Jump to content

Who really believes tariffs are good business


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Here's how tariffs really work. I want to go local. The local price just went up.  I will have to go with an import to stay within the budget I have.

 

What Sailcloths and laminate materials are made where?  I’ve been looking, and it’s not easy to find.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 984
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wrong! Guess who's price went up? BOTH! I had a $10k budget.  the import was $7500, the domestic were $10k, so, I was going to buy domestic. The DOMESTIC is going up, estimate is 1

Agreed - the corporations probably didn't expect to get ripped off as they did, and no argument the Chinese have engaged in industrial espionage on a huge scale. Tariffing their products incorpor

My biggest and quite real complaints about China are: their own protectionism their rampant IP theft As for globalism itself, that ship sailed quite awhile ago. The invention of

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Amati said:

What Sailcloths and laminate materials are made where?  I’ve been looking, and it’s not easy to find.

That I do not know. I tried for a minute but figured it didn't really matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rat's ass said:

No, that's not actually how "tariffs really work" dipshit..<_<

In fact had your previous statement read - "I want to go import. If the import price just went up (as a result of tariffs) . I will have to go local to stay within the budget I have" it would have been a better explanation of "how tariffs really work". 

Wrong!

Guess who's price went up? BOTH!

I had a $10k budget. 

the import was $7500, the domestic were $10k, so, I was going to buy domestic.

The DOMESTIC is going up, estimate is 15%. Maybe that's due to the fabric, maybe its because the domestic guy knows he can charge a premium over the import.

So - to stay in my budget, I now HAVE to go import, which will go up more, but still be under budget.

Thanks Trump! (and Trumptards incredibly ignorant understanding of economics)

 

Now, this is just 1 sail, so who gives a shit, right?

Listen to the interview of a furniture retailer in Indiana, this morning's NPR.

His customers? less to spend whether they were in manufacturing, or farming. His product, now costs more whether imported or domestic. 

Net net?A 90 year old business in trouble.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

That I do not know. I tried for a minute but figured it didn't really matter.

In a way it does- a small example- back when we were trying to save the planet by running 100% biodiesel in our cars, during a big spike in oil prices, there was a commensurate (bigger, even) spike in our biodiesel price, even though it was locally sourced-  their transport trucks were running on biodiesel!  When I asked our BD stations why, they blabbered something vague about market forces and costs.  We immediately sold our VWs.

edit- you beat me to it! B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rat's ass said:

No, that's not actually how "tariffs really work" dipshit..<_<

In fact had your previous statement read - "I want to go import. If the import price just went up (as a result of tariffs) . I will have to go local to stay within the budget I have" it would have been a better explanation of "how tariffs really work". 

As a retailer, we increased the prices of all products affected by the tariffs.  As I said in an earlier thread, we did a $5.00 price increase due to the tariff on the 3/4 ratchet that has been on the shelf for 5 years.  At least it will help cover the carrying cost of it.

I've forgotten most accounting, is that LIFO or FIFO?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rat's ass said:

No, that's not actually how "tariffs really work" dipshit..<_<

In fact had your previous statement read - "I want to go import. If the import price just went up (as a result of tariffs) . I will have to go local to stay within the budget I have" it would have been a better explanation of "how tariffs really work". 

Inexplicably, the washer and dryer I just bought both went up. The tariff was on the washer.

Here:

Quote

Tariffs are used to restrict imports hose consumers by increasing the price of goods and services purchased from overseas and making them less attractive to consumers. ... Governments may impose tariffs to raise revenue or to protect domestic crony industries, foreign or domestic.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
57 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Inexplicably, the washer and dryer I just bought both went up. The tariff was on the washer.

 

Rat's Ass won't get it. "The Chinese are paying!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Foxy aren't buying it.

8:00 a.m.

President Donald Trump says trade talks between China and the U.S. are continuing in a “very congenial manner” despite new tariffs the U.S. imposed Friday on $200 billion in Chinese imports.

Trump tweeted Friday that the increased tariffs will bring in “FAR MORE wealth” to the United States, although a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Columbia and Princeton universities says the burden of Trump’s tariffs falls on U.S. consumers and businesses that buy imports.

The study says the tariff money pads the federal treasury, but it’s mostly — if not entirely — coming from U.S. businesses and consumers, not China.

Addressing concerns about the effect of the tariffs on farmers, Vice President Mike Pence told Minnesota farmers this week that the administration is going to “look for ways” to help farmers affected by the trade dispute.

Trump suggested on Twitter Friday that the government could use money from the additional tariffs to buy more U.S. farm goods for shipment to “poor & starving” countries.

https://fox28spokane.com/the-latest-trump-tweets-that-more-china-tariffs-on-the-way/

U.S. businesses say the tariffs have added billions in costs and driven up prices on everything from luggage to vehicle parts and television antennas.

Now, as the White House prepares to amplify the duties as a route to damage the Chinese economy, opponents are intensifying their efforts to counter what they say is a misguided attempt by the administration to portray the tariffs as anything but a tax on American consumers.

“We’re paying that tariff. I want there to be no mistake that the consumer is paying for these tariffs. I wish China was paying them. I certainly would feel better about it that way,” Brent Bible, a soybean farmer in Lafayette, Indiana, said on Thursday on a call arranged by advocacy groups Tariffs Hurt the Heartland and the National Retail Federation.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trump-tariffs-small-business-plea

Link to post
Share on other sites

Karl Marx: Smarter than Trump, Bernie, or Rat's ass on trade
 

Quote

 

Donald Trump is an avowed enemy of free trade. "We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs," Trump declared in his 2017 inaugural address. "Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength."

Most economists disagree with that assessment. As they will tell you, free (or even just freer) trade benefits all parties involved. Protectionism, by contrast, hurts consumers and businesses alike.

Unfortunately, Trump is not alone in his economic ignorance. Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) also dislikes free trade, denouncing it as "part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations."

Perhaps Trump and Sanders should each spend a little time studying Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx. Although the fact is often forgotten today, Marx had a number of positive things to say about what we now call globalization. As the left-wing economist Meghnad Desai documented in his enlightening 2002 book Marx's Revenge: The Resurgence of Capitalism and the Death of Statist Socialism, Marx "was a champion of free trade, and no friend of tariff barriers."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I would have absolutely no issues paying a few $$ more for a screwdriver at Walmart or a head of lettuce at the grocery store.  Maybe its time we went back to paying a little bit more for what we buy and have more high paying jobs come back to the US.  Personally, I do not have any fucks to give some poor Bangladeshi slaving 15 hrs/day in a Nike sweat shop and improving their quality of life.  My higher concern is to America and the quality of life of some poor blue collar worker in S.C. trying to feed her family and hoping to send her kids to college.  

No problem. Just explain to her that she should have no problem shelling out more money for screwdrivers and lettuce. Poor people are loaded with money and will view it the same way people with money to blow on sailboats do.

 

8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

If some form of short term protectionism gets us there, then so be it.

We're going to get rid of those short term sugar tariffs any day now.

Or not. They started in 1789.

How short is short, anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:
9 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

No problem. Just explain to her that she should have no problem shelling out more money for screwdrivers and lettuce. Poor people are loaded with money and will view it the same way people with money to blow on sailboats do.

If she has a decent paying job, then a couple of more $$ for lettuce and toolz should be no problem.

Yeah, that's what I said. But I was being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

If she has a decent paying job, then a couple of more $$ for lettuce and toolz should be no problem.  Pre-NAFTA, I don’t recall buying a head of lettuce or a tool at Kmart being an onerous burden on most people.  I used to work as a stock boy in both Kmart and Publix while during summer break in HS, and I don’t remember even the lower middle class bitching about the price of produce or made in the USA toolz.  

Is there really a debate about the economic "benefits" of tariffs?  Even Keynes wouldn't support them.  You are trying to "protect" a small amount of jobs at the expense of a large amount of consumers which ends up hurting both.  If consumers were benefiting by the trade, more, even better jobs would be created.

Do you feel like you need to make your own automobile?

Your view, however, is very popular.  I hear very educated CEOs trying to make the same case.  There is no case.  You would have trouble finding a single economist that agrees with you.  I looked once, and I could not.

Trump happens to be riding a pretty nice economic wave, so people believe in all sorts of correlations that have dubious economic grounding.

The big moron here is China.  China is even more stupid than Trump.  China has a long term game plan of regional and global domination.  All it has to do is lower its tariffs to zero and quit causing trouble in the South China sea.  It just needs to shut the fuck up for about 20 more years, and let its economic engine get going.  All of its people that it once thought to be a burden will be its greatest resource.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been interested in seeing how the media covers the tariffs.  Lately, the narrative has become "it's a regressive tax on American consumers".  I find that curious because increases in sales taxes aren't called 'regressive taxes on American consumers'.  VAT taxes also aren't usually framed as 'regressive taxes on consumers' either.  

If Trump completes this current round of hikes, we'll be up to 25% tariff on approximately 600 billion dollars of goods and services - for a net revenue increase of $125+ Billion dollars - and it didn't take even one vote in congress.

I find the timing of that in coincidence with 1-2 trillion dollar of infrastructure spending that Pelosi and Trump have been discussing and the saber rattling of the freedom caucus about being fiscally responsible to be curious.  So.. net effect?  A 100 billion dollar / year revenue stream used to pay for an infrastructure plan funded by tariffs on Chinese goods ans services to 'rebuild American infrastructure' without any congress-critters having to vote 'yes' on a single tax increase.

I'm smelling collusion - and it doesn't involve a single Russian.  

Go figure.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

I've been interested in seeing how the media covers the tariffs.  Lately, the narrative has become "it's a regressive tax on American consumers".  I find that curious because increases in sales taxes aren't called 'regressive taxes on American consumers'.  VAT taxes also aren't usually framed as 'regressive taxes on consumers' either.  

If Trump completes this current round of hikes, we'll be up to 25% tariff on approximately 600 billion dollars of goods and services - for a net revenue increase of $125+ Billion dollars - and it didn't take even one vote in congress.

I find the timing of that in coincidence with 1-2 trillion dollar of infrastructure spending that Pelosi and Trump have been discussing and the saber rattling of the freedom caucus about being fiscally responsible.  So.. net effect?  A 100 billion dollar / year revenue stream used to pay for an infrastructure plan funded by tariffs on Chinese goods ans services to 'rebuild American infrastructure' without any congress-critters having to vote 'yes' on a single tax increase.

I'm smelling collusion - and it doesn't involve a single Russian.  

Go figure.

 

 

Don't forget who is funding that revenue stream.  Poor people tend to be the larger consumer of Chinese products.  Rich people can afford to buy American and feel good about themselves.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I've been interested in seeing how the media covers the tariffs.  Lately, the narrative has become "it's a regressive tax on American consumers".  I find that curious because increases in sales taxes aren't called 'regressive taxes on American consumers'.  VAT taxes also aren't usually framed as 'regressive taxes on consumers' either.  

If Trump completes this current round of hikes, we'll be up to 25% tariff on approximately 600 billion dollars of goods and services - for a net revenue increase of $125+ Billion dollars - and it didn't take even one vote in congress.

I find the timing of that in coincidence with 1-2 trillion dollar of infrastructure spending that Pelosi and Trump have been discussing and the saber rattling of the freedom caucus about being fiscally responsible to be curious.  So.. net effect?  A 100 billion dollar / year revenue stream used to pay for an infrastructure plan funded by tariffs on Chinese goods ans services to 'rebuild American infrastructure' without any congress-critters having to vote 'yes' on a single tax increase.

I'm smelling collusion - and it doesn't involve a single Russian.  

Go figure.

 

 

Around here sales and services tax is being pushed by conservatives to replace or minimize state income tax, because it is a regressive tax on consumers.    A local Republican booster and small martial arts school was confident they would somehow be exempt and not have to create a portal to pay quarterly taxes or charge their lower income students more.   They were confident I was wrong, a misguided wrong thinking but generally well meaning liberal, when I suggested that’s what would happen if I signed their petition,  Meanwhile people such as myself who don’t spend every penny earned, would benefit,

I don’t smell collusion because both sides follow the money,   (Ironic statement I realize)  our current disruptive and half hazard policy making chooses winners and losers randomly and transiently.    That is not what the money wants.    The money is as international as the billionaires that own it.   It has investments with five year payoff times.   

As usual, I’m a centrist.    I’m well aware of the problems and failures of exploitive globalism such as the Clintons championed and China benefits from,    I also oppose closed minded nationalism the Republican power structure currently favors to the horror of the donor class,   In this case a LITTLE disruption is a good thing,    Trump is a child breaking his toys, smashing the good as well as the broken with equal abandon,   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I've been interested in seeing how the media covers the tariffs.  Lately, the narrative has become "it's a regressive tax on American consumers".  I find that curious because increases in sales taxes aren't called 'regressive taxes on American consumers'.  VAT taxes also aren't usually framed as 'regressive taxes on consumers' either.  

If Trump completes this current round of hikes, we'll be up to 25% tariff on approximately 600 billion dollars of goods and services - for a net revenue increase of $125+ Billion dollars - and it didn't take even one vote in congress.

I find the timing of that in coincidence with 1-2 trillion dollar of infrastructure spending that Pelosi and Trump have been discussing and the saber rattling of the freedom caucus about being fiscally responsible to be curious.  So.. net effect?  A 100 billion dollar / year revenue stream used to pay for an infrastructure plan funded by tariffs on Chinese goods ans services to 'rebuild American infrastructure' without any congress-critters having to vote 'yes' on a single tax increase.

I'm smelling collusion - and it doesn't involve a single Russian.  

Go figure.

 

 

And they can't do math. First of all, the revenue gained is going to be a loss in other categories. And it's a tiny fraction of the expense.

$125 Billion / $1~2 Trillion does not equal a balanced budget.

If it really is deliberate, it's a slightly more clever plan than we've ever seen before from President Carpet Swatches. But it's still retarded.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And they can't do math. First of all, the revenue gained is going to be a loss in other categories. And it's a tiny fraction of the expense.

$125 Billion / $1~2 Trillion does not equal a balanced budget.

If it really is deliberate, it's a slightly more clever plan than we've ever seen before from President Carpet Swatches. But it's still retarded.

-DSK

Congress speaks in 10 year projections, not single year appropriations.

The 1-2 trillion is over 10 years or, in other words, 125 billion / year for 10 years  ~ 1 to 2 trillion dollars.  Just seems awfully convenient :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cmilliken said:

Congress speaks in 10 year projections, not single year appropriations.

The 1-2 trillion is over 10 years or, in other words, 125 billion / year for 10 years  ~ 1 to 2 trillion dollars.

 

It's still crap math. Yes 125 billion * 10 = 1.25 trill, but is it reasonably projected to stay at that level? Anybody with  the brains of a doorknob will expect it to drop pretty steeply.

And, 3/4 trillion dollars is a lot. Even by Trump standards!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I've been interested in seeing how the media covers the tariffs.  Lately, the narrative has become "it's a regressive tax on American consumers".  I find that curious because increases in sales taxes aren't called 'regressive taxes on American consumers'.  VAT taxes also aren't usually framed as 'regressive taxes on consumers' either.  

If Trump completes this current round of hikes, we'll be up to 25% tariff on approximately 600 billion dollars of goods and services - for a net revenue increase of $125+ Billion dollars - and it didn't take even one vote in congress.

I find the timing of that in coincidence with 1-2 trillion dollar of infrastructure spending that Pelosi and Trump have been discussing and the saber rattling of the freedom caucus about being fiscally responsible to be curious.  So.. net effect?  A 100 billion dollar / year revenue stream used to pay for an infrastructure plan funded by tariffs on Chinese goods ans services to 'rebuild American infrastructure' without any congress-critters having to vote 'yes' on a single tax increase.

I'm smelling collusion - and it doesn't involve a single Russian.  

Go figure.

 

 

Hmm, don’t know about where you live but sales taxes here are always fought with the regressive argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's still crap math. Yes 125 billion * 10 = 1.25 trill, but is it reasonably projected to stay at that level? Anybody with  the brains of a doorknob will expect it to drop pretty steeply.

And, 3/4 trillion dollars is a lot. Even by Trump standards!

-DSK

We'll see.

It's a bit tin foil I admit but I find that the congressional critters have ways to spend money and avoid voting on raising taxes and this just seems awfully handy - We didn't do it - it was Orange man!  No different than how the vast number of Republicans hid behind Obama on health care.

The Chinese are absolutely against putting any sort of punishment for violating the IP agreements in writing.  They see that as a violation of trust between 'equal partners'.  One way around that is to START with the punishments in place and back them off for good behavior, rather than ratchet them up for bad.  Similar impact over time since the Chinese really can't stop all of the abuses - they know that - but it allows them to save face and keep their own protections against soybeans in place to suck-up to their farmers.

And, on the domestic side, it creates a new revenue stream that congressmen can all 'run against' because everyone hates tariffs!  Yea, until they're in office and then the story will be 'we need these to keep the Chinese honest and LOOK AT ALL THAT INFRASTRUCTURE!"

I think we're being played :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Interesting theory, CM.  If you’re right, is it really a bad thing?  Punishing the Chinese for being total cunts to us on trade AND getting infrastructure done finally, knowing that otherwise the partisan fights over taxes would never result in the first bridge being built after the gridlock that wold ensue....  Sounds like a win win to me.  

Is it bad if the end results are good?  

 Its probably a net good thing.  Lies are the lubrication for society after all and this situation needs some serious lube.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have no desire to go back and read 350 posts in this thread.  So sue me if this has already been covered.  But...... while I’m against tariffs and protectionism in general and mostly believe in a free market economy - I think we are at a crossroads in time where some targeted protectionism to a degree is required.  Let me explain.

I think the Jhynese have been raping us and taking advantage of us for far too long and the normal methods of attempting to stop them have failed.  It’s been entirely a one-sided affair and the Chinese have been on the winning side of this game for too long while the US has seriously declined as a result.  There is nothing “fair” or “free” about trade with Jhyna.  So if tariffs in the short term change the dynamic, then I’m all for it.  Yes it will hurt in the short term, but I think the long term gain is worth it to balance out the trade dynamics and get it more to an equal footing.  

If nothing else, the last 30 years of free trade and globalism has hopefully highlighted the fact that “free trade” is anything but. There are serious unintended consequences of it that we didn’t adequately plan for, despite the warnings back when NAFTA went into place.  Ross’s predictions of that “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving the US absolutely came true.  What good is it for American consumers to be able to buy cheap Jyhnese widgets if they don’t have a job with enough of an income to buy them and still feed their family, meanwhile being addicted to Oxy, Fentanyl or Heroin???  

I would have absolutely no issues paying a few $$ more for a screwdriver at Walmart or a head of lettuce at the grocery store.  Maybe its time we went back to paying a little bit more for what we buy and have more high paying jobs come back to the US.  Personally, I do not have any fucks to give some poor Bangladeshi slaving 15 hrs/day in a Nike sweat shop and improving their quality of life.  My higher concern is to America and the quality of life of some poor blue collar worker in S.C. trying to feed her family and hoping to send her kids to college.  

If some form of short term protectionism gets us there, then so be it.  We have just been taken advantage of for far too long, with the majority of the benefits going to our trading “partners” with little being realized for us.  

My Main criticism of Cheeto and his tariffs strategery is that he is using a blunt instrument when he should be using a scalpel.  Also Imposing tariffs on our allies was just stupid, especially when they all offered to help us with our plan to push back on china.  

Giant sucking sound of jobs and 3.6% unemployment are mutually exclusive

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Trump sold the trade war and tariffs as zero pain - "easy to win" "China's paying for it". If it's the deathly necessary conflict that's being touted it'll take sacrifice and pain to win. Job losses and an economic downturn, assuredly. I don't think the public has the stomache to win, especially when the rise in prices is really easy to see.

Yes Trump identified a problem, China's longterm unfair trade practices. He set to right it by isolating the US, angering potential allies in the fight, lying to the public about how easy it would to be to win, using rhetoric that plays directly into China's strength internally and externally and Trump himself so far hasn't shown the slightest stomach for sacrifice.

I think we might be fucked.

We’ll be welcomed as liberators. Weeks not months. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tariffs are a drag on the economy and the US consumer is paying for it. 

When you are at the top of the economic cycle and doing stupid inflationary things like giving out tax breaks, a little drag on the economy has the effect of probably prolonging the up cycle. 

This is the great irony of the Cheeto in Chief. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 Its probably a net good thing.  Lies are the lubrication for society after all and this situation needs some serious lube.

Tariffs are never a net good thing.  This has already been hashed out for a couple of hundred years.  No one that knows what they are talking about thinks tariffs are a good idea - ever.  

It is a tax on American consumers.  And probable those on the middle class to poor side.  Rich people don't shop at walmart.  But they do buy HH Catamarans.  Made in Xiamen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why tariff war threatens Beijing’s global economic ambitions"

https://www.apnews.com/260e2e441d3d49118e98ef367afd0f15

"BEIJING (AP) — China’s intensified tariff war with the Trump administration is threatening Beijing’s ambition to transform itself into the dominant player in global technology.

The United States is a vital customer and source of technology for Chinese makers of electronics, medical equipment and other high-tech exports — industries that the ruling Communist Party sees as the heart of its economic future.

Yet to the Trump administration, they’re a threat to America’s industrial leadership.

Beijing managed to keep Chinese economic growth steady in the most recent quarter despite a drop in exports to the United States. It did so by boosting government spending and bank lending. But China’s technology exporters suffered huge sales drops of up to 40 percent, which ate into profits that pay for technology research.

 

The tariff war is compounding the pain felt by many Chinese companies. They are already enduring stiffened resistance in the United States and Europe to Chinese acquisitions of technology through joint ventures with foreign companies or, with financing by state-run banks, outright purchases.

China might now have to take the “tougher route” of developing more of its own technology, with less access to foreign partners and know-how, said Rajiv Biswas, chief Asia economist for IHS Markit.

“It may be a slower path,” Biswas said.

The government and companies are pouring billions of dollars into research. Huawei, the telecom equipment giant and China’s first global tech brand, spent $15 billion last year — more than Apple Inc."

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

Tariffs are never a net good thing.  This has already been hashed out for a couple of hundred years.  No one that knows what they are talking about thinks tariffs are a good idea - ever.  

It is a tax on American consumers.  And probable those on the middle class to poor side.  Rich people don't shop at walmart.  But they do buy HH Catamarans.  Made in Xiamen. 

But the purpose of tariffs is to help American manufacturers so US catamaran producers would ... well, actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

Actually China's One Child policy is coming to bite them. Their population is rapidly aging

https://www.populationpyramid.net/canada/2019/

Interesting data and presentation !!  Thanks !!  Though I disagree about China 

Reason being . . . check out India. Is that sustainable? (no) 

I think I'll move to Uruguay !! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Raz'r said:
22 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I've been interested in seeing how the media covers the tariffs.  Lately, the narrative has become "it's a regressive tax on American consumers".  I find that curious because increases in sales taxes aren't called 'regressive taxes on American consumers'.  VAT taxes also aren't usually framed as 'regressive taxes on consumers' either.  

If Trump completes this current round of hikes, we'll be up to 25% tariff on approximately 600 billion dollars of goods and services - for a net revenue increase of $125+ Billion dollars - and it didn't take even one vote in congress.

I find the timing of that in coincidence with 1-2 trillion dollar of infrastructure spending that Pelosi and Trump have been discussing and the saber rattling of the freedom caucus about being fiscally responsible to be curious.  So.. net effect?  A 100 billion dollar / year revenue stream used to pay for an infrastructure plan funded by tariffs on Chinese goods ans services to 'rebuild American infrastructure' without any congress-critters having to vote 'yes' on a single tax increase.

I'm smelling collusion - and it doesn't involve a single Russian.  

Go figure.

 

 

Hmm, don’t know about where you live but sales taxes here are always fought with the regressive argument.

Tariffs used to be more immune to that criticism because there was lots of Union $peech supporting them.

As always, representing a few who might be helped at the expense of the rest of us.

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Until you realize that a larger chunk of the remaining 96.4% is low paid, entry level service sector jobs rather than the solid middle class blue collar manufacturing jobs that got sucked out.  

Raising taxes on people who used to have those jobs isn't helpful.

Doubling Down On Stupid
 

Quote

 

Clearly, the trade war that was supposed to be "good and easy to win" has now entered a more dangerous and destructive phase. After nearly a year of trying to use tariffs to force China to negotiate a trade deal without success, the president seems to believe the only solution is more tariffs.

Time will tell if he's right about how China will respond. But in the meantime, those new tariffs can do serious damage to the American economy. More than 2.1 million American jobs could be lost and the average family of four will face about $2,200 in higher annual costs, according to a study from The Trade Partnership.

"We want to see meaningful changes in China's trade practices, but it makes no sense to punish Americans as a negotiating tactic," said David French, a vice president at the National Retail Foundation, in a statement. "If the administration wants to put more pressure on China, it should form a multinational coalition with our allies who share our concerns."

That was one of the biggest missed opportunities of the Trump administration's trade policy. If you're looking for the moment that brought America to this latest escalation of the trade war, you have to look back before the Sunday morning Trump tweets that rattled markets and set off a week of uncertainty. Before the Chinese reportedly reneged on key details of the nascent trade deal. Before the start of the trade war last summer. Before the threats of tariffs on steel and aluminum and washing machines and the rest. Even before Trump was president.

You have to go all the way back to April 2015, two months before Trump declared his candidacy. That was when the future president first lashed out, on Twitter of course, at the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multilateral trade agreement the Obama administration was negotiating with about a dozen other countries. China was not part of the TPP. The proposed pact was seen as a way to counterbalance China's growing influence over the region.

"If confronting China and getting it to do a better job of abiding by the international trade rules is the objective, we blew the two best opportunities to make that happen," says Dan Ikenson, director of the Center for Trade Studies at the Cato Institute. The United States should have not have withdrawn from the TPP, argues Ikenson. Failing that, Americans should have confronted China through the World Trade Organization, bringing complaints that could have been backed by the European Union, Japan, Korea, and others.

"There is power in numbers in these circumstances, but the Trump administration has insisted on going it alone," Ikenson tells Reason. "Inevitably, we Americans will bear the costs of those calamitous decisions."

...

If the United States had pursued a different strategy from the outset of the Trump administration, it might now be in a position to counter China's hardball tactics with alternatives that don't include higher taxes on American businesses and consumers. As it stands, the options are limited—and Trump does not seem ready to walk away.

"Economic sanctions rarely work to compel governments to do things they don't want to do," says Ikenson. "Trying to force a large country with a large, diversified economy and an historical chip on its shoulder to behave as we wish by levying massive tariffs unilaterally—imposing higher costs on ourselves—is a fool's errand."

As for the decision to bail on the TPP, it may be a little unfair to lay that entirely at Trump's feet. Give the voters a share too. Trump was the loudest anti-TPP voice in the 2016 Republican primaries, and his success—along with the impact of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), another anti-TPP protectionist—in running against the trade deal was enough to convince Hillary Clinton to turn against the TPP during the 2016 campaign.

Shrewd politics can lay the groundwork for bad policy. Whether following his own instincts or following the will of the people, Trump yanked the U.S. out of the TPP negotiations shortly after taking office. It's a decision that looks especially myopic in retrospect—one that effectively sidelined useful allies and made the future trade war a one-on-one fight.

But it was a myopia tinged with ignorance. After all, Trump seemingly believed he was striking a blow against China. During one Republican primary debate, in December 2015, Trump went on an extended rant about how the TPP would benefit China. Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) then leaned in to remind his rival candidate that China wasn't actually part of the proposed pact.

Trump is a master of creating his own political reality. But the real reality is coming back to bite him—and the rest of us.

 

With apologies for more of my usual Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading, of course.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

But the purpose of tariffs is to help American manufacturers so US catamaran producers would ... well, actually.

Help is being given to a few inefficient manufacturers at the expense of a great many consumers.  No economists think tariffs are a good idea.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Help is being given to a few inefficient manufacturers at the expense of a great many consumers.  No economists think tariffs are a good idea.  

Except for Trump who has an Economics degree from an Ivy League university.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Except for Trump who has an Economics degree from an Ivy League university.

If you want to cite Trump as your economist in support of tariffs, it would seem to hurt your case even more.  I wonder if Trump really believes in the economic theory, or does he just realize that tariffs are good politically?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Zonker said:

Actually China's One Child policy is coming to bite them. Their population is rapidly aging

https://www.populationpyramid.net/canada/2019/

 

This is a very interesting development to watch in many ways. They have already increased retirement age, it used to be 50 for women and 55 for men, although rising cost of living had already made these early retirements problematic. While they face potential labour shortages they are working to overcome them by: a) outsourcing labour-intensive, low level manufacturing; b) being in a position to benefit from automation in manufacturing and services; and c) potentially luring back many people from the world Chinese diaspora. The latter range from low level workers, e.g. the people you see working in Chinese supermarkets and restaurants around the world to high level workers in IT and the like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

If you want to cite Trump as your economist in support of tariffs, it would seem to hurt your case even more.  I wonder if Trump really believes in the economic theory, or does he just realize that tariffs are good politically?

I am hardly a Trump supporter, he is a moron, or supporter of tariffs. A substantial number of your citizens think he is a knowledgeable economist. Talk to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I am hardly a Trump supporter, he is a moron, or supporter of tariffs. A substantial number of your citizens think he is a knowledgeable economist. Talk to them.

Trump is no economist, but he is hardly a moron.  In fact, there is a case to be made that he is quite savvy.  He, after all, made it this far.  Tariffs are always bad, but the morons in the world think they are good and that Trump is fighting for them.  I hear the trade deficit is even higher than it was. (As if this were a bad thing anyway).  But people still think that Trump is fighting for them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

Trump is no economist, but he is hardly a moron.  In fact, there is a case to be made that he is quite savvy.  He, after all, made it this far.  Tariffs are always bad, but the morons in the world think they are good and that Trump is fighting for them.  I hear the trade deficit is even higher than it was. (As if this were a bad thing anyway).  But people still think that Trump is fighting for them.

President Trump is "savvy" like others who operate tap-dancing on the line between legal/illegals and ethical/unethical. 

I believe he has no qualms about crossing that line when it suits him.

That is hardly the type of behavior we should tolerate from the POTUS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

President Trump is "savvy" like others who operate tap-dancing on the line between legal/illegals and ethical/unethical. 

I believe he has no qualms about crossing that line when it suits him.

That is hardly the type of behavior we should tolerate from the POTUS.

I get that you are obsessed.  Both you and I wish that Trump were not president and certainly wish someone else would win in 2020.  But I am a realist, and you are obsessed.  For the obsessed, it is hard to think clearly.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:
9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

President Trump is "savvy" like others who operate tap-dancing on the line between legal/illegals and ethical/unethical. 

I believe he has no qualms about crossing that line when it suits him.

That is hardly the type of behavior we should tolerate from the POTUS.

I get that you are obsessed.  Both you and I wish that Trump were not president and certainly wish someone else would win in 2020.  But I am a realist, and you are obsessed.  For the obsessed, it is hard to think clearly.  

Is there something in my post with which you disagree?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Is there something in my post with which you disagree?

Yes, of course.  I am not obsessed with Trump.  I thought I already said that.  

Further, he is savvy in that he knows how to win.  He won the Republican primary.  Then he won the election.  

Impressive, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Is there something in my post with which you disagree?

Yes, of course.  I am not obsessed with Trump.  I thought I already said that.  

Further, he is savvy in that he knows how to win.  He won the Republican primary.  Then he won the election.  

Impressive, right?

You don't disagree with what I wrote.  It's just that it was written by me - an "obsessed" person, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You don't disagree with what I wrote.  It's just that it was written by me - an "obsessed" person, right?

Yes.  I am talking about tariffs, and you bring up illegals.  Obsessed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You don't disagree with what I wrote.  It's just that it was written by me - an "obsessed" person, right?

What is Trump doing that is unethical and illegal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yes.  I am talking about tariffs, and you bring up illegals.  Obsessed.  

Typo.  Sorry.  Pretty sure everyone else knew I meant to type "legal/illegal", regarding what he is willing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Typo.  Sorry.  Pretty sure everyone else knew I meant to type "legal/illegal", regarding what he is willing to do.

Yeah, I see that now.  What about Trump's actions regarding tariffs are "illegal" or "unethical?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

You have got to be kidding.  

Not kidding at all.  I would think you would have a list going that you could just paste into any discussion.  

Anything relating to this tariff discussion?  Anything at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Trump is no economist, but he is hardly a moron.  In fact, there is a case to be made that he is quite savvy.  He, after all, made it this far.  Tariffs are always bad, but the morons in the world think they are good and that Trump is fighting for them.  I hear the trade deficit is even higher than it was. (As if this were a bad thing anyway).  But people still think that Trump is fighting for them.

 

If I had a job guaranteed for four years, set things up so I couldn’t be fired no matter what I did, no one could disprove what I was  doing was ~  weirdly legal until (maybe) I was gone, I could fire anyone I wanted whenever I had a brain fart,  and make a little bit of money ;) on the side while I’m at all this, I’d look like a fucking genius to!  Of course things could actually be melting up, but hey, things are going up a little bit!  :)  Trump could be thought of as Frederick the Great’s father, if you think about it.  Bumbling from fuckup to fuckup, spies as bestest friends, family members suspect, etc etc...  Hard to look bad after the continent is recovering from the 30 Years War (Or the Obama presidency ^_^)  is a typical Republican mindset, eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah, I see that now.  What about Trump's actions regarding tariffs are "illegal" or "unethical?"

I never made that claim.  I was simply responding to your comment that President Trump is "savvy".  Here, I'll help you -

54 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Trump is no economist, but he is hardly a moron.  In fact, there is a case to be made that he is quite savvy.  He, after all, made it this far.  Tariffs are always bad, but the morons in the world think they are good and that Trump is fighting for them.  I hear the trade deficit is even higher than it was. (As if this were a bad thing anyway).  But people still think that Trump is fighting for them.

President Trump is "savvy" like others who operate tap-dancing on the line between legal/illegal and ethical/unethical. 

I believe he has no qualms about crossing that line when it suits him.

That is hardly the type of behavior we should tolerate from the POTUS.

As far as his history of settling lawsuits, paying fines, paying off complainants, stiffing contractors, breaking contracts, etc. - those are hardly the actions most would describe as "ethical" and "legal".

Of course, this letter, by folks who actually have practiced law, must not mean anything, right?

Go ahead and defend him.  I am done engaging with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dow plunged Monday after China said it will raise tariffs in retaliation to last week's tariff increase by the United States.

China hiked tariffs on $60 billion of imports from the United States. It first imposed the tariffs last year.

US stocks opened sharply lower:

  • The S&P 500 fell 1.7%
  • The Nasdaq dropped 2.1%
  • The Dow fell more than 475 points at the open
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I never made that claim.  I was simply responding to your comment that President Trump is "savvy".  Here, I'll help you -

As far as his history of settling lawsuits, paying fines, paying off complainants, stiffing contractors, breaking contracts, etc. - those are hardly the actions most would describe as "ethical" and "legal".

Of course, this letter, by folks who actually have practiced law, must not mean anything, right?

Go ahead and defend him.  I am done engaging with you.

Before you do that, consider that jzk has manufactured himself a 2d digital image of a lightening rod and a whipping post, kind of like a Puritan era stock, but made out of a superconducting metal that he then locks (!) himself into almost every day in the middle of our little town square, lined up with the other rhetorical instruments of restraint. :lol::lol::lol:  Kind of like Roger Stone in a thong, but the weirdest thing about that is not the thong, it would be the display of the tattoo on the middle of his back just above the er, cleavage :blink:. Of course this is just a forum metaphor, so......^_^

He does have a key!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Amati said:

If I had a job guaranteed for four years, set things up so I couldn’t be fired no matter what I did, no one could disprove what I was  doing was ~  weirdly legal until (maybe) I was gone, I could fire anyone I wanted whenever I had a brain fart,  and make a little bit of money ;) on the side while I’m at all this, I’d look like a fucking genius to!  Of course things could actually be melting up, but hey, things are going up a little bit!  :)  Trump could be thought of as Frederick the Great’s father, if you think about it.  Bumbling from fuckup to fuckup, spies as bestest friends, family members suspect, etc etc...  Hard to look bad after the continent is recovering from the 30 Years War (Or the Obama presidency ^_^)  is a typical Republican mindset, eh?

But you don't have such a job, and you certainly don't look like a fucking genius.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

oh, those jobs that were produced by unions? unions are bad, right jeffreaux the dumb?

When they argue for protectionist tariffs like Trump and Sanders, among other notables? Yes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I never made that claim.  I was simply responding to your comment that President Trump is "savvy".  Here, I'll help you -

As far as his history of settling lawsuits, paying fines, paying off complainants, stiffing contractors, breaking contracts, etc. - those are hardly the actions most would describe as "ethical" and "legal".

Of course, this letter, by folks who actually have practiced law, must not mean anything, right?

Go ahead and defend him.  I am done engaging with you.

No way you are done obsessing over Trump.  This is a discussion of Trump's bad tariff policy.  I claimed that regarding such, he might not really be a moron, but rather savvy.

He comes off looking like a champion to the everyday American that doesn't understand tariffs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jzk said:

But you don't have such a job, and you certainly don't look like a fucking genius.  

As usual, you state the obvious.  However, consider with whom William Friedrich (ok, Wilhelm) :) replaced Leibniz.  Through a mirror, darkly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

If you want to cite Trump as your economist in support of tariffs, it would seem to hurt your case even more.  I wonder if Trump really believes in the economic theory, or does he just realize that tariffs are good politically?

Quote

"We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs," a famous American businessman once wrote. "But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance."

Take a wild guess who the famous American businessman was.

 

 

Spoiler link to more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Take a wild guess who the famous American businessman was.

 

 

Spoiler link to more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading

Trump was sucking up for entree?  I hear the Koch’s are rich-

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, and those same economists completely missed the subprime meltdown and near collapse of the global economy.  Probably were even supporters of the idea.....

Which ones "missed" it?  As I recall there were many people sounding the warning bell. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

BS!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ture story... I was working in finance during those years.  I called it.  It wasn't hard to see coming.  I have extensive client notes from 2003-2005 where I would implore clients to not cash out all their equities for real estate.  I would bring up the amount of ARM's, what will happen when they come due, etc.  Yes, there were many economists who missed it.  But here were also quite a few who called it.  They just had a hard time convincing others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
1 hour ago, Swimsailor said:
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

economy.  Probably were even supporters of the idea.....

 Which ones "missed" it?  As I recall there were many people sounding the warning bell. 

BS!

Nah

Depends on who you listen to.

Finance-infotainment is a big business. If you work in this industry, and you're beating the drum about how great everything is, and buy these awesome investment products that will make you rich rich rich; then there's a crash...... of course you're going to say that nobody knew there was a crash coming.

OTOH there is also a certain corner of the finance-infotainment bidness that sells gloom-n-doom. The sky is ALWAYS falling! Hunker down, circle the wagons, buy gold (and guns) etc etc. A yuge crash is just around the corner!

Then there are people with fairly good credentials who not only try to give an honest picture, they admit when they're wrong.

Fuck that shit, nobody listens to weiner-heads like them.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Now you both are tap dancing.  The fact is everybody who counted - the Fed, the Bankers, the top economists, etc all missed it.  SS saying he called it (more BS) does not count.

So, how much gold did you buy?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nah

Depends on who you listen to.

Finance-infotainment is a big business. If you work in this industry, and you're beating the drum about how great everything is, and buy these awesome investment products that will make you rich rich rich; then there's a crash...... of course you're going to say that nobody knew there was a crash coming.

OTOH there is also a certain corner of the finance-infotainment bidness that sells gloom-n-doom. The sky is ALWAYS falling! Hunker down, circle the wagons, buy gold (and guns) etc etc. A yuge crash is just around the corner!

Then there are people with fairly good credentials who not only try to give an honest picture, they admit when they're wrong.

Fuck that shit, nobody listens to weiner-heads like them.

-DSK

My impression is you are correct, if only because of random probability.  Every buyer has a seller.   Every trend has somebody on each side of the curve spending their convictions.   My contrarian view is every bubble shows that about half of the professionals in the industry were wrong each time.   I'm biased by memories of peers, doing significantly better then I was,  playing the fool up to the tech bubble when I graduated school.   "The old economic rules were outmoded.    This is the new world."   They were equally confident it would never recover after the fact.    Now computer trading (real estate, mortgage and stocks) is playing an increasing role.  Are the computers on the right or wrong side more often?   Or are they as inept as the humans?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems there are some folks around here who have not read Matt Taibbi, haven't seen "The Big Short" etc...

How come, on a tariff-oriented thread on a sailing site, no-one has commented on elimination of Canadian import duty on American-made boats?

"Rising tide of Canadian boaters save US economy in wake of Chinese trade retaliation."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, and those same economists completely missed the subprime meltdown and near collapse of the global economy.  Probably were even supporters of the idea.....

The subprime crisis per se, started in 2006 when housing prices fell causing defaults. I spent about 5 minutes searching this and I'm sure I could find more. Look at what those economists were saying at the time.

Here is Paul Krugman pointing out that the housing bubble was ending:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-sound.html

This is the chief economist of the IMF warning about the coming crisis.

image.png.d0b034b680c7aac1f71d9c36004017fb.png

https://www.thebalance.com/subprime-mortgage-crisis-effect-and-timeline-3305745

I wouldn't try to conclude much from this because economists never agree. But back to tariffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who, without googling her, knows who Blythe Masters is, and her role in all this?  Lots of "causes", not the least of which being that her debt-derivative instruments made the systemic risk almost totally opaque.  Incentives matter, and we shouldn't fuck with 'skin in the game" if we want the right incentives in place.  Bankers seem to prefer skin-removal-from-game.  bacq2tariffs

[edit: previous thread on Blythe...]

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US industrial economy was built on tariffs and protection . . 

As was Japan's . .   as was China's 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-is-right-america-was-built-on-tariffs-2018-08-15

In fact, it could be argued (by me anyway), that Wall St. pushed the low tariff regime as part of 

its war on American workers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A contrarian viewpoint.

The economy is hot.  Inflation is low, but low end wages are creeping up.   Immigrant labor is discouraged.  Automation is escalating but will lag demand.   Mid range hourly wages are slow to change, but recruiting and retention are hard.   Medical benefits are cost prohibitive.   There isn't enough elasticity to raise prices sufficient to counter these problems, partially due to disruptive technologies.   Does anybody, especially a small business, have other experiences now?  This is good for the left behind, but is also an economic choke point affecting myself and many I know.   The house painter turned away my business in March because he was booked until 2020.   The tax 'reform' was pouring starter fluid into the carb of a revving engine.  It revs higher, until a rod flies through the valve cover. 

Generally when things heat up and choke points emerge (housing, metal and fuel prices just before the great recession sticks in my mind) everybody thinks things are great until a couple months after they aren't.   Suddenly the problem was obvious and the financial talking heads find some model or statistic that proved it was inevitable.   By random probability a few with contrarian opinions can stand up as soothsayers.     

Once things are clearly not great nobody wants to rock the boat by correcting the fundamental problems, kind of like reefing after the wind blows up.   You know you need to, but damn if you can get off the rail.   

Corrections are inevitable in our cyclical economy.   Unless computers are wiser then people, another will happen.   Deregulation invites people to game the system as Enron and the mortgage crises demonstrated.  Irrational exuberance doesn't just happen to the stock market.  Maybe Trump's hijinks are a useful brake.  Maybe they will even achieve some sort of fundamental change in the Chinese model.   Granted its more like the skipper falling off the rail while still clinging to the mainsheet instead of deploying a sea anchor, but its still a little bit useful.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

The US industrial economy was built on tariffs and protection . . 

As was Japan's . .   as was China's 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-is-right-america-was-built-on-tariffs-2018-08-15

In fact, it could be argued (by me anyway), that Wall St. pushed the low tariff regime as part of 

its war on American workers. 

Then what was the effect of the repeal of the Corn Laws on the Industrial Revolution? It can be said that it enabled its second period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Until you realize that a larger chunk of the remaining 96.4% is low paid, entry level service sector jobs rather than the solid middle class blue collar manufacturing jobs that got sucked out.  

Another swing and a miss by J’rzr. 

Got some data to show that that the ratio of mfg as % of total jobs is declining faster under nafta than before?

didnt think so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest and quite real complaints about China are:

  • their own protectionism
  • their rampant IP theft

As for globalism itself, that ship sailed quite awhile ago. The invention of container shipping changed everything. Who did that? We did that. We now have choice between hunkering down and protecting Wyoming coal jobs or competing. CA competes and rather well but Shitstain wants to hunker down.

I have to admire China in the same way I admire Daryl Morey (Houston GM) as a Warrior fan. They're consistent, objective and they have a plan. They're mercantilists. They laughed at us when we wasted treasure and blood (but mostly treasure) on stupid entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan. They suck Australia dry without even firing a shot.

Anyways, this idea that someone as stupid as Shitstain is going to win this is just stupid. If you want to win something like this you need someone smart who can build a coalition instead of a shattering one.

https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/18/how-might-eu-trade-sanctions-on-the-us-hit-consumers-euronews-answers

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump had come out and hit China for IP theft, I'd be 100% in support. 

While his negotiating team say that's what it's about, Trump, IIRC, has never made it a central theme for why he's on this path.

 

And if it IS the reason? Tariffs aren't the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

My biggest and quite real complaints about China are:

  • their own protectionism
  • their rampant IP theft

As for globalism itself, that ship sailed quite awhile ago. The invention of container shipping changed everything. Who did that? We did that. We now have choice between hunkering down and protecting Wyoming coal jobs or competing. CA competes and rather well but Shitstain wants to hunker down.

I have to admire China in the same way I admire Daryl Morey (Houston GM) as a Warrior fan. They're consistent, objective and they have a plan. They're mercantilists. They laughed at us when we wasted treasure and blood (but mostly treasure) on stupid entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan. They suck Australia dry without even firing a shot.

Anyways, this idea that someone as stupid as Shitstain is going to win this is just stupid. If you want to win something like this you need someone smart who can build a coalition instead of a shattering one.

https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/18/how-might-eu-trade-sanctions-on-the-us-hit-consumers-euronews-answers

No arguments.   My issues are details and regulation, not globalism itself.   Many of our problems are self inflicted.    

Examples.  

China encourages chemical engineers and other technical careers able to manufacturer drugs.  We encourage fields with less utility, and discourage education in general with escalating costs and lack of state investment.  China produces much of the drugs or raw ingredients used to make both prescription and illicit drugs.   US inspectors visit their facilities (for legal drugs) on a preapproved schedule.  We inspect our own on a random basis.   Of course we give China the advantage.   

The intellectual theft is another self inflicted problem, since we walk into the deals knowing we are going to be robbed.  Each country trading with China does the same.   As you point out, Trump destroys instead of builds coalitions to address this problem.    @Raz'r is right.   Trump and his team talk out of both sides of their mouths and it is impossible to know what their real goals are.  There is no reason to assume this is something they care much about.

Ecommerce, aided by fake reviews and subsidized shipping by the International Postal Union treaty (possibly we will walk out in October) allows Chinese companies to distribute junk products to consumers more inexpensively then their American competition.   Ecommerce, international games and corporate rules eliminate the long term penalty of selling junk, you just rebrand your website, walk away from any liability and peddle slightly different junk next month.   

Smart globalism could easily solve these problems.   Its easy to blame NAFTA for all the factory closings that killed my prior town.  Since many of the jobs moved to Mexico, there was some reality.  They didn't necessarily stay in Mexico.  Many would have been lost as Korean or Chinese brands gained market share anyway.  Automation sometimes allows American manufacturing to complete.  It would work better if the carbon and pollution costs were calculated equally at all locations.   I would no more outlaw globalism then I would automation.

I also admit Trump is doing a couple things rrr ri   (I cannot say it, but he's not always wrong).   But he's undisciplined, lacks strategy, and any correct decisions are achieved by the shotgun theory of good governance.   If you shoot enough shotgun shells into a crowd of people, odds are some of the people you hit are criminals.    

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites