Tariffs on Chinese goods?

[Alpo]

EU weighs tariffs on bourbon, blue jeans, Harley-Davidson | TheHill

Countries are lining up their responses. You think HDs are expensive now? ...wait until you have to pay the revenue lost by them overseas.

How many Harley's does a person need each month? Mine lasted for 10 years and the guy who bought it is still riding it for the last 14 years.

 

[Woobie]

Oh, I guess I should clarify my own intent.

My question was whether the Chinese actions amounted to casus belli for the INGOers expressing opinions along those lines. I believe the answer was "yes."

If I'm mistaken on that point, I'm open to correction.

But, if I'm not mistaken, I'm exploring the contours of what that means. One end of the spectrum is a shooting war.

Gotcha. I probably over-inferred.


I think China is leveraging their centrally planned economy to take advantage of our free-ish market. So the question before us, to my thinking, is do we allow ourselves to be economically assaulted in such a way, or do we take a swing at China, which is likely to hurt us more than put us back in a competitive position?

I think both are bad choices, and in the absence of a good choice now, patience is preferable. We should restructure our regulatory climate to negate the advantage which we have basically handed to China, which we are now seeking to correct with a self-destructive policy.

 

[T.Lex]

I think I mentioned above, but I could understand some kind of economic (preferably incremental) steps against China. Their indexing of their currency is absolutely a problem, for example.

But, the announced tariff targets a whole bunch of countries ahead of China.

 

[Woobie]

I think I mentioned above, but I could understand some kind of economic (preferably incremental) steps against China. Their indexing of their currency is absolutely a problem, for example.

But, the announced tariff targets a whole bunch of countries ahead of China.

Well that's probably because Trump has buddies in positions that would benefit from sanctions against those countries. The Swamp drain seems to be stopped up.

 

[T.Lex]

Well that's probably because Trump has buddies in positions that would benefit from sanctions against those countries. The Swamp drain seems to be stopped up.

This may be surprising, but I'm not quite that cynical about Trump's administration. Yet.

I think it is more about bad policy from a novice politician than outright corruption.

 

[Woobie]

This may be surprising, but I'm not quite that cynical about Trump's administration. Yet.

I think it is more about bad policy from a novice politician than outright corruption.

Fair enough.

 

[BugI02]

Oh, I guess I should clarify my own intent.

My question was whether the Chinese actions amounted to casus belli for the INGOers expressing opinions along those lines. I believe the answer was "yes."

If I'm mistaken on that point, I'm open to correction.

But, if I'm not mistaken, I'm exploring the contours of what that means. One end of the spectrum is a shooting war.

I would liken it more to shelling across a border, like what is somewhat common btw India and Pakistan

The difference is this is the first time the US has gone weapons free having endured incoming for the last 2 decades at least. Having the vapors seems a bit ... premature

 

[T.Lex]

I would liken it more to shelling across a border, like what is somewhat common btw India and Pakistan

The difference is this is the first time the US has gone weapons free having endured incoming for the last 2 decades at least. Having the vapors seems a bit ... premature

So is it your position that this economic issue is not worth a shooting war at this point? Or, by likening the situation to an artillery barrage, would something like that be within your policy bounds?

Oh, and if we're going to use the artillery barrage, the steel thing is more like India having a beef (pardon the pun) with Pakistan and sending artillery downrange... to Bangladesh.

 

[BugI02]

Gotcha. I probably over-inferred.


I think China is leveraging their centrally planned economy to take advantage of our free-ish market. So the question before us, to my thinking, is do we allow ourselves to be economically assaulted in such a way, or do we take a swing at China, which is likely to hurt us more than put us back in a competitive position?

I think both are bad choices, and in the absence of a good choice now, patience is preferable. We should restructure our regulatory climate to negate the advantage which we have basically handed to China, which we are now seeking to correct with a self-destructive policy.

Wobbie, some of what I have been reading indicates that the tariffs are indeed more targeted at allies, and that it is because some of our allies are among the worst offenders of those countries that prop up domestic industry (over)production at our expense

Positioning it as a swipe at China may be salesmanship designed to make it palatable. I will need to read more in the coming weeks to decide whether I agree with that or not, but the points being made are logical

 

[T.Lex]

Wobbie, ....

I am now adopting that as my go-to reference for that particular INGOer.

 

[BugI02]

So is it your position that this economic issue is not worth a shooting war at this point? Or, by likening the situation to an artillery barrage, would something like that be within your policy bounds?

[Not my desired outcome, but in for a penny ... If you want someone to cease a vexing behavior, the demand needs to be backed with a credible implication of willingness and wherewithal to insist]

Oh, and if we're going to use the artillery barrage, the steel thing is more like India having a beef (pardon the pun) with Pakistan and sending artillery downrange... to Bangladesh.

The possibility of Bangladesh actually being the target should not be completely discounted yet (see #109)

 

[T.Lex]

The possibility of Bangladesh actually being the target should not be completely discounted yet (see #109)

Indeed, but then I'm confused about some of the posts here on INGO.

Russia and China are typically identified as the closest thing we have in today's world to existential threats. (Terrorism can hurt us, but is VERY unlikely to tear us down.)

And yet, the current administration's recently-announced aggressive actions appear aimed at... others. A bunch of others.

Now, I'll concede that we are engaged already against Russia, in Syria and that area. In an actual shooting war (with the battles spread out over time). So if the idea is to avoid a two-front war, I could understand that.

