Tariffs on Chinese goods?

[T.Lex]

Still freaks me the heck out that this question was brought up in the context of Trump back in 2011.

Trump steel tariffs: Trade wars are good, says Trump - BBC News

This isn't specific to China, though.

And, it isn't clear if this is a distraction from other issues he's not doing well on.

 

[Leadeye]

I see the tariffs as part of staying in power, his surprise strength in the election came from people who will interpret this as being good. Until the dems figure out a way to split this constituency away from him and reclaim it for themselves he's not going anywhere. Saying that the stupid people came out to vote in 2016 didn't help their cause.

 

[Jludo]

Also keep in mind we export to china, I'm sure those on the other end of the equation don't want to see the tariff reciprocated.
On balance I'm against tariffs, if Americans truly cared they'd buy more things made in America. Vote with your feet.

 

[T.Lex]

The problem with the vote with your feet/wallet angle is that it takes a LONG time to gear up production domestically, if its even feasible.

In the meantime, other of our trading partners are putting together plans for those reciprocal tariffs.

Strange days, indeed.

 

[BugI02]

Still freaks me the heck out that this question was brought up in the context of Trump back in 2011.

Trump steel tariffs: Trade wars are good, says Trump - BBC News

This isn't specific to China, though.

And, it isn't clear if this is a distraction from other issues he's not doing well on.

I know you are not ignorant of history

What more than any other thing precipitated war between Japan and the United States?

You cannot become or remain a first world power and import strategic materials, and there is little that's more strategic over a wider swath of industries than aluminum and steel. You have pointed out the prowess of the Chinese at playing the long game; would not weakening and hollowing out our basic metals production count in that respect. I believe you have commented on their locking up such strategic materials as rare earths and lithium in long term contracts with foreign producers, and indicated it was a strategic play. How is trying to lock up basic metals production to make it dependent on their domestic industries any less strategic?

And I'm not sure why, but when Trump does something he's said all along he wanted to do (note the inception date of this thread) it must always be eyed as if it's some strategic move related to whatever brouhaha he is involved in at the time. He has actually done or attempted a number of things he espoused in the run-up to his election. In light of the fact that he has a fairly chaotic administration, and of obvious attempts to keep it that way by MSM attacking what competent people he does manage to attract, anything he does is almost certain to occur in the midst of some controversy. It's like that police canard that speed is involved in a high percentage of accidents, when it's not a significant statistic relative to causation because virtually everybody is speeding to some extent

100% of Trump's appointees who were forced to resign have been found to be breathing oxygen and exhaling CO[SUB]2[/SUB]

 

[Jludo]

The problem with the vote with your feet/wallet angle is that it takes a LONG time to gear up production domestically, if its even feasible.

In the meantime, other of our trading partners are putting together plans for those reciprocal tariffs.

Strange days, indeed.

why would the gear up take any longer if the increase in demand is consumer sentiment instead of tariff? I'm not saying it will happen just that the means to bring some of those jobs back exists now and people aren't going for it.

 

[T.Lex]

I know you are not ignorant of history

What more than any other thing precipitated war between Japan and the United States?

Pearl Harbor?

And I'm not sure why, but when Trump does something he's said all along he wanted to do (note the inception date of this thread) it must always be eyed as if it's some strategic move related to whatever brouhaha he is involved in at the time.

Because he's a politician. That's what they do.

Oh, and I should be clear on this - part of the reason I use this thread for this kind of news is that Trump himself has been consistent on this issue. I have been consistent in my position that it is a really bad idea, but I'm not POTUS.

100% of Trump's appointees who were forced to resign have been found to be breathing oxygen and exhaling CO[SUB]2[/SUB]

Which is a total non sequitur.

 

[Jludo]

At the end of the day china raises tariffs to match, both govts siphon off 25% of import export dollars.

 

[T.Lex]

At the end of the day china raises tariffs to match, both govts siphon off 25% of import export dollars.

And just like that, there's a new tax on purchases.

 

[Thor]

China is our enemy. China Dream is their plan to dominate the planet to feed an increasingly affluent China, the Belt and Road program is institutionalizing that and enslaving their neighbors. Xi plans on China being the dominant force on the planet. They are waging economic warfare on us to ensure that we do not interfere with that dream.

The proportions of some peoples blinders are amazing to behold. Prepare for servitude.

 

[T.Lex]

China is our enemy. China Dream is their plan to dominate the planet to feed an increasingly affluent China, the Belt and Road program is institutionalizing that and enslaving their neighbors. Xi plans on China being the dominant force on the planet. They are waging economic warfare on us to ensure that we do not interfere with that dream.

The proportions of some peoples blinders are amazing to behold. Prepare for servitude.

Do you think tariffs - which will most likely result in domestic inflation - would act to defend against that future?

Just trying to follow the logic.

I don't argue China is on a long-range plan for global domination. And they are winning in places with raw materials, like Africa.

I'm just cloudy on how US tariffs would stymie that.

 

[BugI02]

At the end of the day china raises tariffs to match, both govts siphon off 25% of import export dollars.

And just like that, there's a new tax on purchases.

Or, just like that, dumping (selling a product for less than its cost of production) is discouraged and the playing field leveled so domestic producers are able to be competitive. If you are the country already pricing below production cost to gain market share, your ability to compensate by increasing prices is not so attractive

If a foreign producer does not wish to pay the tariff, they can open or buy a plant in the US. This also levels the playing field. The cost of consumer goods may go up, but this is not the result of tariffs distorting the market as it it is existing distortions in the market being addressed. If your next iPhone costs $100 more because Foxconn can no longer use virtual slave labor to keep their delivered price to Apple down, is it not more a return to the mean rather than a new distortion

 

[Baditude]

China already has a "charge" on goods over $1,500 being imported I believe - my girlfriend does international shipping and this has been the topic of a few conversations

 

[BugI02]

Do you think tariffs - which will most likely result in domestic inflation - would act to defend against that future?

Just trying to follow the logic.

I don't argue China is on a long-range plan for global domination. And they are winning in places with raw materials, like Africa.

I'm just cloudy on how US tariffs would stymie that.

Their advantages in raw materials do not further their aims if they cannot sell the goods they produce using them. If they increase domestic consumption to keep up production, that also advantages us in the long run. The countries in which they buy up raw materials collectively cannot take up the slack decreased sales to the US will generate, which in turn affects the money they have available for those belt and road projects

 

[T.Lex]

Or, just like that, dumping (selling a product for less than its cost of production) is discouraged and the playing field leveled so domestic producers are able to be competitive. If you are the country already pricing below production cost to gain market share, your ability to compensate by increasing prices is not so attractive

If a foreign producer does not wish to pay the tariff, they can open or buy a plant in the US. This also levels the playing field. The cost of consumer goods may go up, but this is not the result of tariffs distorting the market as it it is existing distortions in the market being addressed. If your next iPhone costs $100 more because Foxconn can no longer use virtual slave labor to keep their delivered price to Apple down, is it not more a return to the mean rather than a new distortion

"New distortion" v. "existing" doesn't matter, except to macroeconomics professors.

There is a current price for any given good. If a new tariff increases the price, then it has distorted the market. Even if we want to label that as "addressing" the prior distortion, it mistakes the problem.

The price is going to go up, without a corresponding increase in profits. Well, ostensibly the government will profit.

Let's even take China out of this equation. (I mean, is there really any doubt that they will be better able to weather a tariff storm than we will?)

The new tariffs Trump appears to be advocating for impact countries far wider ranging than China. Picking fights with our non-enemies doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

[Thor]

Things may end up costing more...and there may be less of it. We need to make sure people understand that it is because the ChiComs are trying to take us down...time to pull the wallet off the face before they stab us in the chest because people were too greedy and stupid to see it coming and Dragon Day becomes a reality.

Like Dean Wormer said, fat dumb and stupid is no way to go through life. Time to stop the coddling. (not that I think it's going to happen...) This may be a step in the correct direction to stop the ChiComs from destroying us through our own systems. They can play by the rules or get the FO and go back to planting rice. We should not be complicit in funding their domination of us.

 

[T.Lex]

We should not be complicit in funding their domination of us.

Oh yeah.

I almost forgot about all the US bonds they hold.

 

[BugI02]

"New distortion" v. "existing" doesn't matter, except to macroeconomics professors.

There is a current price for any given good. If a new tariff increases the price, then it has distorted the market. Even if we want to label that as "addressing" the prior distortion, it mistakes the problem.

The price is going to go up, without a corresponding increase in profits. Well, ostensibly the government will profit.

[Under this protocol, you end up changing your zero point more often than climate scientists. Using your standard, I can just move the new zero to the post-tariff market point and only deal with the results going forward. You are not saying anything remotely germane in a statistical sense. How much the price goes up due to tariffs is set by the company selling the product, it will only be revenue (profitability) neutral if they decide on that pricing strategy.]

Let's even take China out of this equation. (I mean, is there really any doubt that they will be better able to weather a tariff storm than we will?)

The new tariffs Trump appears to be advocating for impact countries far wider ranging than China. Picking fights with our non-enemies doesn't seem to make much sense.

How large a trade deficit are these "non-enemies" running with us? Is part of the reason they are able to do so that they cushion their basic industrial infrastructure costs in the same way China does, by selling to the US below their cost of production? If so, burn. With the T.Lex moveable zero point system, as soon as we implement tariffs the altered market will become the new reality and the previous market a "past distortion" without relevance

 

[T.Lex]

In terms of steel, this is the graphic from the Beeb.

So, it appears that Canada, EU and South Korea are Trump's primary targets.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In terms of steel, this is the graphic from the Beeb.

So, it appears that Canada, EU and South Korea are Trump's primary targets.

I've always said we needed to stick it to the Canadians. Their inability to pronounce the letter "u" while throwing into words needlessly is reason enough.