Trump wants to increase tariffs On china again .

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: xpert11

If we move forward doing nothing on the rationale that China is a strategic enemy to ourselves and/or allies, why would we fund their military build -up with a giant trade imbalance? Aren't we essentially paying tribute under that mindset?

Trade imbalance happens when a country is much poorer and a wealthy country uses the currency differences in labor to benefit consumers.

The trade imbalance is not nearly the problem you seem to think it is. China is communist. The way to fight them is through innovation not by creating an economy that looks more like communism.

One issue is a large portion of the trade balance exists because we do not enforce IP rights and China does not recognize them, and from unfair practices like dumping.
A second issue is that we've allowed those practices to put our strategic industries in jeopardy. We have an economic and security interest on protecting domestic industrial capability.
A third issue is the couple hundred billion of hard currency we fork over in the imbalance, is more than enough to find their entire military budget and have money left over. This is not insignificant in light of the fact one of your strongest argument for maintaining the status quo is "they could attack us if we don't keep giving us money to buy things from them or buy somewhere else". Perhaps we could buy our mountains of consumer "stuff" from nations not openly antagonistic? Maybe some countries who don't practice unfair trade practices to bankrupt foreign metal industries and steal intellectual property might love to sell us stuff and take our money? I didn't know that was commie-talk now...

Just to emphasize that Trump is clueless.

I'm already on the record in other threads saying the implementation and structure of several of the tariffs seemed arbitrary and pointless. That doesn't mean the answer is zero tariffs.

You have not represented any of my arguements.

My strongest argument is literally history.

There has never been a time in the modern american history tariffs have benefitted the economy of country in the long term. Like I said the only use of radical changes in the economy like large batches of new tariffs are for emergencies like extreme unemployment.

There are many examples of modern tariff fights.

None of them have produced a net gain and most have produced negative growth.

Good I say.

Screw the Chinese communist regime and their cheap toxic products. Seriously, we don't need it.

We do not need to import inferior commercial goods, while we export much of the same goods of higher quality.

I'm absolutely against importing products we export. It's senseless, the people importing products we export can buy USofA goods. Period.

Of it's a different brand only found elsewhere that's a different matter and personal preference. But buying China means we are opting to buy knock offs that aren't regulated by safety standards.

It also means those who buy China are enabling child slave labor, that we as a Country made illegal.

How hypocrite is that!

Go ahead argue against that statement.
It's senseless and shows one's own justified excuses.

Child labor laws exist for a reason look it up.

Where are all the bleeding heart liberals crying when it comes to child equality? Not on their agenda, they haven't been told to care about it on social media.

So they don't and won't.

Prove me wrong, just share one link as an example.

People forgot this whole downward spiral started with the Clinton admin and the outsourcing lie.

Look what was lost since then...and they want more people to lose what National Independence we have left, no thank you. I say bring back what we outsourced.

Economic, industrial and energy independent objectives means self reliant.

We are not self reliant as a Nation. That alone makes it a National security threat. One I don't prefer to take, why would I or anyone?

Abraham Lincoln said America will never be defeated by an outside force. If we fall, we fall because we will have destroyed ourselves.

How can we expect to help others deny ignorance, if we can't deny it in ourselves let alone as a majority...

Sometimes every one needs a reality check.
Help one another pull their collective heads out of their asses, so they can see the bigger picture.

a reply to: ADVISOR

So you want to control the buyers market and use protectionist trade agreements?

Sounds like socialism and communism.

Anti-trust laws would be "communist" or " socialist " under your broad definition of "market controls". All labour laws would be "socialist". Its a throw away term with that usage.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Anti-trust laws would be "communist" or " socialist " under your broad definition of "market controls". All labour laws would be "socialist". Its a throw away term with that usage.

I have not defined market controls.

So total fail. No single human should be able to radically change the current market through taxation. The president was not given monetary policy. The CPI is directly effected by imports.

a reply to: luthier

Oh, sorry. You weren't talking about "market control". You were just talking about trying to "control the buyers market "...

Do you believe in market intervention to prevent anti-competitive practices? Price gouging? Predatory pricing? You must be a communist...

Hard to take you seriously with that hot take. I know you're capable of rational conversation because we've had them occasionally...

a reply to: RadioRobert

Tariffs are not market controls that protect the consumer. They are emergency measures to fight unemployment and have a nearly 100 percent failure rate (as a trade war or lasting dispute) due to unintended consequences (of rapid unilateral market intervention)

Can you point to one instance of tariffs in the last 50 years that did more than create a wash after price increases, market resets etc...AI, robotics, genetic engineering (humans first with disease prevention and treatment) are changing the future faster than the silly economic game trump thinks he is playing.

