Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 300

Thread: US Steel & Aluminum Tariffs

  1. #76
    New Member
    Join Date
    01 Feb 18
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    14
    China buying up American land and businesses is a bigger existential threat than stupid tariffs.

  2. #77
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    more of a political message than an economic one-- that China is more vulnerable to outside economic shock than the US, and more dependent on that foreign investment going into China. i understand that essentially this will be like stabbing through yourself to get at an opponent, but there it is.
    Stabbing with a very short dagger, it seems.

  3. #78
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,521
    basically the way Trump went about it was the stupidest way of going about it.

    you want an unified, international wall of opposition to the mercantilist crap that China is doing under their guise of "opening up", but the problem here is that Trump himself is essentially a mercantilist too. so he went and enraged all of our closest allies BEFORE talking about China-- well, good luck getting them on the same sheet of music now that you've done pissed them off.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  4. #79
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,742
    Who were the top beneficiaries of global trade over the past 35 years?

    First, what’s a beneficiary? I’d say it is an economy that increases its share of global exports. On that basis, China’s 3.3 percentage point rise (from an average of 5.3% in the 1980s to an average of 8.6% since 2000) tops the list. That’s what happens when your trade grows by 7% per year in real terms.

    Second is Hong Kong, which picked up 1.81 points by growing 8.4% p.a. Then Korea, which gained 1.77 points by growing 10.4% a year. Next is … the United States, up 1.09 points.

    What about those horrible cheaters Canada and Mexico?
    Well, Mexico only gained 0.5 points and Mexico 0.5 and Canada lost 0.5.

    Overall, 89 out of 152 economies for which we have good data lost ground, with the big losers being Russia (-1.45 percent share of the world total), Italy (-1.18 points), Japan (-1.04 points) and Saudi Arabia (0.9 points). Fifty countries gain a larger share of the market, and 13 held steady.

    If the President’s trade advisers presented him with these numbers, and if he bothered to read and understand them, maybe he’d conclude that trade on the terms dictated by the US back in the 1940s isn’t such a bad thing after all.

    The data’s all from the IMF and WTO.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  5. #80
    New Member
    Join Date
    01 Feb 18
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Who were the top beneficiaries of global trade over the past 35 years?

    First, what’s a beneficiary? I’d say it is an economy that increases its share of global exports. On that basis, China’s 3.3 percentage point rise (from an average of 5.3% in the 1980s to an average of 8.6% since 2000) tops the list. That’s what happens when your trade grows by 7% per year in real terms.

    Second is Hong Kong, which picked up 1.81 points by growing 8.4% p.a. Then Korea, which gained 1.77 points by growing 10.4% a year. Next is … the United States, up 1.09 points.

    What about those horrible cheaters Canada and Mexico?
    Well, Mexico only gained 0.5 points and Mexico 0.5 and Canada lost 0.5.

    Overall, 89 out of 152 economies for which we have good data lost ground, with the big losers being Russia (-1.45 percent share of the world total), Italy (-1.18 points), Japan (-1.04 points) and Saudi Arabia (0.9 points). Fifty countries gain a larger share of the market, and 13 held steady.

    If the President’s trade advisers presented him with these numbers, and if he bothered to read and understand them, maybe he’d conclude that trade on the terms dictated by the US back in the 1940s isn’t such a bad thing after all.

    The data’s all from the IMF and WTO.
    Apparently Donald prefers to just make up his own numbers like with Trudeau

  6. #81
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,642
    Quote Originally Posted by rosspoons View Post
    Apparently Donald prefers to just make up his own numbers like with Trudeau
    For some reason, this post made me think of this old Schroeder video:

    http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...36829&page=289
    :

  7. #82
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by rosspoons View Post
    China buying up American land and businesses is a bigger existential threat than stupid tariffs.
    Why? The US can just confiscate them if need be. Can you explain why you think it's a threat?

  8. #83
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Yep, gonna ignore it.
    First, it doesn't exist today.
    Second, it never existed.
    Third, no one has ever proposed it.
    I thought the context of the post would make the reader realise I used that term incorrectly and dismiss it? Anywho.

    I have no idea what it's called when two countries, that produce the same product, trade those products without special artificial price modifiers. The fact remains that when said trade is taking place the the non western country has the advantage.

  9. #84
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    i don't mind the tariffs aimed at China; there were years of negotiations and polite fictions that China was opening up, blah blah.

    it was all the Trump talk about how our allies were actually the ones screwing us over the most, the talk that South Korea had better accept the tariffs or we would pull out-- that's the crap that pisses me off.
    He had to come out with a broad announcement as if he had of said it was aimed at developing countries from the start the media would have turned into nonsense. 'Trump wants developing countries to never develop' and 'Trump wants poor countries to stay poor!'. Was South Korea ever mentioned? Are you mixing up Trump wanting Korea to pay for the US military presence there? I'm pretty sure Korean workers are on a good wicket and up to western standards.

  10. #85
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Who were the top beneficiaries of global trade over the past 35 years?

    First, what’s a beneficiary? I’d say it is an economy that increases its share of global exports. On that basis, China’s 3.3 percentage point rise (from an average of 5.3% in the 1980s to an average of 8.6% since 2000) tops the list. That’s what happens when your trade grows by 7% per year in real terms.

    Second is Hong Kong, which picked up 1.81 points by growing 8.4% p.a. Then Korea, which gained 1.77 points by growing 10.4% a year. Next is … the United States, up 1.09 points.

    What about those horrible cheaters Canada and Mexico?
    Well, Mexico only gained 0.5 points and Mexico 0.5 and Canada lost 0.5.

    Overall, 89 out of 152 economies for which we have good data lost ground, with the big losers being Russia (-1.45 percent share of the world total), Italy (-1.18 points), Japan (-1.04 points) and Saudi Arabia (0.9 points). Fifty countries gain a larger share of the market, and 13 held steady.

    If the President’s trade advisers presented him with these numbers, and if he bothered to read and understand them, maybe he’d conclude that trade on the terms dictated by the US back in the 1940s isn’t such a bad thing after all.

    The data’s all from the IMF and WTO.
    Mate it's not that difficult an issue to understand. You obviously have severe Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    Trump thinks that the 'look the other way' approach to China and trade should stop. Time for the training wheels to come off their economic bicycle as they don't need them.

  11. #86
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Boat View Post
    Mate it's not that difficult an issue to understand. You obviously have severe Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    Trump thinks that the 'look the other way' approach to China and trade should stop. Time for the training wheels to come off their economic bicycle as they don't need them.
    What training wheels? China is able to export so much more than others because they are able to produce so much more than others at a lower cost. "Training wheels" would mean other countries giving preferential treatment to imports from China. Is anyone doing that?

    And how exactly do you explain Trump starting off his "easy to win" trade war with Steel tariffs, when China exports relatively little steel to the US compared with several other countries, most of whom are US allies? What was the logic behind that? He could have started off with electronics or something that would hurt China. But no, he had to piss off several US allies first. You could create a convoluted explanation for this behavior or accept that Trump really doesn't know what he's doing and basically just acts on impulse.
    Last edited by Firestorm; 02 Apr 18, at 17:55.

  12. #87
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,642
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...p-trade-924833

    China to slap tariffs on 128 U.S. goods

    China is moving forward with its plan to counter President Donald Trump's new tariffs on steel and aluminum, levying duties that will take effect Monday on more than $3 billion in U.S. exports to the country.

    In a statement Sunday, the Chinese government said it would impose the retaliatory tariffs on 128 products, according to an informal translation.

    China will impose a 15 percent tariff increase on goods including American fruit and nuts and add a 25 percent tariff on pork, recycled aluminum and other goods, the government said.

    The move to impose the duties comes just over a week after the Chinese Commerce ministry had announced it was considering tariffs on the goods. Just over a week later, those tariffs are taking effect.

    The move is expected to lead to escalating tensions between the two large trading nations, leading many to worry that American farmers will be casualties in a tit-for-tat trade war.

    The U.S. shipped more than $1 billion of pork products to China last year, making it the No. 3 destination for exports after Japan and Mexico. The U.S. was China’s top supplier of apples, cherries, walnuts and almonds.

    Beijing argued in the statement Sunday that it would be imposing the duties "in order to safeguard China's interests and balance the losses caused by" the steel and aluminum tariffs, which took effect late last month.

  13. #88
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,521
    gunboat,

    He had to come out with a broad announcement as if he had of said it was aimed at developing countries from the start the media would have turned into nonsense. 'Trump wants developing countries to never develop' and 'Trump wants poor countries to stay poor!'. Was South Korea ever mentioned? Are you mixing up Trump wanting Korea to pay for the US military presence there? I'm pretty sure Korean workers are on a good wicket and up to western standards.
    not developing countries, -China-, a strategic competitor. the issue is national security, not economic.

    SK was mentioned repeatedly by Trump.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ssure-on-seoul

    “We have a very big trade deficit with them, and we protect them,” Trump said Wednesday, according to an audio recording of a speech he delivered to donors in Missouri, which was obtained by the Washington Post. “We lose money on trade, and we lose money on the military. We have right now 32,000 soldiers on the border between North and South Korea. Let’s see what happens.”
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  14. #89
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    What training wheels? China is able to export so much more than others because they are able to produce so much more than others at a lower cost. "Training wheels" would mean other countries giving preferential treatment to imports from China. Is anyone doing that?

    And how exactly do you explain Trump starting off his "easy to win" trade war with Steel tariffs, when China exports relatively little steel to the US compared with several other countries, most of whom are US allies? What was the logic behind that? He could have started off with electronics or something that would hurt China. But no, he had to piss off several US allies first. You could create a convoluted explanation for this behavior or accept that Trump really doesn't know what he's doing and basically just acts on impulse.
    The west imposes upon it's industries high levels of standards, minimums, maximum, legal framework etc etc. EPA, wages, conditions etc etc etc. Regulations. These of course serve a purpose ranging from protecting workers to protecting the environment but come at a significant cost. China does not and so it's industries don't bare the costs.

    After western governments imposed these costs on it's industries you'd think opening trade with countries like China would be plane stupid - and so they did it. Imported manufactured goods flooded western nations and due to their significantly lower price decimated local manufacturing. Manufacturing industries that remained solvent in the west were almost always high end products where people paid the extra for the quality. But even these companies were forced to move their manufacturing to China. What the Governments did was criminal. And I'm aware countries like Japan played a big part in this but they were developing and self imposed all the same regulations the west did. China has barely moved.

    Trump's broad announcement was the only way. Imagine if came out straight away and said he was going after China and China only because they're problem. The usual US networks would be flashing headlines like "Trump edges the planet close to nuclear war with China" and "Racist Trump hates asians the most". I'm probably being conservative in my estimation of the media twisted outrage. Allied and friendly nation's governments would have been perfectly aware of what he intended to do and who his target was but alot of them faked outrage anyway because, you know, it's Trump.

  15. #90
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Boat View Post
    I thought the context of the post would make the reader realise I used that term incorrectly and dismiss it? Anywho.

    I have no idea what it's called when two countries, that produce the same product, trade those products without special artificial price modifiers. The fact remains that when said trade is taking place the the non western country has the advantage.
    "Trade."
    It's called "trade."
    No modifiers required.

    But, when the US and Japan compete to sell shampoo in China, Proctor & Gamble cleans up (so to speak).
    And, when KFC and Jollie Bee compete to offer fast food in China, KFC takes the cake (").
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 16 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 16 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Review: Man of Steel
    By gunnut in forum Movie & TV Room
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 13,, 10:15
  2. This Guy Has Balls of Steel
    By Bigfella in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07 Jul 09,, 01:37
  3. Mexico slaps tariffs on U.S. goods in truck feud
    By Donnie in forum International Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 18 Mar 09,, 19:46
  4. U.S airforce using transparent aluminum?
    By canoe in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21 Oct 05,, 03:58
  5. EU scores steel victory over US
    By Ironduke in forum International Economy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11 Nov 03,, 20:15

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •