The U.S. Commerce Department has massively increased the taxes on a particular kind of imported Chinese steel. U.S. steelmakers are separately asking the International Trade Commission to ban all Chinese steel imports:
The US has raised its import duties on Chinese steelmakers by more than five-fold after accusing them of selling their products below market prices. The taxes specifically apply to Chinese-made cold-rolled flat steel, which is used in car manufacturing, shipping containers and construction.
The US Commerce Department ruling comes amid heightened trade tensions between the two sides over several products, including chicken parts. Steel is an especially sensitive issue. US and European steel producers claim China is distorting the global market and undercutting them by dumping its excess supply abroad.
Related Stories
Obama Cancels Meeting with Philippine President Duterte
President Obama has cancelled a planned meeting with Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte after Duterte described Obama as a "son of a bitch" in comments made to reporters. Obama will instead meet with South Korean President Park Geun-hye, presumably to discuss North Korea's latest missile tests. Here is our previous article about Duterte.
G20 Summit in China: U.S.-China Tensions, North Korea, and Low-Cost Steel
The Group of 20 summit is now underway in Hangzhou, China. Before the summit even began, tensions between the U.S. and China were reflected by shouting matches between Chinese and American officials on the tarmac and at the West Lake State House where President Obama and President Xi Jinping met. Security guards also attempted to prevent foreign media from covering Obama's departure from Air Force One, and in a departure from protocol, no rolling staircase was provided for the President. When questioned about the incidents the next day, President Obama said that Americans "don't leave our values and ideals behind when we take these trips" but dismissed the incidents:
[Continues...]
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-parliament-steel-coal-idUSKBN16C00H
China will cut steel capacity by 50 million tonnes and coal output by more than 150 million tonnes this year, its top economic planner said on Sunday as the world's No. 2 economy deepens efforts to tackle pollution and curb excess supply. In a work report at the opening of the annual meeting of parliament, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said it would shut or stop construction of coal-fired power plants with capacity of more than 50 million kilowatts.
The pledges are part of Beijing's years-long push to reduce the share of coal in its energy mix to cut pollution that has choked northern cities and to meet climate-change goals while streamlining unwieldy and over-supplied smoke-stack industries such as steel. Speaking at the opening of parliament on Sunday, Premier Li Keqiang reiterated the government's plan to ramp up monitoring of heavy industry and crack down on companies and officials that violate air quality rules. "Officials who do a poor job in enforcing the law, knowingly allow environmental violations, or respond inadequately to worsening air quality will be held accountable," he said. "We will make our skies blue again."
Related: U.S. Quintuples Taxes on Chinese Cold-Rolled Flat Steel
China Is Grappling With Hidden Unemployment
China's Smoggiest City Closes Schools Amid Public Anger
China: Solar Installations Up 82 Percent in 2016; Coal Usage Down Again
US steel and aluminium imports face big tariffs, Trump says
President Donald Trump has said he will sign off on steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports next week, hitting producers like Canada and China.
Flanked by US metals executives at the White House, he said a 25% tariff would be slapped on steel products, and a 10% tariff would be imposed on aluminium.
Mr Trump tweeted that the US was suffering from "unfair trade".
The US imports four times more steel than it exports, and is reliant on steel from more than 100 nations.
Related: U.S. Quintuples Taxes on Chinese Cold-Rolled Flat Steel
China to Cut Steel and Coal Production
Trump Administration Finalizes 300% Import Tariff on Bombardier Jets From Canada
US Government Puts Tariffs on Imported Solar Cells, Solar Modules, and Washing Machines
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday May 19 2016, @01:24AM
So..... free trade is GOOD! :)
Unless it's bad. :(
So, is the TPP good or bad?
(Yes, i know... it. is. BAAAAAD! :|
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:10AM
Free trade does not mean unregulated trade.
Because of their economic slowdown, China has a massive over-capacity problem. They are definitely selling at below cost because it's still cheaper to sell at a loss than to shutter the factories and let the bank repossess them.
Personally, I think we should focus on "fair trade" rather than "free trade." That's what this case falls under and it would also include things like environmental and labor protections too.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:42AM
I think the behavioral economics crowd is likely to start turning against free trade and advocating for some form of strategic trade which hedges between the free trade and protectionist positions. It fits with their other memes.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday May 19 2016, @04:20AM
It's not free trade when it's subsidized.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @05:53AM
China is excluded from/by the TPP. Go figure.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @04:10PM
It's not just China. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) are all excluded by TPP/TTIP/TISA. It's fairly obvious what the lizard people are doing. They want one overarching government for the West, and they've realized that they can no longer control India and China in particular as their middle class begins to grow. All those countries would also very much like to stop trading in US dollars.
Once TPP/TTIP/TISA are in place, production of modern capitalist trinkets will shift from China and India to the Southeast Asian countries that are a part of TPP. TTIP/TISA as far as I can tell are the components that actually build that half-a-world government. Southeast Asia is where the new slave labor is for the West (plus Japan and Oceania). It can't last forever, though, especially in a form that's meant to funnel wealth out of developed countries and labor out of undeveloped countries straight up to the 0.1%.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 19 2016, @01:28AM
They never should have signed those free trade agreements. Only now, after all this time, they begin to figure out that the agreements are bad for us? Worse - they aren't much good for anyone else. The only people profiting from "free trade" agreements are some corporate heads, globalization fanatics, and the Chinese government.
Who doubts that China is subsidizing corporations that compete with American/European business?
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @01:34AM
who doubts that turnabout is fair play, and that our own governments sold us up a river that the Chinese government has had the foresight to avoid (notably land ownership, corporate ownership, import/export agreements, videogame/media sales, etc.)
I don't blame the Chinese for taking full advantage of the opportunities they were given, I blame our government and corporate leaders for not doing their part to curb these abuses while they were still in their infancy.
Just look at Chinese dropshipping practices with the 'gift' or '5 euro' stamps to avoid customs fees. Where is the domestic enforcement and punitive actions on those by US/Euro customs agencies?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Thursday May 19 2016, @06:12AM
Because our government and corporate "leaders" were/are making money hand over fist due to these agreements. Fuck the general population, we got ours.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:25AM
they aren't much good for anyone else. The only people profiting from "free trade" agreements are some corporate heads, globalization fanatics, and the Chinese government.
That's just wishful thinking.
In 1990 China had a middle class no bigger than a rounding error. Today they have well over 100 million people in the middle class. [cnn.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday May 19 2016, @05:02AM
In 1990 China had a middle class no bigger than a rounding error. Today they have well over 100 million people in the middle class.
Which, given the size of China's population, is only slightly bigger than a rounding error.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @05:39AM
9% is not even close to a rounding error. 0.1% is a rounding error
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday May 19 2016, @11:58PM
9% is not even close to a rounding error. 0.1% is a rounding error
Actually, depending on how the statistics were measured, the rounding error could be greater then 10%.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:12PM
Wonderful - they've impoverished that many people in America, to give China a "middle class". Isn't life grand?
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:44PM
Who is "they" ?
I hope you mean shortsighted Americans, ie your leaders and betters.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:56PM
"your leaders and betters."
Just for the record - I have met people who are my "betters". Seriously, I have met people whom I consider to be superior to myself. Few of those have worn suits. Very few have worked in government. Some have worn uniforms, but I don't see military personnel as "government employees", and they certainly aren't elected.
You'll have your work cut out for you, trying to find anyone in the halls of power in Washington that I can acknowledge as my "better". The title of my original post here sums it up nicely.
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @06:55PM
> Wonderful - they've impoverished that many people in America,
Since 1990, 100 million americans have dropped from the middle class to below the poverty line?
In fact, since 1970 the lower class in the US has increased by 4%. [cnn.com] Even if 100% of that is due to "free trade" and no other structural problems with the US economy like union-busting and pension abandonment, that's still a net increase of 87 million people in the middle class. Not to mention that being poor in the US is a lot better than being poor in china.
You really do live in a fantasy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 20 2016, @09:58AM
But being middle class in China is a lot better (and a lot easier to do) than being in the middle class in the US.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by devlux on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:26AM
Personal opinion. I think the world should move to go free trade completely across the board. Put everyone on a level playing field none of this protectionist bullshit.
No taxes on income, no taxes on imports or exports, no taxes on property, only a tax on your gains, capital or otherwise.
Not on what you bought a thing for, but on what you sell it for, which is really hard to hide because banks are already reporting your details in full to the govt anyways.
So don't be a wuss about it. Make this tax a nice hefty 20 - 25% of the price at each step of the way then sit back and watch as production moves back home to each country where it belongs.
Do the math, with a single global tax of 25% at every step of the way. The natural result is that less middle steps will be involved.
Currently from the mine to the shop for any object is no less than 30 middlemen. Under this scenario, the price of objects rises to the points where no one cares to buy anything, but the extra income from not having every goddamned thing you do taxed will free up more disposable income which people will spend if you give them a compelling reason. Companies will merge and conglomerate in order to reduce costs and be more efficient, but multi-national ultra diversified mega corps tend to be horrifically inefficient and will rapidly decay into separate national organizations.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:48AM
I feel like I should clarify.
Tax the price, not the gain. Normally a capital gain is the amount earned after subtracting the cost.
