Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday September 05 2019, @04:49PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:44PM (12 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:44PM (#890182)

    they held it at a whipping 0% for the duration

    I'd say, instead, they held it at 0% until the aftershocks of Gulf War II spending finally subsided.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by The Shire on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:52PM (11 children)

    by The Shire (5824) on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:52PM (#890187)

    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)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday September 05 2019, @07:50PM (#890215)

      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)

        by The Shire (5824) on Thursday September 05 2019, @10:21PM (#890272)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06 2019, @12:19AM (#890306)

          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)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 06 2019, @12:25AM (#890309) Journal

          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)

            by The Shire (5824) on Friday September 06 2019, @12:35AM (#890315)

            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)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 06 2019, @12:51AM (#890326) Journal

              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)

                by The Shire (5824) on Friday September 06 2019, @04:05AM (#890378)

                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

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 06 2019, @02:16PM (#890520) Journal

                  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)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 06 2019, @04:16AM (#890384) Journal

                Quiet and stable are quite different things.

                Not at all.

                he offered the stability to support a unique district where everything imaginable was available in the book district.

                Except freedom which is the key ingredient of any book district.

                Today, the city is pretty much a shambles, and you would have hell researching much of anything beyond bomb making.

                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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 06 2019, @06:01AM (#890413)

                  Looks like Saddam Hussein offered less stability than advertised. But at least the trains ran on time, right?

                  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

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 06 2019, @09:24AM (#890452) Journal

                    On the other hand, we in the US can't run a passenger train service at all anymore.

                    Not that anyone was using it.