Can we please take a time out on all 3?
Sincerely,
My 401k
Sincerely,
My 401k
Tariffs / Trade Wars / Tweets
- Thread starter bigmac76
- Start date
The China tariffs are DUMB.
China is a bad actor...and an economic foe that steals IP from US compaines, and also force US firms to give up IP if they want to sell there.
Trade experts have spent years coming up with a powerful solution to this.....it was called TPP. And was the most powerful maneuver we could do to offset China's behavior.
Instead of doing that...we get half baked tariffs that will do nothing whatsoever to fix the issue...will not hurt China (as it's only bilateral action). The only impact will be higher consumer costs here in the US, along with worse trade conditions for our ag industry that exports to China, as they get hit with retaliatory actions.
China is a bad actor...and an economic foe that steals IP from US compaines, and also force US firms to give up IP if they want to sell there.
Trade experts have spent years coming up with a powerful solution to this.....it was called TPP. And was the most powerful maneuver we could do to offset China's behavior.
Instead of doing that...we get half baked tariffs that will do nothing whatsoever to fix the issue...will not hurt China (as it's only bilateral action). The only impact will be higher consumer costs here in the US, along with worse trade conditions for our ag industry that exports to China, as they get hit with retaliatory actions.
I may regret it, but I took some 401k money off the table when he started floating the idea of trade wars a week ago or so.
I don't disagree with your post except here. This certainly hurts China, as U.S. accounts for nearly 1/5th of Chinese exports.
I'm still too naive on the TPP to know if it actually was going to change any of the problems (human capital issues, government subsidization / dumping, environmental concerns, etc.) relative to other countries (Japan, U.S., Korea, etc.), but I'll take your word for it since you are level-headed when it comes to these things.
Your 401K's getting drumpfed. Sounds just like it is.
Trump always has had a way of making sure his business dealings were win-lose, for him alone.
Not surprisingly, Trump's got it assbackwards. By protecting steel and aluminum workers he's hurting far more American workers.
If anything, he should do the opposite. But 1950s Trump gotta Trump.
For every job in Tupelo producing steel or aluminum, there are 200 jobs in industries that consume them that could be put at risk as tariffs push up the prices of these metals, according to research from Jacob Whiton and Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution.
This is true across the country. The lesson the White House has yet to figure out is that the tariffs meant to protect the businesses that make these metals will end up hamstringing the industries that rely on them.
This is true across the country. The lesson the White House has yet to figure out is that the tariffs meant to protect the businesses that make these metals will end up hamstringing the industries that rely on them.
The United States has been here before. When President George W. Bush imposed emergency tariffs on imported steel in 2002, prices of steel shot up. According to a survey by the International Trade Commission, almost one in five furniture and hardware producers, as well as a third of electrical appliance makers and one in 10 auto-parts suppliers, responded by relocating production abroad. Another study found that industries that use steel lost 200,000 jobs. That is more than all the jobs in the steel industry itself.
If anything, he should do the opposite. But 1950s Trump gotta Trump.
Chinese goods exported to the US are about 3% of Chinese GDP. I think most of any tariff tax will be borne by US consumers.
Its also disproportional compared to what the Russians did to the 2016 elections which is a national security issue. That trumps trade.
yes, we need fully baked ones.
tariffs can work great, but they need to be much more widespread, (anything that can easily be produced or serviced from here), and fully committed to.
free trade, better for the investor class.
protectionism, better for the working class.
when discussing whether tariffs are good or bad, one has to define for whom.
fact is, if we completely shut down all imports, and shut down all off shored support, and stayed with it, both the working and investor class would do quite well.
the investor class may not do quite as well, but still quite well.
the working class would do way better.
as for off shore markets, domestic and foreign companies are free to supply them from off shore as well if they wish, just not free to supply the US market from off shore.
while we're at it, let's break up the monopolies and duopolies, and quit having utilities and energy being purely capitalistic pursuits.
the sky won't fall, though the investor class and all they control will try and convince you it will, even though it obviously didn't the last time we supplied the US market from the US..
"scale" is the friend of the owner/investor, and the bane of the working man.
Last edited:
I think you are getting confused between international trade and Wall Street.
His posts are confusing so no surprise that he’s confused.
So are you really worried about the $3B of U.S. exports that China is threatening to tariff?
You know I'm a free market guy, I'm just trying to figure out how much, if any, this little spat matters in the near-term (assuming no further escalation).
No. I meant “what,” as in “what in the f**k did you just post, and what the f**k is your reason for posting in such a ridiculous manner?” I just shortened it to “what.”
Thoughts and prayers needed for anyone in the agriculture business....Rain on the Scarecrow II
I know that, Aloha. It was a joke, as in, if you didn't read it, how do you know the right question isn't, Who? Or Where? Or Why? Or When? Or Whose? Theater of the Absurd, if you will.
According to some, China is considering retaliatory tariffs that are intended to target Trump’s voter base. As the man said, instant karma’s gonna get you.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-u-s-tariffs-china-plans-countermeasures-1521632332
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
This is right. It’s not like China is paying this tariff as a price reduction. It’s meant to deter importers, not penalize exporters.
the only case you've made, is that tariffs shouldn't be done in isolated cases, but rather should be placed on everything that can be produced or serviced here.
that way, everything else you cited becomes moot.
you guys btch and whine all day every day about false propaganda, then do the "exporting of industries and jobs, and the wages and tax bases with them, is actually a good thing" bit.
either you guys are dumber than a box of rocks, or seriously in the false propaganda business yourselves.
Trump Wanted a Trade War. Here’s What One Looks Like
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rade-war-here-s-what-one-looks-like-quicktake
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rade-war-here-s-what-one-looks-like-quicktake
The right question for his posts is always, “What?”I know that, Aloha. It was a joke, as in, if you didn't read it, how do you know the right question isn't, Who? Or Where? Or Why? Or When? Or Whose? Theater of the Absurd, if you will.
The tariffs aren't about steel/aluminum, they are about renegotiating the overall trade deal with China, particularly the automobile industry, the largest industry ripe for disruption over the course of the next 10-15 years. The US also has a significant lead in IP for autonomous car development, so if we want to capitalize on that market, and India (going through a 1.5T dollar infrastructure upgrade of their own), we need to re-evaluate the trade deals.
What did Wilbur Ross make his millions doing for Invesco? Buying & selling automobile suppliers.
Don't take my word for it.
https://www.businessinsider.nl/elon-musk-tweets-to-trump-about-china-2018-3/
What did Wilbur Ross make his millions doing for Invesco? Buying & selling automobile suppliers.
Don't take my word for it.
https://www.businessinsider.nl/elon-musk-tweets-to-trump-about-china-2018-3/
It appears the Administration has backed off of its tough tariffs and used them as a mechanism to begin new negotiations with the Chinese.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-ch...lutions-after-days-of-loud-threats-1522018524
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-ch...lutions-after-days-of-loud-threats-1522018524
Negotiation is certainly an art, but I'm not sure that Ross, at the age of 80, is as sharp as he was back in those days. Aside from his age, negotiations only work if you intimately know what you are negotiating. He spent years in private sector bankruptcy and restructuring, which is different than what we are talking about here.
Are you sure about that?
His Davos panels were must watch on the subject of trade. He sure didn't seem lacking in his understanding of the subject at hand.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/chi...n-a-bid-to-avert-a-trade-war-with-the-us.html
Similar threads