But if that's the goal, why open up another front against a bunch of not-Chinas?

If anything, it seems like we should be keeping our powder dry and reserves high.

 

[BugI02]

Unintentional, it's the stupid Mac predictive text (which is useful enough I don't turn it off). It causes me to have to edit posts more than anything else. It is an opt out presentation, where if you're typing fast and don't notice the offered alternative it just goes ahead and inserts it.

I had had to correct that post once because upon proof-reading it had converted Woobie to Wobble, not content with that it must have offered yet another suggestion or I screwed the execution of the correction

Sorry Woob, that shell was an ND

 

[T.Lex]

Unintentional, it's the stupid Mac predictive text (which is useful enough I don't turn it off). It causes me to have to edit posts more than anything else. It is an opt out presentation, where if you're typing fast and don't notice the offered alternative it just goes ahead and inserts it.

I had had to correct that post once because upon proof-reading it had converted Woobie to Wobble, not content with that it must have offered yet another suggestion or I screwed the execution of the correction

Sorry Woob, that shell was an ND

Yeah, but in a totally juvenile way, that nickname sounds REALLY funny.

 

[BugI02]

The World Cries Wolf on U.S. Tariffs | The National Interest

If China has merely expressed concern over Trump’s plans, it’s because China is not really the target of the planned tariffs. China’s massive state-owned steel and aluminum firms may ultimately lie behind the world’s glutted markets, but Chinese products account for only a fraction of U.S. imports (2.2 percent for steel and 10.6 percent for aluminum). The real problem is that other countries—including allies like Canada and the European Union—have responded to years of Chinese dumping by subsidizing their own industries and imposing broad tariffs on Chinese steel. American antidumping measures have traditionally been more narrowly focused. In a sense, Trump is only catching up with what the rest of the world is doing already.


The simple fact is that the world produces much more steel and aluminum than it needs. A global shakeout is inevitable, and every country wants to make sure that its own industries are the ones that survive. The only question is: who will blink first? If one country has done a lot of blinking over the last twenty years, it’s the United States, as the Commerce Department report amply documents. Embracing a free-market approach, being reluctant to provide subsidies, applying very selective tariffs and never even thinking about nationalizing its strategic industries, the United States has consistently ceded market share to its statist rivals overseas. The Trump tariffs bluntly but effectively draw a line under twenty years of creeping retreat.

 

[Alpo]

It sounds more friendly. In a funky kind of way. Woobie is more passive/agressive sounding.


Enough of that.

I have to say my first reaction is that after a few decades of shipping employment, technology and raw material overseas, it appears to be anti-climatic to now infer that foreign companies are unfairly competing.

 

[Woobie]

Wobbie, some of what I have been reading indicates that the tariffs are indeed more targeted at allies, and that it is because some of our allies are among the worst offenders of those countries that prop up domestic industry (over)production at our expense

Positioning it as a swipe at China may be salesmanship designed to make it palatable. I will need to read more in the coming weeks to decide whether I agree with that or not, but the points being made are logical

If we take China out of the equation, my argument still stands. Trump is in rush, because he's in the hot seat, but we don't need to be in a hurry as a country. We need to put our people at a competitive advantage, not try to put the competition at a disadvantage that will also hurt us.

 

[BugI02]

Indeed, but then I'm confused about some of the posts here on INGO.

Russia and China are typically identified as the closest thing we have in today's world to existential threats. (Terrorism can hurt us, but is VERY unlikely to tear us down.)

And yet, the current administration's recently-announced aggressive actions appear aimed at... others. A bunch of others.

Now, I'll concede that we are engaged already against Russia, in Syria and that area. In an actual shooting war (with the battles spread out over time). So if the idea is to avoid a two-front war, I could understand that.

But if that's the goal, why open up another front against a bunch of not-Chinas?

If anything, it seems like we should be keeping our powder dry and reserves high.[Reserves of what, strategic metals?]

 

[BugI02]

If we take China out of the equation, my argument still stands. Trump is in rush, because he's in the hot seat, but we don't need to be in a hurry as a country. We need to put our people at a competitive advantage, not try to put the competition at a disadvantage that will also hurt us.

Do you accept the need to maintain a healthy domestic metals production capability? Because if you do, I'm not sure how you can put domestic industry at a competitive advantage against other players who subsidize the costs of their domestic industry output, rather than allowing said industries to deal with the consequences of over production, and then look the other way as they dump that overproduction

To see how the game is played by our "allies" an instructive example is the rise of EADS (airbus) to become a direct competitor of Boeing

 

[Woobie]

Unintentional, it's the stupid Mac predictive text (which is useful enough I don't turn it off). It causes me to have to edit posts more than anything else. It is an opt out presentation, where if you're typing fast and don't notice the offered alternative it just goes ahead and inserts it.

I had had to correct that post once because upon proof-reading it had converted Woobie to Wobble, not content with that it must have offered yet another suggestion or I screwed the execution of the correction

Sorry Woob, that shell was an ND

A weeble wobble wobbles but it don't fall down.

Sorry, I'm not too far removed from having toddlers in the house.



Apple predictive text is amazing. Once upon a time I abbreviated National Guard to NG. Forever after, any word that ends in "ng" gets corrected if I mispell it. So if I intend to say "looking" and type "looksng" it might try to correct that to "look NG".