The First 100 days

Joe Fan said:
The left is not even trying to hide it's dangerous and radical agenda to pack the Court

D5MVv7NWsAEhyoi.jpg
Click to expand...

Slate always does play fast and loose with the word "sensible."
 
The Unemployment rates fell to 3.6%
We now have the lowest unemployment rate since December 1969 and the lowest peacetime unemployment rate in 70 years
 
How Trump Thinks Tariffs Work (And How They Actually Work)

Writer is wrong. How can chinese suppliers not lower their price? If the Chinese don’t have to lower their prices, how come they didn’t raise their price 25% before the tariff? Typical brain dead TDS. If I found out I could raise the price by 25% without effect, I would be damn upset. Also, if the American consumer was paying for this, why is China mad? Why would they care? The price was set for a reason pre-tariff (the importer had alternate suppliers). I guess if ALL the suppliers were Chinese, then there are no alternate suppliers of similar price. But if true, wouldn’t the Chinese have increased their price to what the market could bear?
 
mchammer said:
How Trump Thinks Tariffs Work (And How They Actually Work)

Writer is wrong. How can chinese suppliers not lower their price? If the Chinese don’t have to lower their prices, how come they didn’t raise their price 25% before the tariff? Typical brain dead TDS. If I found out I could raise the price by 25% without effect, I would be damn upset. Also, if the American consumer was paying for this, why is China mad? Why would they care? The price was set for a reason pre-tariff (the importer had alternate suppliers). I guess if ALL the suppliers were Chinese, then there are no alternate suppliers of similar price. But if true, wouldn’t the Chinese have increased their price to what the market could bear?
Click to expand...
Yes, economics.
 
mchammer said:
How Trump Thinks Tariffs Work (And How They Actually Work)

Writer is wrong. How can chinese suppliers not lower their price? If the Chinese don’t have to lower their prices, how come they didn’t raise their price 25% before the tariff? Typical brain dead TDS. If I found out I could raise the price by 25% without effect, I would be damn upset. Also, if the American consumer was paying for this, why is China mad? Why would they care? The price was set for a reason pre-tariff (the importer had alternate suppliers). I guess if ALL the suppliers were Chinese, then there are no alternate suppliers of similar price. But if true, wouldn’t the Chinese have increased their price to what the market could bear?
Click to expand...

Of course, Annie Lowrey is Ezra Klein's wife, so that should tell you something about her politics. Generally, I'm a free trader, and it is weird seeing a bunch of liberal Democrats suddenly being opposed to economic protectionism. For decades, they were mostly supportive of tariffs, because unions back them. It would be like a bunch of Republicans suddenly criticizing tax cuts after favoring them for 40 years.

And of course, Lowrey's analysis is wildly superficial, because it has no meaningful explanation or discussion of what our trade relationship looked like before Trump imposed tariffs. Did China impose tariffs on US goods or some other barriers to foreign competition? Maybe it did or didn't, but by reading Lowrey's article (and virtually every mainstream media publication's articles), we have no idea. That means we have no idea of the context in which the tariffs were imposed and have no idea who started this "trade war." It's just assumed that Trump is the aggressor in a pretty much unprovoked move. It's like talking about the bombing of Hiroshima without saying anything about Pearl Harbor or that a state of war existed. We just nuked them for shits and giggles.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Of course, Annie Lowrey is Ezra Klein's wife, so that should tell you something about her politics. Generally, I'm a free trader, and it is weird seeing a bunch of liberal Democrats suddenly being opposed to economic protectionism. For decades, they were mostly supportive of tariffs, because unions back them. It would be like a bunch of Republicans suddenly criticizing tax cuts after favoring them for 40 years.

And of course, Lowrey's analysis is wildly superficial, because it has no meaningful explanation or discussion of what our trade relationship looked like before Trump imposed tariffs. Did China impose tariffs on US goods or some other barriers to foreign competition? Maybe it did or didn't, but by reading Lowrey's article (and virtually every mainstream media publication's articles), we have no idea. That means we have no idea of the context in which the tariffs were imposed and have no idea who started this "trade war." It's just assumed that Trump is the aggressor in a pretty much unprovoked move. It's like talking about the bombing of Hiroshima without saying anything about Pearl Harbor or that a state of war existed. We just nuked them for shits and giggles.
Click to expand...
China imposed Anti-dumping duties on US ethanol-amine producers one year before the trade war. The rate? 97% for all US companies except Dow at 76%.

I negotiated 5 licenses with Chinese companies in the last 9 years. 4 of them were successful, and 1 failed (we walked away). The Chinese state-owned companies are bullies. Those who have never met mainland Chinese may be surprised to know that they lie through their teeth. Even the Taiwanese say the same about their brethren across the straight. It’s all about leverage. China accustomed to having the leverage. They resent it when you have leverage and use it against them (well the poor negotiators do). The good negotiators look past it and still seek win-win. Nothing has surprised me regarding these trade negotiations. Eventually the Chinese will realize they have little leverage and give in. It will happen at the last minute.
 
Last edited:
mchammer said:
China imposed Anti-dumping duties on US ethanol-amine producers one year before the trade war. The rate? 97% for all US companies except Dow at 76%.

I negotiated 5 licenses with Chinese companies in the last 9 years. 4 of them were successful, and 1 failed (we walked away). The Chinese state-owned companies are bullies. Those who have never met mainland Chinese may be surprised to know that they lie through their teeth. Even the Taiwanese say the same about their brethren across the straight. It’s all about leverage. China accustomed to having the leverage. They resent it when you have leverage and use it against them (well the poor negotiators do). The good negotiators look past it and still seek win-win. Nothing has surprised me regarding these trade negotiations. Eventually the Chinese will realize they have little leverage and give in. It will happen at the last minute.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised. They are rough to do business with. Frankly, I'm receptive to the argument that the tariffs aren't the best option even it China is misbehaving. However, to accept that, I need a real analysis, not baldly partisan garbage, and if the focus doesn't even consider China's trade practices, it is nothing more than partisan garbage.
 
If tariffs are not the best option what is? How would you level the trade field so it is not slanting heavily against USA?
 
Horn6721 said:
If tariffs are not the best option what is? How would you level the trade field so it is not slanting heavily against USA?
Click to expand...

Traditional economic conservatives would argue a few things. First, they wouldn't consider the trade deficit to be a big problem. They would view it as simply a sign that the nation's people have more disposable income than they capacity to produce.

Second, they would argue that tariffs only promote economic inefficiency by protecting industries that aren't competing as they should be. We'd be better off by getting rid of tariffs and forcing our businesses to compete.

Third, to reduce the trade deficit, we should focus on boosting exports rather than cutting imports. They'd further argue that if we want to help our businesses compete, we should do so by improving our business climate by cutting taxes and regulations.

20 years ago, this is what Republicans argued, and Democrats basically said what Trump is saying. Personally, I lean on the libertarian side but not absolutely. There is a time and a place for tariffs and other forms of protective policies on a case by case basis - to protect strategically important industries and to punish particularly bad apples. However, if a country is willing to trade with us on a free basis, we should reciprocate.
 
Last edited:
"They'd further that if we want to help our businesses compete, we should do so by improving our business climate by cutting taxes and regulations"
Well Trump did both, maybe as much as he could and the results have been positive.
He also called on companies to make more here.
 
I'm not surprised. They are rough to do business with. Frankly, I'm receptive to the argument that the tariffs aren't the best option even it China is misbehaving. However, to accept that, I need a real analysis, not baldly partisan garbage, and if the focus doesn't even consider China's trade practices, it is nothing more than partisan garbage.
Click to expand...

Tariffs are a tax that US citizens pay. We are "punishing" China by taxing US citizens. That doesn't sound like it will work. It actually hurts US businesses by increasing RM costs. For example Aluminum. Tariffs on foreign Aluminum will help the US Aluminum producers. However it hurts every company who makes products out of Aluminum and then it hurts consumers.

The only way this doesn't hurt consumers and the only way China will start to play more fairly is if there are redundant supply chains for the products that will be most affected. If we could get Aluminum at the same or very similar cost from Thailand that we got from China, then a tariff on China hurts them but not the US. Well, it actually will hurt most still because Thailand and other producing countries would have to produce the amount of supply that the US previously bought from China. That would take time.

I actually would be for cutting off trade with China and heavily investing in other SE and Central Asian countries to replace the Chinese supply. There will be issues with cost, supply, and quality for years but long term there would be a good solution. But that would be an actual, thought out plan that protects US consumers and builds allies around the world, while isolating China politically and economically.

If only we had a President that could play 4D chess.
 
Monahorns said:
Tariffs are a tax that US citizens pay. We are "punishing" China by taxing US citizens. That doesn't sound like it will work. It actually hurts US businesses by increasing RM costs. For example Aluminum. Tariffs on foreign Aluminum will help the US Aluminum producers. However it hurts every company who makes products out of Aluminum and then it hurts consumers.

The only way this doesn't hurt consumers and the only way China will start to play more fairly is if there are redundant supply chains for the products that will be most affected. If we could get Aluminum at the same or very similar cost from Thailand that we got from China, then a tariff on China hurts them but not the US. Well, it actually will hurt most still because Thailand and other producing countries would have to produce the amount of supply that the US previously bought from China. That would take time.

I actually would be for cutting off trade with China and heavily investing in other SE and Central Asian countries to replace the Chinese supply. There will be issues with cost, supply, and quality for years but long term there would be a good solution. But that would be an actual, thought out plan that protects US consumers and builds allies around the world, while isolating China politically and economically.

If only we had a President that could play 4D chess.
Click to expand...
If US was buying aluminum from China and Britain was buying from Thailand, then US buying from Thailand (due to US tariffs on China), which displaces Britain to buy from China, then nothing much changed expect additional shipping cost.
 
I was giving a hypothetical. The point is that the real solution is competition among suppliers geographically not increasing taxes on US consumers.

It hurts the lower and middle classes worst anyway.
 
The Senate passed the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank again with only 16 Republicans voting No.

That makes 84 votes in the US Senate for State control of capital, i.e. Socialism.
 
Tariffs aren't capitalism. They are mercantilism or cartelism. The "help" referred to in the meme is the same thing as the "hurt", taxes.
 
Monahorns said:
Tariffs are a tax that US citizens pay. We are "punishing" China by taxing US citizens. That doesn't sound like it will work. It actually hurts US businesses by increasing RM costs. For example Aluminum. Tariffs on foreign Aluminum will help the US Aluminum producers. However it hurts every company who makes products out of Aluminum and then it hurts consumers.

The only way this doesn't hurt consumers and the only way China will start to play more fairly is if there are redundant supply chains for the products that will be most affected. If we could get Aluminum at the same or very similar cost from Thailand that we got from China, then a tariff on China hurts them but not the US. Well, it actually will hurt most still because Thailand and other producing countries would have to produce the amount of supply that the US previously bought from China. That would take time.

I actually would be for cutting off trade with China and heavily investing in other SE and Central Asian countries to replace the Chinese supply. There will be issues with cost, supply, and quality for years but long term there would be a good solution. But that would be an actual, thought out plan that protects US consumers and builds allies around the world, while isolating China politically and economically.

If only we had a President that could play 4D chess.
Click to expand...

We keep looking at the China trade war with narcissistic lenses. We are one growing season away from other countries filling China's agriculture demands. If you are a soy bean farmer you are at risk of losing Chinese customers long term.

Yes, we can and should find alternate suppliers but so will China for our exports. This is why backing out of the TPP was dumb. That agreement would have gone far to buffer the effects of this trade war as well as box in China. We pissed away leverage due to politics

We HAVE to combat China's theft of IP. That's a much greater threat to our security than and trade deficit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top