I'm saying if a thing sells for $100 then $25 of that goes to the govt and the seller keeps $75, It doesn't matter if the item originally cost $50 or or $500, a tax is paid based on the sales price at each juncture. No discounts or deductions for anything, and non-profits are not exempt and get no special treatment.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Thursday May 19 2016, @12:54PM
Ah.
Then that's not a VAT (value-added tax), which only taxes the economic value which was added at each step.
For example, if a manufacturer spends £20 on raw materials, and sells the resulting good to a wholesaler for £30, they pay some percentage of tax on the £10 difference. If the wholesaler then sells it to a retailer for £50, then they get taxed on the £20 difference. If the retailer sells it for £80, then they get taxed on the £30 difference. And so on.
(I'm sure I'm simplifying hugely here. I'm no accountant.)
So with VAT, the end result is the same, no matter how many or few steps were involved.
I suspect you're describing some cumulative form of sales tax. (I can't find any relevant expansion for 'SAT', so I'm not sure if that's what you meant.)
[sig redacted]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Thursday May 19 2016, @03:06AM
That might work in a world where environmental and health protections were also the same globally. As it is, they're far from it, as is concern for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @03:15AM
That would be an extremely inefficient system.
No space for specialization. A quick way for some corporate conglomeration to buy up a total supply chain while every other megacorp did the same.
Middle steps are where all the competition and innovation are. Why get rid of those?
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday May 19 2016, @03:16AM
You can't have a uniform economic system unless all the constituencies are uniform. The governmental services demanded and the manner in which they are structured vary based on national politics, shaped by geography and cultural factors. You're also abolishing use taxes which have an effect of consolidating some elements of budgeting functions with the funding mechanism (variance in expenses is tied to variance in revenue).
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday May 19 2016, @04:33AM
I will only support free trade if free migration (of labour) is also included.
If corporations can jurisdiction shop for workers, it is only fair that the workers are able to jurisdiction shop for employers or a social safety net.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Thursday May 19 2016, @04:37AM
Oh yeah, I thought that was implied but I guess not. But of course, migration should be free and open to all free people at any time for any reason to any destination.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Saturday May 21 2016, @06:35PM
That sounds like a horrible world where we are mostly transients to earn enough to eat. There's more to life than chasing fiat dollars.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @04:46AM
So like they did in the UK?
Oh wait all of those offshore accounts are to dodge exactly those taxes. See that multimillion dollar yacht I didnt buy it in England. Some company I work with happens to work with another company bought and sold it in panama and let me use it 24/7 its just sitting there and they need someone to use it. I just so happen to own the company that owns the company that owns the company that owns the ship. Oh they got a bargain too. They picked it up for 15k from this company who just happened to want to do a stock swap with them.
For every barrier you can make up there are millions of accountants who know how to get around it.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Thursday May 19 2016, @06:12PM
Tax on only gains? That would create really harsh mountainous playing field.
Income + wealth has positive feedbacks on both high and low ends driving it to extremes.
Living expenses are regressive, they are not proportional to income. Add in all poverty trap affects. Living expenses are much smaller proportion of income on the high end. Each approximate magnitude of wealth allows for another ~.5% capital gains (crude approximate observation derived from the book Capital).
To keep a reasonably sloped playing field we need negative feedback on income+wealth. Thus we need progressive tax on income, negative on the lowest end. We need a global progressive tax on wealth ~.5% 100K -1M, 1% 1M-10M, 2%10M-100M, etc. Where wealth is stocks, bonds, other financial instruments, real estate etc.
The VAT (value added tax) you advocate for in your last paragraph has its place but I doubt It will shift production "where it belongs". I agree it would decrease transfers of ownership. One easy implication is that it would encourage large vertical international conglomerates that control extraction to end consumer delivery of a product.
I agree with the truly free trade, so as long as externalities are attempted to be accounted for. Such things as stumpage fees(resource extraction tax), pollution taxes would be useful here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by archfeld on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:47AM
The Chinese have been 'playing' the world in both industry and financial markets for a long time. Using government funded industry to kill off competition and playing currency speculation games that ultimately destabilize the stock markets. I am for fair trade, but that requires both sides try and dance to the same music.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @03:18AM
Lucky the US hasn't been 'playing' financial markets isn't it.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Thursday May 19 2016, @09:10PM
The US govt. to my knowledge doesn't play currency trading games like China does. That said there is no way to really know what the Fsck'n CIA is out there doing in our name sadly. China however is the source of more counterfeit money from more countries than any other place on the planet, and you can be assured that their government is hip deep in it. I may be naïve but I'd like to think that the US and UE governments would be happier and better off with a stable currency market.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 20 2016, @10:24AM
You seem to be pretty unsure about what causes currencies to fluctuate and how much they do.
Hint, all the countries that have been slashing interest rates (some even into negative) have been a direct attempt to weaken their currencies. China has been doing the opposite and spending many many billions per month to keep its currency stronger.
Methinks you have been watching too much FOX and not enough actual economics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 20 2016, @02:16PM
At least China hasn't been invading countries that threaten to start selling oil in non US dollars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:53AM
Cold-rolled flat steel is a higher quality product than hot rolled, but both are commodity stuff.
Cars now use various high strength steels (for example, HSLA, high strength, low alloy). Then there are tool steels (high strength when heated) and many other specialty alloys and heat treatments. These products are where the big money is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @02:56AM
Your daily reminder. That's part of what we can borrow from to stand up to China's selfish and bullying tactics, even when they threaten to retaliate by cutting off the flow goods we really want.
OTOH if you don't have good alternatives, then you're kinda stuck. It's worth making sacrifices to have good alternatives to the likes of China, Russia, and the Saudis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @03:23AM
So you want to set up an agreement (TPP), just so you can break it (set different terms for different countries)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @03:33AM
We can impose tariffs on goods sold below market or in blatant disregard of environment or working conditions by countries that aren't part of our trade agreements. We could've done that anyway, but the business relationships facilitated by the agreements make it harder for countries to retaliate against us.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @05:23AM
Yes you can hold other countries to their side of the agreements while crossing your fingers and telling everyone those same rules don't apply to you.
Again you want to set up a system of "rules" where you can just do as you please.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @03:43AM
What the hell are you blathering on about?
What does "borrowing" from the TPP even mean?
China is categorically excluded from the TPP.
And the signatories to the TPP already have most-favored nation trading status on equal footing with china.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 20 2016, @02:05PM
The other trade treaties already have clauses that forbid countries from preferential treatment. So any new changes will have to be shared with the other countries who don't sign anyway. The only difference is the new restrictions that will be put in place.
These are not about opening up trade at all, but forcing regulations on other countries.
(Score: 4, Informative) by legont on Thursday May 19 2016, @05:42AM
There is no way a developing country can become developed without protecting it's market. Without it a developed neighbour will suck all the blood. There was no exception ever in the human history.
Here is a short excursion into the US one:
The goal of using higher tariffs to promote industrialization was urged by the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and after him the Whig Party. They generally failed because Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats said the tariff should be only high enough to pay the government's bills; otherwise, it would hurt the consumers. The Republicans, however, made high tariffs the centerpiece of their economic policy beginning in 1861, and as late as 1930.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @05:02PM
By "developing country" you mean "government".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday May 19 2016, @06:59AM
Shouldn't we keep vital defense-critical industries like steelmaking, automaking, and others within our country in case some diplomatic conflagration turns to war?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @10:41AM
shouldn't we keep vital defense-critical industries outside of national control, so that wars become unthinkable?
(Score: 2) by ticho on Thursday May 19 2016, @12:09PM
That might end up merely replacing inter-national wars with inter-corporation wars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @12:09PM
Perhaps you should have put that into the agreements.
But remember all the other countries will as well....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 19 2016, @07:02PM
Shouldn't we keep vital defense-critical industries like steelmaking, automaking, and others within our country in case some diplomatic conflagration turns to war?
If you don't keep them in country then that is a stronger incentive to prevent a conflagration from escalating to a war. The more interdependent two countries are, the less likely they are to consider war a viable option.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
— Albert Einstein
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 20 2016, @12:49AM
Funny, that was a historic argument that said 1914 was impossible.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Alfred on Thursday May 19 2016, @03:13PM
Yes there have been cases of fire and kaboom where Chinese parts were involved which is why they aren't invited anymore.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday May 20 2016, @08:11AM
No doubt because the Chinese business philosophy isn't "Do no wrong" but rather "Don't get caught".
I've noticed two major defects in Chinese steel, compared to American or even Mexican steel:
Their thin sheet steel rips much more easily.
And the welds are no good. They might look fine but are vastly more prone to rust out. (Frex, in my application, concrete bracing used to last more or less forever; now the welds pop within a few months, and the wire starts to go soon after that. And we're putting this shit in major construction projects??!)
Indian steel is worse.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday May 20 2016, @02:17PM
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday May 20 2016, @02:31PM
I wouldn't either, because they'll just tell you what they think you want to hear.
While back I heard a tale of woe on a major new bridge (might have been in the SF Bay area, I forget) that used Chinese structural steel... which was starting to deteriorate within a few years due to the poor quality of the steel. And I was like... what did you expect??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2016, @12:35AM
So they went with the cheapest product and were surprised at the cheap result?
Who is really to blame here?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 27 2016, @03:14PM
Me.
Yeah, sorry. :P
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --