The China-U.S. trade war thread.

I didn't read the whole thread,but; has anyone mentioned the probable outcome of relabeling. So I am a country that competes with the USA in soybeans. I all of a sudden have massive new orders for soy from China. I go and buy USA soybeans and repackage them as coming from my country. The soybeans then get shipped to China. I make a small profit, the USA still gets their sales, and China pays a little bit more for the soybeans. How is that going to be stopped?

Actually, that's simplistic. I should have said "direct effect" because a price increase on imports obviously effects our native industries. But the point about who needs who more, is still valid. The truth, as I've said before, is that both economies are intertwined and need each other. But the US is in a much better position in a trade war than China is. China has hard decisions to make. The US has some not as hard, but unpopular decisions to make.

originally posted by: feldercarb
I didn't read the whole thread,but; has anyone mentioned the probable outcome of relabeling... How is that going to be stopped?

Only with great difficulty.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: feldercarb
I didn't read the whole thread,but; has anyone mentioned the probable outcome of relabeling... How is that going to be stopped?

Only with great difficulty.

So then, how great of an impact is there going to be on the American farmer? He still makes his sales but they go to Brazil or some other foreign country instead of China. You might get some blowback in whiskey if the foreign companies ask the distiller to use their bottles. I cannot see how much affect there can be on American agricultural products. It will be far harder to rebrand Chinese manufactured products.

originally posted by: feldercarb
How is that going to be stopped?

Necessity.

Transshipment policies are what allow the US to ensure their tariffs on other country's products are enforced. If the US breaks their own transshipment policies, others will as well.

That would negate the vast majority of existing tariffs and return us to a world which we should really not actively try to return too.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Assuming those other trading partners are benefiting from those agreements, including those same businessmen who are, as you say, not suffering from 'loyalty', then why should more consideration be given them when none have our national interests in mind?

Wait, do you mean other countries, multinational companies, or both? If you mean other countries, then any "special considerations" they get from us typically come as a part of our alliances with them. If you're thinking about retaliation to any country that increases its trade to China to take advantage of their tariffs against us, then you're opening up another can of worms. Are you really willing to risk ending US military alliances, economic alliances, and energy alliances over this? Trade works both ways, which is why it's called "trade" in the first place.

And if you mean multinational companies, then you have to think about why multinationals get "special considerations" from our local, state, and fed govts in the first place. Even if they're based somewhere else and have subsidiaries all over the world, many of them still have factories and other operations right here. In other words, they're the ones actually creating a lot of American jobs. Virtually every politician likes to be able to run on having created a boatload of new jobs in their jurisdiction, and the surest way to do that is to get a big company to open up a factory, store, or subsidiary there.

Those multinationals are also typically good investments, meaning that constituents and the politicians themselves may own stocks or bonds from that company. Of course they'd rather see their investment being profitable over intentionally decreasing the value of it.

besides, negotiations are ongoing re NAFTA and improvements are likely with both.

Improvements for who, though? For example, Canada is one of the top 10 soy producing countries in the world (I might be looking at old data, though). If we adjust NAFTA to be less beneficial to them, what stops them from making up some of the difference by selling more soy to China? Should we really risk a trade war with them over this?

The Chinese have just come out with the comment that it's a lose-lose. I see that as worst case scenario and far better than 'win' for China and 'lose' for the U.S.. It also a sign of weakness, IMO.

That's because China is a huge proponent of free trade and globalization. Just as many US leaders have been pushing through free trade agreements over the years, China's also been pushing through various free trade agreements. Their President even gave a speech at last year's World Economic Forum in Davos (here's the transcript) where he stated the following:

We must remain committed to developing global free trade and investment, promote trade and investment liberalization and facilitation through opening-up and say no to protectionism. Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room. While wind and rain may be kept outside, that dark room will also block light and air. No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war.

Now that I think of it, if other nations increase production to take advantage of tariffs on U.S. production, the supply and demand kicks in in the U.S. with the increased soy supply, at least initially, which is deflationary.

Soy prices here would definitely decrease if American companies can't find any other foreign buyers for it. So that part is temporarily good for us consumers. The downside comes when/if our companies can't stay profitable with the lower prices and profit margins. The ones that can't will have to either scale back production (which includes layoffs and/or factory shutdowns) or will simply go out of business.

Ironically, this was the opposite problem with the Keystone XL pipeline. There was a glut of energy products in Mid-America which was keeping prices down. But the pipeline would allow those excess energy supplies and supplies from Canada to be easily sent to the Gulf to be sold on the global market at higher prices.

Add in other potential products and is it possible the inflation side is somewhat offset?

I honestly don't know how this will go. I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually led to a bailout of sorts, like extra subsidies to some of the affected industries. But that means that consumers/taxpayers would be paying more for the imported tariffed goods and paying more for these additional subsidies to prop up the American exporters, all while hoping that the unsold American goods would be cheap enough here to offset the additional costs.

(sorry for the run-on sentences. my fingers won't stop typing lol)

a reply to: peck420

It's easier to catch transhipment of washing machines, say, than beans or meal. It's up to China to decide how to police that. The US just recently did the same with solar, as well. China was simply rerouting stuff through Korea and Vietnam and Chinese subsidiaries in third countries That's why aluminum and steel got slapped with a tariff across the board, instead of selectively (though a few people got exempted).
Displacement is even harder to stop. China is really good at this, too. The equivalent in this scenario is: US dumps soy in Argentina for domestic use and floods the market, and Argentine producers now have a ton of product they can't sell. So they export to China who still has demand. Those beans are grown in Argentina, packaged, and loaded there. So how does China stop that? With great difficulty or across the board tariffs that really are targeting China.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

That's because China is a huge proponent of free trade and globalization.

Haha, they say that because they are huge exporters with a trade imbalance. Meanwhile their average tariff is about 10% for the West, while the US average tariff rate is about 2%. They also highly protect some other industries at 40% rates.

So of course they say they want "free trade". What they want is continued free access to foreign markets while they protect their own. We keep letting them do it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Both Canada and Mexico received exemptions from the initial tariffs, from my understanding. Yes, ways around the tariffs will be found by both sides.

Look, your view is China is a proponent of free trade. RadioRobert says China has numerous tariffs on imported goods that block U.S. exports and that the U.S. doesn't have the access to the Chinese markets that China has with the U.S..

Which is accurate?

If China does have these protective tariffs then how do you support China's claim to free market access? The words don't match the actions, in that case.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Look, your view is China is a proponent of free trade. RadioRobert says China has numerous tariffs on imported goods that block U.S. exports and that the U.S. doesn't have the access to the Chinese markets that China has with the U.S..

Which is accurate?

I think we're having a misunderstanding here. I pointed you to China's President's own words at one of the major global economic forums. I'm neither Xi's supporter nor opponent so I can't vouch for whether or not he was lying. I was pointing out that China's recent talk about trade wars being "lose-lose" is consistent with what they've been saying on the global stage for at least 2 years now. In fact, that speech was given the day before Trump's inauguration.

The last sentence of the part I quoted from his speech literally says "No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war", which is pretty much the same as "trade wars are lose-lose". That's why I responded separately to that specific part of your post where you said it was a sign of weakness.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Here is a Forbes article on Chinese (lovers of free trade) auto tariffs. It is from 2012, so we can remove the Trump bias and see what people were saying in examining the facts.

The automobile industry in China is still heavily protected behind a “tariff wall” even though this wall has come down significantly since China’s entry into the WTO. Cars imported to China face a tariff duty of at least 25 percent. In comparison, American duties on cars imported into the US are only 5 percent. Taking into account the 17 percent of VAT and other levies, imported cars and foreign-brand cars produced in China are substantially more expensive than the same type of cars in the United States.  A new Cadillac SLS made in China will set a Chinese household back between $71,000 and $110,000, without the anti-dumping duty. A better performing Cadillac STS, on the other hand, costs an American household between $47,000 and $56,000. Chinese households are not wealthier than American households. It makes absolutely no sense to me that a less wealthy Chinese consumer should pay more than a much wealthier American consumer for the same American-made products.

How'd the media react to Obama on Chinese products?

Barack Obama on Friday slapped punitive tariffs on all car and light truck tires entering the United States from China in a decision that could anger the strategically important Asian powerhouse but placate union supporters important to his health care push at home.

Obama had until Sept. 17 — next week — to accept, reject or modify a U.S. International Trade Commission ruling that a rising tide of Chinese tires into the U.S. hurts American producers. A powerful union, United Steelworkers, blames the increase for the loss of thousands of American jobs.

The federal trade panel recommended a 55 percent tariff in the first year, 45 percent in the second year and 35 percent in the third year. Obama settled on slightly lower penalties — an extra 35 percent in the first year, 30 percent in the second, and 25 percent in the third, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

...

Obama's action marks a shift from the Bush administration, which was routinely criticized for being too delicate in confronting Beijing's alleged trade violations. Obama promised during his presidential campaign that he would do it differently.

For the Chinese government, the tire dispute threatens an economic relationship crucial to China's economic growth. There was speculation before the decision that new tariffs could produce public pressure on Beijing to retaliate, potentially sparking a dangerous trade war.

Soaring Chinese imports of American chicken meat already have been mentioned by Chinese state media as a possible target. Beijing also could sell some of its extensive holdings of U.S. Treasury debt, which could unsettle markets.

He was a hero, because Bush was a softie...

Farmers and business groups warn trade war with China will wreck Trump country:

www.rawstory.com...


I have the feeling that Trump will back down on the Tariff issue very soon.

Yeah, Trump’s presidency by disruptive, ad hoc, whim won’t work. And he does back down all the time. Nobody believes him anymore. Look at Syria, they talked him down and now he’s taking back his impromptu pledge to get out.

He never reasons and thinks things out. He’s under a delusion like he’s some kind of intuitive genius.

He’s just a reckless ignoramus the whole world, save a small group of stubborn people, wishes he would go away.

originally posted by: olaru12

Farmers and business groups warn trade war with China will wreck Trump country:

www.rawstory.com...


I have the feeling that Trump will back down on the Tariff issue very soon.

Would you be willing to bet on that 'feeling'?

originally posted by: Willtell
Yeah, Trump’s presidency by disruptive, ad hoc, whim won’t work. And he does back down all the time. Nobody believes him anymore. Look at Syria, they talked him down and now he’s taking back his impromptu pledge to get out.

He never reasons and thinks things out. He’s under a delusion like he’s some kind of intuitive genius.

He’s just a reckless ignoramus the whole world, save a small group of stubborn people, wishes he would go away.

Save a small group of stubborn people? I was thinking the same about you....

a reply to: RadioRobert

Obviously this is a small, incomplete picture of the overall tariff situation. It does point out that it is making headway in changing the status quo.

www.facebook.com...

Renegotiating NAFTA is going pretty well for us, too.

The tariffs are a tool, not the end game. We've always been afraid to use our leverage. People are complaining that it opens us up to reciprocal tariffs and don't realize Trump's tariffs are the reciprocal ones. We've been taking loser deals because faceless corporations keep spending billions in lobbying politicians so they can continue reaping the rewards of cheap labour. Same reason we've never plugged the border.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: makemap

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: nwtrucker

I was thinking the other day if the general economic system of Planet Earth was better before China was engaged by the west. To be honest the Chinese have destroyed so many of our jobs over here in the UK and the communities that go with them that it just makes one wonder................ would we all be better off if China didn't exist?

Your an idiot for thinking that. Who do you think supported Green tech industries. It was freaking China and Canada. The oil companies are still fracking US internally. If China wasn't there, US would not have gotten out of the coal age. It was the West that refused to change technology because they had an advantage over everyone else militarily just like China didn't change technology when they thought they had the best technology then cannons.

China balance the play field against US corrupt policies since the fall of USSR. US is as equally worst when it comes to destroying the planet, but unlike China having lots of people buying a lot of stuff. US was destroying the planet technologically through warfare and pre-planned agendas to poison our food industries.

Whole communities have been destroyed across all the western world by devious Chines economics. Around here we have had factories closing down on a regular basis that existed for hundreds of years to supply the local European market. So a few rich folk made a lot of dosh by switching production to asia................. Well good for those individuals buyt what for the average man in the street who has seen his community ripped apart by off shoring and no real hope of earning a proper living doing a proper job anymore. Whole generations of kids expecting no hope of proper work and stuck on benefits and idle times where alcohol and drugs fill their time, then the general decline in the local community. So a few businessmen can make extra dosh

China quite simply doesn't play it fair and things have gone too far their way. As a Brit I admire Trump for trying to address one of the modern day wrongs in global trade that most western leaders daren't take on. Good on him

So, you are skipping the blame on the companies that chose to move their business to China, and just blaming China. That is a complete cop out if you ask me.

Blame these money hungry companies that just care about profit!

originally posted by: Jay-morris


So, you are skipping the blame on the companies that chose to move their business to China, and just blaming China. That is a complete cop out if you ask me.

Blame these money hungry companies that just care about profit!

That is the whole plan of the elite. Maintain capitalism, but blame other countries so we go to war with them while taking them over. Forever stuck with the same system and can't get out. China, NK and Cuba was the only one smart enough not to play this game. Russia fell hard after Soviet collapse and EU is trying to break free. Even when the companies of US run away, if they do attack them. America will be seen as a threat to capitalism itself. The end game is when US controls the rest of the world and buyout all the companies that ran away either through threats or assassination which we will see is Corporate NWO.

China said on Friday it is ready to pay “any cost” in a trade war after US President Donald Trump threatened an additional $100 billion in tit-for-tat tariffs on Beijing.Continue Reading: ARYNews