRIPS compliant again. And once the network effect kicks in, the whole TRIPS agenda to globalize and normalize patents would have failed.
Anywho, my two cents is that the state department desperately needs a peon capable of translating their position from compound sentences to 128 character twits. It won't be easy... But we can make America great again.
1. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/march/following-president-trump%E2%80%99s-section [ustr.gov] https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/US%20Cons%20Req%20China%20-%20Final.pdf [ustr.gov]
2. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Section%20301%20FINAL.PDF [ustr.gov]
3. http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/lawsdata/chineselaw/200301/20030100064563.shtml [mofcom.gov.cn]
compiling...
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday March 23 2018, @09:28PM
The bottom line is will the consumers still buy foreign goods ? A tariff doesn't matter if the end user still purchases the foreign product. Honestly if you were to buy a new car is the US you'd be doing an American worker more good buying a Toyota than a Ford. The Toyota, though a foreign company is produced in the US by US workers, while the Ford is likely produced in Mexico or China. Neither company is paying taxes in the US and while the Toyota profit may go overseas the salary is staying here in the US. To give Ford some credit most of the cars they are producing in China are for the Chinese market.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday March 28 2018, @10:13AM
Is Trump basically admitting that the US and capitalism cannot compete against a state run (socialist/communist) system?