Tariffs on Chinese goods?

[Kutnupe14]

For me, the key consideration is WHY is the job able to be done cheaper somewhere else.

Some reasons (not exhaustive):
1.) Currency manipulation
2.) Intellectual property theft
3.) Lax environmental laws
4.) Lax child labor and worker safety laws

Tariffs are a legitimate way to level the playing field against countries that have an unfair advantage from one or more of the reasons I listed above. Tariffs should not be used indiscriminately, but should be used when just cause exists. If you turn a blind eye to unfair competition, sooner or later you will have lost all of your manufacturing jobs. Nations prosper by producing goods either by farming, mining, or manufacturing. Service economies don't produce wealth, they just trade it around. Expecting people to endlessly "retool" as we steadily lose our various manufacturing jobs is unrealistic. Encouraging everyone to transition to the service sector is just plain foolish and will ultimately destroy our economy. A healthy economy needs to be balanced, self-sufficient, and create tangible wealth faster than it is consumed.

You missed the main reason. Standard of living. There's a reason the dollar goes much further than most currencies in purchasing power. There are very few places anywhere, that a company can't turn a profit by hiring cheaper labor.... even those that don't have any of the 4 examples you listed.

 

[actaeon277]

For me, the key consideration is WHY is the job able to be done cheaper somewhere else.

Some reasons (not exhaustive):
1.) Currency manipulation
2.) Intellectual property theft
3.) Lax environmental laws
4.) Lax child labor and worker safety laws

Tariffs are a legitimate way to level the playing field against countries that have an unfair advantage from one or more of the reasons I listed above. Tariffs should not be used indiscriminately, but should be used when just cause exists. If you turn a blind eye to unfair competition, sooner or later you will have lost all of your manufacturing jobs. Nations prosper by producing goods either by farming, mining, or manufacturing. Service economies don't produce wealth, they just trade it around. Expecting people to endlessly "retool" as we steadily lose our various manufacturing jobs is unrealistic. Encouraging everyone to transition to the service sector is just plain foolish and will ultimately destroy our economy. A healthy economy needs to be balanced, self-sufficient, and create tangible wealth faster than it is consumed.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Majority of jobs here used to be in agriculture and the same argument was made, the fears didn't pan out. Developing Software is just as important today as anything else, nations prosper in many ways not just the small list of industries you listed.

Manufacturing jobs is not the same as production.

I'm glad you mentioned production. Agriculture vs. manufacturing. Both are production, so transitioning from one to the other doesn't have a harmful affect. In fact, mechanization of agriculture freed up a lot of labor for additional overall production (factory-type manufacturing) - doing more overall production with the same number of people is a VERY good thing. I view software development as a "production" sector job and not a "service" sector job; granted that it does not neatly fit into the traditional broad categories of farming, mining, and manufacturing. It does sort of fit into manufacturing if you think about it though. The program that the person develops is a good that is used to perform some task or do a task more efficiently - and software development is indeed important.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

You missed the main reason. Standard of living. There's a reason the dollar goes much further than most currencies in purchasing power. There are very few places anywhere, that a company can't turn a profit by hiring cheaper labor.... even those that don't have any of the 4 examples you listed.

That's a fair point, but nationally we aren't talking about slapping blanket tariffs on countries just because they have cheap labor. China does indeed have cheap labor primarily because of it's lower standard of living, but it also has the other 4 price drivers that I mentioned. I believe it's those things that are really motivating people to support tariffs (rightfully in my opinion). I note that the tariffs under consideration are targeted at China and certain other countries that have been unfairly skewing things and that there are a lot of poor countries with cheap labor that are not being targeted. Having cheap labor because you have a lower standard of living isn't cheating, it's just the state of being for that country. On the other hand, the things I mentioned as examples are a different animal and are worth offsetting with appropriate tariffs.

Side note: I wonder how much China's currency manipulation has harmed the average Chinese citizen by devaluing the purchasing power of their labor? The average Chinese citizen isn't the one getting rich from the trade imbalance...and I bet they might be a tad pissed off if they knew the truth. As Milton Freidman said, you can't have free trade with a dictatorship (I'm using that term loosely as it applies to China).

 

[Jludo]

I'm glad you mentioned production. Agriculture vs. manufacturing. Both are production, so transitioning from one to the other doesn't have a harmful affect. In fact, mechanization of agriculture freed up a lot of labor for additional overall production (factory-type manufacturing) - doing more overall production with the same number of people is a VERY good thing. I view software development as a "production" sector job and not a "service" sector job; granted that it does not neatly fit into the traditional broad categories of farming, mining, and manufacturing. It does sort of fit into manufacturing if you think about it though. The program that the person develops is a good that is used to perform some task or do a task more efficiently - and software development is indeed important.

my point is that quality of life, wealth and production are going up and that number of manufacturing jobs should not in itself be a goal.

 

[BugI02]

Our point is that world standard of living has some of the characteristics, as currently implemented, of being zero sum. Whether it needs to be is a different discussion.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You missed the main reason. Standard of living. There's a reason the dollar goes much further than most currencies in purchasing power. There are very few places anywhere, that a company can't turn a profit by hiring cheaper labor.... even those that don't have any of the 4 examples you listed.

Kut is right!

And, I'll be 2x4 blunt... if an uneducated 10-year-old in a third world country can do "your job" for pennies on the dollar, you should re-think your "career" choice.

 

[T.Lex]

Kut is right!

And, I'll be 2x4 blunt... if an uneducated 10-year-old in a third world country can do "your job" for pennies on the dollar, you should re-think your "career" choice.

There's a REALLY terrible Stormy Daniels joke to be made there....

 

[BugI02]

Kut is right!

And, I'll be 2x4 blunt... if an [STRIKE]uneducated 10-year-old in[/STRIKE] [educated 23 year old from] a third world country can do "your job" for [STRIKE]pennies[/STRIKE] [half dollars] on the dollar [and an H1B], you should re-think your "career" choice.

Remember, you might be next. Seems like a "They came for the Jews and I did nothing, because ..." type situation

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Remember, you might be next. Seems like a "They came for the Jews and I did nothing, because ..." type situation

Honestly, that's always been my mindset. If you cannot add more value than the next guy can for less pay, you're toast... you'll lose the race to a different rat.

People with skills (and trades/craftsmen) and knowledge can be replaced, but not nearly as easily as someone with a job that the average goober off the street can do with a day (or week) of training.

 

[T.Lex]

If this is chess, it looks like we're done shuffling pawns around and are positioning our back row out on the board.

Trump threatens further $100bn in tariffs against China - BBC News

US President Donald Trump has instructed officials to consider a further $100bn (£71.3bn) of tariffs against China, in an escalation of a tense trade stand-off.

The good news is that this pace of back and forth should produce a resolution pretty quickly.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If this is chess, it looks like we're done shuffling pawns around and are positioning our back row out on the board.

Trump threatens further $100bn in tariffs against China - BBC News



The good news is that this pace of back and forth should produce a resolution pretty quickly.

Lord he's a loon. My money on who blinks first, is on the nation that has a populace with a significantly higher amount of purchasing power.

 

[T.Lex]

Lord he's a loon. My money on who blinks first, is on the nation that has a populace with a significantly higher amount of purchasing power.

I dunno. There's no way to predict this one, given Trump's lack of experience in this. He'll make his money either way.

What I expect will happen is that there are superficial trade concessions going both ways that allow Trump to claim victory and China to - more or less - return back to the status quo.

 

[KLB]

If this is chess, it looks like we're done shuffling pawns around and are positioning our back row out on the board.

Trump threatens further $100bn in tariffs against China - BBC News



The good news is that this pace of back and forth should produce a resolution pretty quickly.

Hurray! More money into the .gov's hands.

 

[T.Lex]

How China can win a trade war in 1 move

So this is interesting. I had a client a few years ago that was developing an application for rare earth magnets. (That's still one of the most fascinating technologies I've ever come across, but unfortunately, the whole thing fell apart.) Working with him, I learned about the Magnaquench thing and the issues surrounding it.

Also of note:
Live-fire drills in South China Sea brings US, China carriers close

That includes Chinese launches from the Kuznetsov... err... Liaoning.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

The good news is that this pace of back and forth should produce a resolution pretty quickly.

Agreed. The interesting thing is that a lot of the imports that China has hit with tariffs are food. Unlike most commodities, that amount of food is not easily replaced with food from other countries - there is not a lot of spare supply and the supply is not easily elastic. The U.S. is a food production powerhouse and production cannot be easily ramped up in other places. I think we're in a good position to come out ahead in the negotiations if some weak-kneed folks don't cause us to blink first. They HAVE to have food and will be paying more for it. We don't have to have rubber dog **** and we can buy it elsewhere. Rare earth elements for fancy batteries and guidance systems is just about the only thing they have that we can't cheaply/quickly replace, but we've been working on that infrastructure issue for a few years (domestic REE production and refining).

Here is the list of stuff China is adding tariffs on:
https://qz.com/1242652/china-tariffs-the-complete-list-of-128-affected-good-class-of-goods/

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Hurray! More money into the .gov's hands.

Meh. In the early years of our country, the gov't was almost entirely financed with tariffs on foreign goods.

ETA: And there was no income tax

 

[Jludo]

Meh. In the early years of our country, the gov't was almost entirely financed with tariffs on foreign goods.

ETA: And there was no income tax

I'd be fine with them going back to that, it's them having both we don't want. Has trump mentioned how much revenue the gov plans on making?

 

[zippy23]

I have read 2 opinions on here. 1) "Trump's lack of experience on this" i cant fathom this response. This man has international businesses, he sees this stuff FIRST HAND and is successful in navigating and profiting off of it. A fellow ingoer- of which i can safely assume doesnt deal in international trade like trump does for years - is saying trump has lack of experience. It would take someone with experience to say that someone else doesnt have it. In this case, you are just flat out wrong. I'll take trumps word over your any day of the week.

2) "They have to have food and we dont have to have rubber dog S***" This is spot on. We are a food production powerhouse, we have what we need. We can do without walmart toys. We have the upper hand. They know it. They are testing and will back down, as they have with N. Korea.

I find it interesting, everything trump does, of course the left will go insane. But there are so many on the right that get weary and a little nutty. WHY??? HE'S DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE LEFT DOES, this should be exactly what we want!! Are we this timid? Have we gone so long without knowing how it works out? Stock market up 42%, holy crap. aluminum prices fine after tariffs, how can that be?!?!!? Conservative supreme court justice! At this point, with the SCOTUS alone, we can sit back and say this has been a monumental victory for our side and for america's future. That one move alone negates decades of obama and liberal would be policies. Let them try and ban semi automatics...guess what, with this court....its struck down. The court has already ruled in our favor many times, HUGE WINS. Enough with the never trump B.S. IF trump had lost, you bed guns would be banned.

 

[KLB]

I'd be fine with them going back to that, it's them having both we don't want. Has trump mentioned how much revenue the gov plans on making?

Exactly. As it is now it is just another way to take more money out of the pockets of the citizens of this country.