The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[BugI02]

This is just a lie, though. Consumers are paying more due to tarrifs, China isn't paying a cent of them. He knows it's a lie, and hopes people are too stupid to research his claims.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1157633906025402368

I've seen this line of argumentation before. the question is do people actually pay the tariff except in the near term. If the cost of cheap Chinese made goods rises above that of their competitors, consumers can be expected to shift their buying to those competitors if they are purely price driven

So the question is, if a tariff imposed on a good causes Chinese business to lose $200million in sales, who pays that? I would argue the Chinese economy does. The US consumer will see higher prices but likely not in the full amount of the tariff whether buying shifts to competitors or the Chinese decide to eat some of the tariff. In either case Chinese companies lose money. US companies who have elected to off shore their production to our enemy are also hurt, excuse me if I don't shed a tear. Not seeing tariff effects show up noticeably in the CPI, nor will I accept that if Apple chooses to raise the price on an iPhone that that is purely a tariff response rather than that it could be Apple availing itself of the opportunity to increase profits beyond the increased costs the tariffs cause and blame the profitability enhancement on a convenient straw man

Products available to Americans will cost more and they will have to pay it is a ridiculous oversimplification of largely zero sum process

 

[Jludo]

In one tweet he lambastes china for pumping in cash and complains our fed isn't pumping in more cash? Hah

 

[Jludo]

stop buying chinese crap and buy American and start making it here.......that is what he is after.....

That doesn't have anything to do with what he's claiming.

 

[Alpo]

The problem is that the ripple effects throughout our economy due to tariff imposition are only vaguely understood. People are still studying Smoot-Hawley and whether it had a major or minor effect on the Great Depression.

One thing is clear, however. Tariffs imposed on allies will cause harm far longer than a Trump administration term in office.

It is humorous to see all the folks here who decry socialism but support state control of markets through sanctions and tariffs.

 

[ghitch75]

That doesn't have anything to do with what he's claiming.

might not be what he is claiming but that is the soul purpose of the tariffs and to even the playing field.......

 

[nonobaddog]

It is amazing that people don't understand tariffs. They must want to keep huge trade deficits forever.

 

[Leadeye]

I think the idea is to poke back at the bad trade deals and do it in the most visible way. Ghitch75 is correct, the purpose of the exercise is to get more manufacturing jobs going back to the US. Drugs will be the biggest obstacle to getting people working again, of all the places I go these days, over half of the applicants are turned away because of a drug screen.

 

[KG1]

The problem is that the ripple effects throughout our economy due to tariff imposition are only vaguely understood. People are still studying Smoot-Hawley and whether it had a major or minor effect on the Great Depression.

One thing is clear, however. Tariffs imposed on allies will cause harm far longer than a Trump administration term in office.

It is humorous to see all the folks here who decry socialism but support state control of markets through sanctions and tariffs.

I agree with the tariffs on our allies causing harm. The Chinese are not our ally.

I give Trump credit for challenging the Red Dragon when no other POTUS has had the fortitude to do so.

 

[nonobaddog]

The deal is the US was in some very poor trade agreements left over from obummer. These were with china as well as our allies. These contributed to huge trade deficits which harm our country. Tariffs are the way out of these crappy agreements. People that say the tariffs harm our country have it backwards. We were being harmed already. The tariffs are required to get better trade agreements with china as well as with our allies.

 

[T.Lex]

Context and intent.

Sounds like the Dem mantra.

 

[Jludo]

So this trade deficit thing, leave aside that trade deficits aren't inherently good or bad, is anyone keeping track of exactly how fair our trade policy is? Is there a scale somewhere of who's got the overall highest tariff $ and once that scale shows balanced the trade war is over? Or do we just keep one upping each other until Trump flies onto an aircraft carrier and declares victory in the trade war.

All we ever hear about this is narrative, what do the actual economists think about how it's playing out? Were we just getting railroaded by the WTO before Trump came to office?