The entire economy is about to be redesigned and trump wants to bring us to the 80's. People like Weinstein are banking using algorithms in the market.

We don't need gimmicks we need real discussions about the actual future not how to relive the past.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I will also say if tariffs are going to work long term it would be a long term slow change over decades. There is no unemployment crisis and no need for emergency yanking on economic levers. Since Donald Trump probably has 4 years with a max of 8 he wants to get credit now. Which will fail 99 percent chance of failure with this approach.

In fact one small hiccup and the inflation and national debt are going ro balloon.

Business, personal, and national debt at all time high....

Risk>Reward

a reply to: luthier

Can you point to one instance of tariffs in the last 50 years..

We haven't really seen a comprehensive or systemic use of tariffs in the last 50 years, so it wpuld be difficult to produce an example. I do agree that if the next asshole just goes back to business as usual there is no benefit.

I don't think we are as close to revolutionizing our economy as you, and again the strategic concerns of maintaining an industrial base outweigh your worst case scenario regarding employment effects (ie it retains only a small amount of jobs).

I am also concerned at the historical outlook of what occurs to economies which become top-heavy, when financing becomes a significant portion of the GDP, made worse with our fiat currency/-manipulation.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

Can you point to one instance of tariffs in the last 50 years..

We haven't really seen a comprehensive or systemic use of tariffs in the last 50 years, so it wpuld be difficult to produce an example. I do agree that if the next asshole just goes back to business as usual there is no benefit.

I don't think we are as close to revolutionizing our economy as you, and again the strategic concerns of maintaining an industrial base outweigh your worst case scenario regarding employment effects (ie it retains only a small amount of jobs).

I am also concerned at the historical outlook of what occurs to economies which become top-heavy, when financing becomes a significant portion of the GDP, made worse with our fiat currency/-manipulation.

You are concerned about the economy but you think throwing levers to create massive inflation
is the answer?

Guess where a lot of CNC machines come from? Braiding machines?

You have no idea at all what you are talking about as a reset. The largest reset in the history of the world of all supply lines. Basically chiding on market anarchy.

There is no reference of tariffs working because they don't. It's real simple. It's an economics 101 formula. They don't work in hostile negotiations (trade war) and the hurt the industrial base. This is literally a historic fact.

We are already revolutionizing the economy you just didn't get the memo. Here is hint when ethereum basically created block chain something as big as the internet was born.

AI is already manipulating the market by predicting and strategically creating spin for market growth.

The industrial base gained from any trade war in best case scenario will be heavily automated to save cost of employees. Now the 50 percent of less skilled people in retail, transportation, data analysis etc..have no work.

Let me guess teach them to code.

a reply to: luthier

 They don't work in hostile negotiations (trade war) and the hurt the industrial base. This is literally a historic fact

Its such a historical fact that we just watched our industrial base erode after embracing one-way "free trade" ... Makes sense.

Repeatedly saying automation requires fewer jobs than an arbitrary number ignores the fact that "The industrial base gained.." represent a strategic capability and in fact still employs more people in that sector than "the industrial base alternatively lost".

Why is it so difficult to have an honest conversation?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

 They don't work in hostile negotiations (trade war) and the hurt the industrial base. This is literally a historic fact

Its such a historical fact that we just watched our industrial base erode after embracing one-way "free trade" ... Makes sense.

Repeatedly saying automation requires fewer jobs than an arbitrary number ignores the fact that "The industrial base gained.." represent a strategic capability and in fact still employs more people in that sector than "the industrial base alternatively lost".

Why is it so difficult to have an honest conversation?

It isn't. You just aren't great at economics so you argue with your feelings.


Its economics 101. When. A country is more powerful and wealthy than another the trade deficit becomes unbalanced. It's very basic economics here. The reason is because the purchase power of a more wealthy nation exploits the labor cost. Again this is beginner economics.

The net losses to automation are real.

The US did indeed lose about 5.6m manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010. But according to a study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, 85 per cent of these jobs losses are actually attributable to technological change — largely automation — rather than international trade.

www.ft.com...


I admit this isn't the whole story and in fact we let China run away with trade. However the damage is done. You can't correct this issue over night and any time the government uses major market corrections there is substantial blowback.

We don't need to produce lots of consumer garbage that is unnecessary and a drain of resources needed for the future.. we had massive pollution problems as high producers. Just like china has now.

What we need to stay the best at is research and innovation. Particularly in AI, Genetics, space and physics and robotics. In order to do that we need the freest market we can create where people can be entrepreneurs.

For instance I use a tabletop cnc machine to make parts I sell in America. I don't think you understand how embedded american manufacturing is with the supply chain nor do you get what will happen when interrupted and people start losing jobs left and right and inflation sets in. Can you predict that wont break a divided society?

Wonder why no one is talking about how much damage and pain it will cause. At least have an honest conversation and say yeah thousands will loose their homes and the cost of goods will increase with the massive new tax. Imagine buying a car with zero parts from China zer machines from china to make the parts, no rare earth no raw materials...

We are talking 100k camry's..

Any idea what ththe cpi is? And how poor people and the working class will deal with inflation...


Then there is the debt. What is hilarious is we are borrowing billions while doing this...absolutely ridiculous and makes zero sense to start a trade war then beg for money to pay the budget.

The trillion dollar a year historic level budgets of Donald trump era..

a reply to: luthier

Clearly you didn't understand what I said.

I don't believe we need to buy Chinas cheap #.

# China and their toxic products.

As for everything else, as long as it ain't made it China I do not give a #.

Don't Accuse me of being for communists after I clearly said I'm anti commie. Dumbass.

a reply to: ADVISOR

Not confused but when a government strongly dictates what consumers can buy and from whom the economy looks a lot more communist.

a reply to: luthier

I admit this isn't the whole story and in fact we let China run away with trade. However the damage is done

So why pretend a trade imbalance is the core issue attempting to be addressed by tariffs? I care far more about losing our industrial base than I do the trade imbalance. And as I've said many times before, there is no shortage of countries willing to sell to our giant consumer market-- so why are we sending billions of dollars to a belligerent one? Textiles, toys, plastic "stuff" ? Great. I bet we can find people to bend over backwards to get MFN status so they can take our money. Why pretend like our money has to go to China or the world ends?I

We absolutely can and should do something to address it, and it absolutely will cause market instability/-pain in the short-term.

Any idea what ththe cpi is? And how poor people and the working class will deal with inflation... 

Any idea of what offshoring jobs and importing unskilled labour by the millions is doing to wages and how many poor people it is creating? I wonder how that dovetails with CPI?

This is what I mean by honest conversation: if you have to pretend that anyone that disagrees just isn't "great at economics", and then build strawmen for you to knockdown, or call people communists because they would address unfair practices in the market, then maybe you're the one who "has to argue with feelings?"

a reply to: midnightstar

I still say we need to give this time.

Time to see what real effects come from these specific moves by trump.

So far all we hear from both sides is could happen, might be.

We wont know the real effects for a while. I say give it till at least a month before the 2020 election then judge trump on the tariff moves.

a reply to: RadioRobert

BUT you aren't good at economics.

The cheap labor coming over is to fill a labor void. There are 100's of thousands of unfilled construction industry jobs and the wages are reaching all time highs. Already are in plumbing for instance.

And it's very possible to correct this issue. Over decades.

All of the proof on trade wars shows failure. It's a losing tactic.

And no the supply lines can not be restructured quickly without catastrophe. The next phase of trade wars will effect raw materials and supply.

I get it we got ourselves in trouble. That doesn't mean the solution is to disable the economy and cause misery. The only reason this is being pushed quickly is for political cycles. It has nothing to do with long term growth.

No president should have the power to alter the economy. It should be in the hands of Congress who has to answer to the local regions effected by the trade war.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Or just go by every incident of hardline trade negotiations in the world effecting the population negatively. Best case scenario is it's a wash.


Again Congress should be working on monetary policy not the president.

a reply to: luthier

That's your opinion.

But not allowing ones citizens to buy toxic products from a known hostile country is not communist. I suspect you don't truely know what that word means.

Not allowing ones nation to buy potentially risky products because they have spyware, or no safety regulations is not Communist.

In a communist country, people don't have choices.

I for one, am not willing to risk national security over cheap inferior commercial goods. I don't want low quality electronics that can and will fail by design in America at all.

I do not want toxic products like lead in childrens clothing here in America.

I don't want American people exposed to knock off makeup, that is nasty infectious because it contains feces and garbage.

Search it, here on ATS or Google. Everything I mention has been posted as news or a discussion.

National security restrictions are not communist.

Waiting in line for bread is communist.

You see here in America, quality bread waits for you. Imagine that.

a reply to: ADVISOR

The concerns of product safety are valid. However they already have a consumer advocate. The real question is why they are allowed to sell known toxic goods.

Putting extra tax on poison sure doesn't solve the problem. Nor does it address why the EPA and FDA don't actually protect consumers.

Our doctors poisoned the public just fine with opiates. The real problems are in corruption of enforcement agencies like the SEC, DEA, FDA, EPA.

I here your argument it just isn't related to the president applying unilateral taxation measures that directly effect consumers and producers.

On the point of market intervention by a federal government.....the debate is exactly correct. The more the government is allowed to pick what it thinks is good for the market and its consumers the less free it becomes and more unintended consequences pile up.