SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the start-counting-the-pennies,-er,-yen dept.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Trump's 15 percent tariff on Chinese goods kicks in
It's the first day of September, marked by a new round of tariffs on Chinese imports, which went into effect Sunday. In latest escalation of the trade war with China, the Trump administration has slapped a 15% tariff on $112 billion worth of Chinese goods (PDF), something consumers can expect to feel when buying everything from milk to diapers to some China-manufactured tech products like the Apple Watch.
But on Aug. 13, the USTR said it would offer a temporary reprieve to a batch of about $160 billion products (PDF) like laptops and cellphones. Those goods won't be subject to the new tariffs until Dec. 15 -- an attempt to blunt the impact of the duties on the holiday shopping season. Trump later raised the new tariff on Chinese goods to a 15% rate rather than the initial 10%.
China retaliated Sunday with its own tariff plan taking effect at 12:01 p.m. local time. It's rolling out higher tariffs in stages on a total of about $75 billion in US goods like soybeans and crude oil. It'll also resume an extra 25% duty on cars imported from the US on Dec. 15.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by The Shire on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:14PM (21 children)
Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the great depression. It certainly didn't help, but it's not the reason it happened. And there's a huge difference between high tariffs on ALL trade and balanced trade. Currently we're engaged in evening out the imbalance with China while at the same time other nations are profiting from increased trade with the US. The idea is to profit from our goods, pay as little as possible for the other guys stuff, and make as much as possible right here at home where everyone wins.
Our economy is currently booming, and the only thing that can stand in it's way is if the federal reserve intentionally kicks it in the nuts by increasing the rate again when they should be lowering it. Remember, they held it at a whipping 0% for the duration of Obama's 8 year term. They didn't raise it until 2 years into Trump's term because they wanted to cash in on the economy. Now, as elections approach, watch to see them raise it again in order to facilitate the recession that the dems have been praying for.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:44PM (12 children)
I'd say, instead, they held it at 0% until the aftershocks of Gulf War II spending finally subsided.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Shire on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:52PM (11 children)
It's been more than 25 years since the Iraq War. I guess it's just a coincidence that Trumps election marked the end of it's impact. *facepalm*
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 05 2019, @07:50PM (10 children)
Whoa - I knew it was bad, I just didn't know how bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War [wikipedia.org] - the conflict was generally acknowledged as ending in 2011.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Thursday September 05 2019, @10:21PM (9 children)
That war was over the same year it started. Seems like there's a lot of kids who weren't even a twinkle in their daddy's eye at the time but the rest of us remember it.
The insurgency that filled the power gap however, because Bush screwed it up so badly, took much longer to resolve.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06 2019, @12:19AM
Nothing has been resolved and the region has been horribly destabilized, which is what happens with all of these wars of aggression.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 06 2019, @12:25AM (7 children)
I have to agree with AC on that one, with the proviso that the mideast hasn't been "stable" since the fall of the Ottoman. Whatever stability Iraq had was due to Hussein's iron fist and ruthlessness, and we removed that.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Friday September 06 2019, @12:35AM (6 children)
Oddly enough, Iraq has been relatively quiet since the "Caliphate" was eradicated. The sources of terrorism at this point are primarily those backed by Iran.
Iran was such a nice place back in the 70's.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 06 2019, @12:51AM (5 children)
Quiet and stable are quite different things. How many of us remember the book district of Baghdad, prior to the US invasion? That is long gone. As bad as Hussein was, he offered the stability to support a unique district where everything imaginable was available in the book district. Today, the city is pretty much a shambles, and you would have hell researching much of anything beyond bomb making.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Friday September 06 2019, @04:05AM (1 child)
His time was pretty unstable as well - the war with Iran, the attack on Kuwait. And he was pretty ruthless with the Kurds. It's not entirely clear if the region is more or less stable now than it was. We just didn't hear about the internal atrocities when Hussein was there.
The real problem is we took out the wrong guy. What we should have done is ousted the Iranian government and returned it to a civilized secular nation like it was under the Sha. Iran would be a stabilizing agent in the region today had we done so.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 06 2019, @02:16PM
We may have different definitions of "stable". If I started listing all the things I did NOT like about Hussein, I'd be here for awhile. I really, and truly, did detest him. My feelings for him bordered on hatred, to be honest. He deserved to be killed.
But, "stability", meaning, outsiders weren't coming in and screwing with his people, was pretty good. Yeah, our government made crazy claims about Al Queda training camps and such in Iraq, but that was all bullshit. The Iran/Iraq war? Hussein disposed of a lot of people who might have challenged his rule in that war. The Kurds? That one is complicated . . . Hussein kept the Kurds down, just as all the surrounding nations did. It is noteworthy that the Kurds have been a constant thorn in the Turk's side for decades, but they were rather subdued in Iraq, until the US invaded.
For varying values of "stable", you may well argue that Hussein wasn't. But, he did offer stability to his nation, right up until he screwed the pooch by invading Kuwait. The western world actually liked seeing his antics, right up until he threatened the flow of oil.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 06 2019, @04:16AM (2 children)
Not at all.
Except freedom which is the key ingredient of any book district.
Looks like Saddam Hussein offered less stability than advertised. But at least the trains ran on time, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06 2019, @06:01AM (1 child)
On the other hand, we in the US can't run a passenger train service at all anymore.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 06 2019, @09:24AM
Not that anyone was using it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @07:11PM (1 child)
Do not try to explain reality to the lost. Bottom line is the US is the only country that is self sufficient. Few other countries do have same posaibility, but they rather suck IMF cock.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday September 05 2019, @08:31PM
Is that the same IMF set up by the US to advance the interests of the American moneyed class? Why yes. Yes it is.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @07:35PM (5 children)
No, *WRONG*
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html [census.gov]
But since you don't understand what this trade thing actually is .... yeah....
*WRONG*
https://data.oecd.org/leadind/composite-leading-indicator-cli.htm#indicator-chart [oecd.org]
Lowest level since massive drop in 2009. But can't argue with a Trump parrot.
US enjoyed being reserve currency status for far too long. US has been leeching the labor of the world for far too long while pushing the USD ponzi scheme. Since it wants to be protectionist, time for that to be reset. Whatever happens because of the trade war, it's on Trump and idiots like you.
(Score: 0, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Thursday September 05 2019, @08:11PM (4 children)
HAHAHA! You're a FOOL!
Globalists gotta be globalists, I guess, and are blind to local economies unless they affect the global markets.
Trump understands this, some economists understand this, but you don't. Other countries, including China, are facing economic woes. That affects US companies that are heavily entangled in global trade.
What Trump's policies are doing is encouraging investment and business growth within the US, a strategy that's working as the economy on Main Street is doing great, while all the globalists are whining because their derivative bullshit global market shares are losing value.
Here you go, buddy, this guy can explain it to you in terms you can understand. [youtube.com].
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 06 2019, @02:39AM
In what town is this Main Street that you mention?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday September 06 2019, @09:35AM (2 children)
Nonsense. There are two things forgotten here. First, the tariffs aren't going to be applied for long enough to affect long term business strategy. Sure, if tariffs were going to be around for 20 years, it might be worth my while to invest in steel, textiles, and other such things. In the meantime it disrupts supply chains all over the place.
Second, the rest of the world isn't standing still and waiting for the US to sort itself out. The massive growth has been outside of the US ever since the end of the Second World War. It was Western Europe in the early part of that era, rebuilding from the destruction of the Second World War, and now it's almost everyone on the planet building towards developed world status. Protectionism cuts off the US from that massive growth.
There is no encouraging here. It's just disruption without any long term effect other than to encourage businesses to move yet more stuff out of the unpredictable zone, namely, out of the US and into those massive growth areas.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday September 06 2019, @11:03AM (1 child)
Just claiming that what's going on is "protectionism" exposes your ignorance. It's a rebalancing and deglobalization.
Trump did not just show up out of nowhere and decide to do these corrections. He was a response to the years of globalist elites extracting wealth from main street to maintain the US empire. The empire needed to be dismantled, one way or another. It's been costing the US more than it's worth for a decades.
The only thing that's happening now is that the costs are being shifted and no longer borne as much by the US workers.
That's disruption, sure, it had to happen as part of the deglobalization and empire dismantling. You're still just blind to the direction it's all going.
Those of us who have seen the elites crushing the middle class for decades are cheering standing up to China for a change. The cost is well worth it. China has been around a long time, and they treat the US as a barbarian nation. That kind of strategy means you bring in the barbarian leaders, and show them some good life, and they then go along with whatever China wants. That's what has been happening to the US for a long time, with the US population paying the cost for the good life of the China-friendly elites. Trump is just interrupting that strategy.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 06 2019, @11:31PM
And just how much ignorance is exposed by that? Not much.
In other words, just protectionism, but gussied up with fancy rhetorical decorations. Nobody is for "unbalanced deglobalization", it's just a natural consequence of such shortsighted protectionism schemes.
This empire has nothing to do with free trade. I agree that Trump is a response. I don't agree that the response is sane or going to improve things with respect to the current situation. My view is that tariffs and similar bits of protectionism have a remarkably bad history of failure (even when they succeed at first such as with the Japanese Empire and Paraguay in the early 19th century). But this time will be different, right?
Let us keep in mind that the crushing has resulted in most of the people who left the middle class becoming richer [soylentnews.org] rather than poorer.