 

[Alpo]

Neil Cavuto isn't an "economist". He actually works for a living. ( )

But, Neil is basically saying lately that Trump has no idear what he's tawkin' 'bout when it comes to tariffs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Neil Cavuto isn't an "economist". He actually works for a living. ( )

But, Neil is basically saying lately that Trump has no idear what he's tawkin' 'bout when it comes to tariffs.

He doesn't. It's either that or he's purposefully misleading the American public (i.e. "the poorly educated").

 

[nonobaddog]

So this trade deficit thing, leave aside that trade deficits aren't inherently good or bad, is anyone keeping track of exactly how fair our trade policy is? Is there a scale somewhere of who's got the overall highest tariff $ and once that scale shows balanced the trade war is over? Or do we just keep one upping each other until Trump flies onto an aircraft carrier and declares victory in the trade war.

All we ever hear about this is narrative, what do the actual economists think about how it's playing out? Were we just getting railroaded by the WTO before Trump came to office?

You can find an economist to support anything you want to believe. You can take all the economists in the world and lay them end-to-end and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You can find an economist to support anything you want to believe. You can take all the economists in the world and lay them end-to-end and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

Can you direct me to any economist that's saying that China is paying the Trump tariffs?

 

[NKBJ]

Protecting your markets and your manufacturing through tariffs on imports is socialism?

 

[jamil]

Protecting your markets and your manufacturing through tariffs on imports is socialism?

Whoa. What? Who said that?

 

[nonobaddog]

The International Monetary Fund

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/23/donald-trump-trade-war-china-us-imf

Donald Trump’s claim that his protectionist measures are hurting Chinamore than the US has received support from the International Monetary Fund in new forecasts showing how a fresh slowdown in the global economy has been concentrated in emerging economies.

The Washington-based IMF said the outlook was gloomier than it envisaged three months ago due to the tit-for-tat tariff war between the world’s two biggest economies, Brexit uncertainty and the impact of sanctions against Iran on oil prices.

In an update to its half-yearly World Economic Outlook, the IMF said it expected global growth to be 0.1 percentage points lower in both 2019 and 2020 than it envisaged in April, at 3.2% and 3.5% respectively.
The Fund’s country-by-country breakdown upgraded its forecast of US growth this year from 2.3% to 2.6% but downgraded China from 6.3% to 6.2%.

“In China, the negative effects of escalating tariffs and weakening external demand have added pressure to an economy already in the midst of a structural slowdown and needed regulatory strengthening to rein in high dependence on debt.”

 

[BugI02]

So this trade deficit thing, leave aside that trade deficits aren't inherently good or bad, is anyone keeping track of exactly how fair our trade policy is? Is there a scale somewhere of who's got the overall highest tariff $ and once that scale shows balanced the trade war is over? Or do we just keep one upping each other until Trump flies onto an aircraft carrier and declares victory in the trade war.

All we ever hear about this is narrative, what do the actual economists think about how it's playing out? Were we just getting railroaded by the WTO before Trump came to office?

I have a post upthread with a citation that indicates that China is considered a developing economy by the WTO, which allows them to be much more protectionist than a developed economy is under WTO rules. By some measures, China is the largest economy in the world and by others a close second to the US and they are the world's largest exporter. They are vigorously attempting to stave off any change to that status. They also often require companies doing business in China to have a Chinese partner and to transfer technology to that partner and have them participate in manufacturing the product. Chinese tariffs on US imports averaged 5.6% pre-Trade war and they manipulate their currency rather than float the renminbi. They are mercantilists pure and simple and will not pursue fair trade unless they are made to. I would take issue with your assertion that trade deficits are neither good nor bad with respect to the US. I cannot think of any first world trading partner that does not run a trade surplus with the US. Under those conditions, we're just getting hosed

 

[Alpo]

It's all a muddle. We allowed and often encouraged our corporations to offshore manufacturing labor under both democrat and republican administrations. It comes as no surprise that imports would rise, all else being equal.