It’s not giving. It’s winning. We’ve been doing it for years in many areas and not in others. The nonsense is thinking you tax your own populace, while subsidizing certain favored producers, into prosperity.
Right,so you’re saying the president talked the EU into forcing its people to buy American goods? And you think that’s free market capitalism? What if the European people do not want to buy them? Would you have the EU leaders force them to at gunpoint? This is a win?
I’m surprised that you don’t understand what’s going on RWNJ. You, of all people, SHOULD know what’s happening.
What should I know that I’m missing?
The President is CLEARLY using every gun in his arsenal to persuade our trading partners to cease and desist unfair trade practices in their dealings with us. For decades–at least since WW II–the U.S. has been the world’s ATM and THAT HAS TO STOP! Ever hear of a “Japanese Inspection?” They accept a shipment of lettuce from the U.S. and it sits on the dock until Japanese officials “get around to” inspecting it. By the time they decide it’s time, the lettuce has rotted away and is unacceptable and the Japanese businesses who “contacted” for it don’t have to pay for it, but the commodity that was TRADED for that lettuce MUST be paid for by the U.S. company on the other end because WE don’t pull the same BS here. Communist (and some Socialist) countries have no problem with subsidizing THEIR industries production in order to undercut the prices OUR comparable industries must charge for the same products. The idea is to DESTROY the competition. Once it’s gone, they can charge whatever they like and our businesses have NO CHOICE but to pay the higher prices because we can’t get it anywhere else.
First of all, “we” do not trade anything. I have never shipped lettuce to Japan.
Second, the issue you describe in general: Do you have a source explaining this?
Assuming it’s actually happened because most things have happened at one point or another, increasing tariffs against Japan is not a good a solution. So, you ask, what’s a trader to do? Well, what would you do personally if UPS did this to you when you shipped me some lettuce? Japanese lettuce buyers won’t get their lettuce, It’s on them to fix it. It’s the same thing you would do to a shipper who did the same thing to you here inside the United States. But here, you could also sue UPS for the loss. Japan also has laws and a legal system. It sucks, but that’s our recourse when we are wronged – and the primary purpose of government as outlined within the Declaration of Independence.
Meanwhile, the American buyer pays for Japanese goods, which are from a completely different transaction with completely different parties, because the transaction is actually able to occur. Both sides of the trade win.
In your example, both sides of the trade lose, and it’s caused by a government official. I bet that’s not going to be a long-lasting solution, or the Japanese won’t be eating lettuce much.
If you put tariffs on Japanese goods, theoretically promoting the export of various American goods, you open a whole can of worms that includes subsidizing American producers, taxing consumers either by direct tariff or by transferring their wealth to American producers for no added value in the product. It harms Americans.
It addresses no real problem anyway. If you want a job, you can get one. Our industries are not suffering from a lack of demand for their products. They are suffering from a lack of employable people willing to work – due in large part to a large variety of regulations that are aimed at making things “fair,” such as the minimum wage and the subsidization of college, which diverts labor resources from the trades, where there are substantial labor shortages
If things were not this way, you could better make the case in the last part of your post, that socialists and communists are undercutting our products in order to eliminate competition, but what they’re really doing is propping up their industries at their people’s expense while allowing us to focus on making other things. We still produce. We still have jobs.
Meanwhile socialist countries like the United States have been imposing tariffs on other nations, hurting Americans of course – while, in your view, trying to unfairly stopping competition from other parts of the world – for most of its existence. When will the sugar tariff or the chicken tax (on pickups) be repealed? So, our socialist government and its pro-tariff adherents are also just a bit hypocritical on this subject.
You seem to have a wealth of information at your fingertips.
How many of these new American, Chinese or EU tariffs are actually in force today and being collected?
Not that I’m defending the tariffs (I’d be more in favor of a flat-out embargo, if anything), but theoretically (I emphasize that qualification), the subsidies and other issues would be temporary until the trade war was won. Again theoretically, we are holding the aces in this game (at least with China), because their economy is losing a lot more to it than ours, because we’re their biggest customer.
Again, I’m not in favor of tariffs. But it’ll be interesting (one way or another) to see how it plays out.
Tariffs being imposed? Steel and aluminum are in place.
Define “won.” The president has listed every possible reason people list to support tariffs. Additionally, there is literally nothing to be won. The president mostly talks about the trade deficit, which is utterly irrelevant. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Open their markets to their goods as much as they want ours to be open to theirs?
“Open their markets to OUR goods as much as they want ours to be open to theirs?”
Gah. Even on the internet, one can trip over one’s tongue…
How anyone can argue the US - export producers/manufacturers, US consumers - haven’t been getting screwed because of the differential level of tariffs between the US and many other world markets, is beyond my intellectual ability to rationally explain.
That said, I have a bone to pick with Trump regarding ratcheting up tariffs at this time - the key words being “at this time”. IMHO - right before the mid-terms was not the best time to begin this process. It is likely to get ugly, at the very least in the short term (perhaps even in the longer term with the real culprit, China). There will be pain in certain areas of our economy.
The point - The economy is gaining steam, we need to keep the House and the Senate or the second 2 years of the Trump presidency will come to a near standstill - why fight this battle right now?. Why take the risk at this time, right before mid-terms?
That said, I find it incredible when the Left calls what Trump is doing on tariffs as “Trump starting a trade war”. These FOOLS/MENTAL DEFECTIVES don’t understand - China and the EU have been in a trade war with the US for a long time and we have just rolled over.
To his credit, Trump does not roll over.
Mike, evidence beats rhetoric.
Countries with lower tariffs than us, or no tariffs at all, live at a higher standard of living than we do.
It’s not for us to care who has tariffs, it’s for us to point out that countries who practice free trade regardless of what other countries do, get to have better lifestyles.
Mike, you know perfectly well that doing this ill effects the economy; you just admitted it by waxing on the effects it’ll have on the midterms.
My problem is that we’ve been here before, and I know what the result of it is; not more free trade, just more horse trading.
Again, I cite the plaza accords. Again, I cite our own historical idiocy in protecting Corn and Sugar.
We’re not guiltless, and all I see coming out of this is more cronyist deal making.
I’ll make this easy for you, AS.
According to your reply, your “free trade formula” in written form, looks like this:
China’s 25% tariff on US imports to China + requirement that US companies share US technology to gain market access = US’s 5% tariff on Chinese exports to US = free trade.
I think this conversation is now concluded.
According to AS, ANYTHING our “trading partners” want to do TO US exporters is ok because “It only hurts Chinese consumers,” and if the US does the same thing to the Chinese in order to make them change their behavior, that’s “protectionism,” and therefore evil incarnate.
Then I’ll list off a bit of what you missed.
We have 15% on Sturgeon roe, 20% on aggro goods, 25% on pre-sealed fish in containers,30% on Bovine animal parts,
35% on paper envelopes, milk & cream, and cheeses
40% on Iron or steel roller chains, fresh cut flowers, chocolate, Particle board
45% on aspirin, allyl alcohol, iron & steel threaded studs
50% on Self-adhesive & non-adhesive plates, a whole list of plastic-based polymers, and Musical instrument cases.
55% on Nylon or other polyamide yarn, Iron/nonalloy steel flat-rolled products
America, has one of the most protectionist primary industries on the planet (that’s anything agricultural, forest or animal based)
On top of this, there’s what Bush did in 2002 to “protect” our steel industry, that cost the economy 250,000
I’m guessing you forgot about that Mike.
No reason to expect round 2 will run any differently I’m afraid. Protectionist arguments only sound reasonable, when you don’t reflect on past experience.
Or what tariffs we already have in place, that already distort what consumers get.
You’re announcing your intention, not results.
This was the stated intention of the Plaza Accords; all we got was more horse trading. More of trade becaming the domain of hidden bureaucrats who methods we don’t get to question, along with sweetheart deals for the favorite cronies of the upper crust.
It all comes down to whether you think history will just repeat itself. I know where I stand.
I’ve always been an advocate of having our trade negotiators being the very same people who PRODUCE what’s being traded instead of a bunch of cronies of the President or some Senator. Wheat farmers should be negotiating for the sale of wheat, for example. Instead, we’ve fallen into the habit of letting those negotiations take place between those who need the wheat and some millionaire pal of a politician who wants the dubious prestige of being called a trade representative for the U.S.