Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump's Trade War Defeat?
#61
(12-20-2018, 10:24 PM)mv Wrote: Many comments on the Trump decision on Syria here:
  https://twitter.com/search?q=kurds&src=typd

And, if I am reading the news correctly, Trump now said that the war in Afghanistan is half-won, so he is bringing half troops home?

(This is the strangest news I've seen lately.   Taliban controls 2/3 of the country now and on the path of limiting the invader-occupied zone to Kabul in 2019.  Doubling the troops make some sense, withdrawing them all makes more sense, but withdrawing half?  Just to make the Talib's work easier? )

Is this why Mattis resigned, perhaps?

This is kinda bad, actually ...  he was one of the saner ones.  Welcome to the Bolton's Reign. S6

I'm a believer in the concept that if we really have to go in and fight somewhere, then by all means go in and 1) kick ass, 2) take names, and 3) then get the hell out of Dodge.  Sticking around costs huge amounts of money, AND lives.  Its ridiculous, because anybody playing the "TarBaby" game always get stuck, and loses all around.  

This is why I eventually came to the opinion that "Junior" was an intellectual moron, and a true Dumbass.  Its where I got that title to begin with.  The Soviets did the same thing earlier, and it was one Huge ClusterFoxtrot.  They finally had to leave with their tails tucked between their legs.  And we either forgot about it, or believed we were capable of doing the impossible, by civilizing the Afghanis.  It ain't gonna happen, and its a Lose-Lose proposition trying to force them to be just that.  

It's a combination of hubris and insanity to actually think that nation building of this sort will work.  How many time must we squander the citizen's funds, before we finally learn this lesson?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#62
Nothing I can find to disagree with.

I shall note however a couple of things:

1// The cost of the Afghan comedy is 5 billions yearly. The cost of THE WALL is 5 billions once (well, some maintenance afterwards). 

2// The Soviet attempt was an idiocy too.... but slightly less so than the US'.  The Communist regime in Afghanistan managed to survive for three years after the Soviets left, I doubt the current Afghan regime can do this ... three months with luck. Thus, Soviets had at least a chance to succeed... not that it was worth it!
Reply
#63
S2 The U.S. goods trade deficit widened sharply in December

reuters finnncials Wrote:The goods trade deficit jumped 12.8 percent to $79.5 billion in December, boosted also by an increase in imports. Exports fell 2.8 percent amid steep declines in shipments of foods, industrial supplies and capital goods.

....
Manufacturing, which accounts for about 12 percent of the economy, is slowing as some of the boost to capital spending from last year’s $1.5 trillion tax cut package fades.
Reply
#64
(02-27-2019, 08:55 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: S2 The U.S. goods trade deficit widened sharply in December

reuters finnncials Wrote:The goods trade deficit jumped 12.8 percent to $79.5 billion in December, boosted also by an increase in imports. Exports fell 2.8 percent amid steep declines in shipments of foods, industrial supplies and capital goods.

....
Manufacturing, which accounts for about 12 percent of the economy, is slowing as some of the boost to capital spending from last year’s $1.5 trillion tax cut package fades.

Just for the record, that is a "trade imbalance", not a "tread deficit".  If both parties are exchanging items of same monetary value, regardless what they are, they are exercising equal trade, and there is no deficit there.  If one party receives an item of trade, for a promise to pay later, that is a trade deficit because there was a promise to pay for items of equal value at a later time.  

These people are just showing everyone that they are not well versed in economics.  They are, through ignorance,  using phrases that everyone else does.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#65
Yes "trade imbalance" is more correct.
Reply
#66
Again, a way to tax people while saying China is paying for it.
I'm very angry when they say
they Wrote:increased pressure on China
when those who are paying are US people and companies buying from China.
China doesn't pay a single dime, not even a single penny, in US tariffs.

Trump boosts tarrifs to 25%. Thats' fair to me (if I were to live in the US) because it's just replicating what the euros are doing. (In the EU it's 21.5%)
It's OK everybody knows Trump needs money since the national debt is sky high.
Not a disaster for the economy. But don't expect the Chinese to move even an eyebrow about that.
Reply
#67
Trump Wrote:For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA

What a liar!
It's incredible how he is manipulating the people. He is stupid, but not as much as not knowing that it's not true.
he also lied that We never had 10 cents coming into our Treasury. There were already billions paid in various tariffs before.

WHO IS PAYING THE TARIFFS?

reuters Wrote:in the same way the U.S. government is receiving import taxes on Chinese goods from U.S. importers, the Chinese government is receiving taxes on U.S. goods from Chinese importers.
In other words, you pay for it.

Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger Wrote:Trump is not “totally crazy” for wanting higher tariffs on some goods, but a trade war would be “massively stupid.
link
Warren Buffet Wrote:for some people (understand: Trump) the best technique is to act half-crazy,
LOL Beach Trump is using his best technique full time, with full effect!

Also, some interresting numbers to crunch, in order to whipe out stereotypes and emotional reactions.

Counting the cost of the U.S.-China trade war so far
Reply
#68
Fred, you are missing the point here.  The US has been getting a 10% tariff, and China has been levying 25%, because China is not playing as an even field.  And he is threatening to raise the China to US tariffs to equal that of China, 25%.  And he is raising holy hell about it.  Hey, it gets everybody's attention and puts pressure on PRC.  There's nothing stupid about this.  

Now, personally I don't like Trump either.  He's a typical New Yawker: an asshole about things.  But he knows he will win with his strategy.  And he also knows that PRC is in an economic bind for several reasons.  

First, it is spending several trillion dollars on the creation of modern high rise cities in Southern China AND Eastern Africa.  They know that we(the planet) are entering a Grand Solar Minimum, followed quickly by a planetary Glaciation.  And China is in the middle of 'Never-Never-Land' due to its location.  When the cold comes south, they are going to be screwed if not prepared.

Secondly, it is cheating, and has gotten away with it for decades.  This is coming to an end, and Trump is the one forcing it.  His thinking is "Hey, if they can play this stupid game, then so can we."   If you haven't noticed, many US, and other, countries are leaving China, and taking their business to other SouthEast Asia countries, along with others, who want the business and a more equal playing field.  This is putting additional pressure on China to start playing nice.  But they need a mallet to the forehead in order to let them know that others mean business.  

Trump is in a Win-Win position here.  Normally I would be opposed, but I also know that Trump is "America First", which has not been applied for decades now.  And its going to get him reelected, like it or not.  Hey, if Biden wins the nomination, I can just imagine all of the "Baggage" he is carrying that will bury him, once Trump starts letting the voters know him for what he really is.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#69
(05-06-2019, 03:21 PM)Fredledingue Wrote:
Trump Wrote:For 10 months, China has been paying Tariffs to the USA

What you must understand is that the tariffs are imposed in order to raise the price of the products. Without the tariffs, a $100 item is sold for $100. With the tariffs of 50%, an item is sold for $150 and the excess $50 did go into the government coffers. The purchaser paid the $50. The seller did not see that $50 as profit because it was already in the tariffs paid. So stop already with the superior attitude about tariffs being paid by ourselves. The only downside is that the higher price put on items because of tariffs decreases the number of sales. If the purchaser needs the item, it will be sold, if not, there will be no sale, and no tariff paid at all. The whole point of tariff amount has always been finding the point at which the most sales can be made. If a tariff is too high, then no sales will be made, and no tariffs will be collected.

When a foreign entity puts on restrictive tariffs, we end up paying them. We pay for the item, and also deliver a tariff amount to their government. Balancing that is a simple act. Saying we pay our own tariffs is disinformational.
Reply
#70
Somehow I had thought I posted this article, but I guess I forgot to push the "Post" button after the preview.  Sorry 'bout that.  Spiteful  

Well, here it is.

"The Trade War Is Back", By Jim Rickards

[Image: From%2BClipboard.jpg]

"President Trump shocked markets yesterday when he announced that a new, heavy round of tariffs on Chinese goods will take effect this Friday. Complacent markets had assumed that a trade deal would get done, that it was just a matter of sorting out the details. Now that is far from certain. Failing a last minute deal, which is certainly possible, the trade war is back. And it could get worse.

What most surprised me about the new trade war was not that it started, but that the mainstream financial media denied it was happening for so long. The media have consistently denied the impact of this trade war. Early headlines said that Trump was bluffing and would not follow through on the tariffs. He did. Later headlines said that China was just trying to save face and would not retaliate. They did.

Today the story line has been that the trade war will not have a large impact on macroeconomic growth. It will. The mainstream media have been wrong in their analysis at every stage of this trade war. And it did not see this latest salvo coming.

The bottom line is that the trade war is here, it’s highly impactful and it could get worse. The sooner investors and policymakers internalize that reality, the better off they’ll be. For years I’ve been warning my readers that a global trade war was likely in the wake of the currency wars. This forecast seemed like a stretch to many. But it wasn’t.

I said it would simply be a replay of the sequence that prevailed from 1921–39 as the original currency war started by Weimar Germany morphed into trade wars started by the United States and finally shooting wars started by Japan in Asia and Germany in Europe.

The existing currency war started in 2010 with Obama’s National Export Initiative, which led directly to the cheapest dollar in history by August 2011. The currency war evolved into a trade war by January 2018, when Trump announced tariffs on solar panels and appliances mostly from China. Unfortunately, a shooting war cannot be ruled out given rising geopolitical tensions.

The reasons the currency war and trade war today are repeating the 1921–39 sequence are not hard to discern. Countries resort to currency wars when they face a global situation of too much debt and not enough growth. Currency wars are a way to steal growth from trading partners by reducing the cost of exports. The problem is that this tactic does not work because trade partners retaliate by reducing the value of their own currencies. This competitive devaluation goes back and forth for years. Everyone is worse off and no one wins.

Once leaders realize the currency wars are not working, they pivot to trade wars. The dynamic is the same. One country imposes tariffs on imports from another country. The idea is to reduce imports and the trade deficit, which improves growth. But the end result is the same as a currency war. Trade partners retaliate and everyone is worse off as global trade shrinks.

The currency wars and trade wars can exist side by side as they do today. Eventually, both financial tactics fail and the original problem of debt and growth persists. At that point, shooting wars emerge. Shooting wars do solve the problem because the winning side increases production and the losing side has infrastructure destroyed that needs to be rebuilt after the war. Yet the human cost is high. The potential for shooting wars exists in North Korea, the South China Sea, Taiwan, Israel, Iran, Venezuela and elsewhere. Let’s hope things don’t get that far this time.

But the easiest way to understand the trade war dynamics is to take Trump at his word. Trump was not posturing or bluffing. He will agree to trade deals, but only on terms that improve the outlook for jobs and growth in the U.S. Trump is not a globalist; he’s a nationalist. That may not be popular among the elites, but that’s how he sets policy. Keeping that in mind will help with trade war analysis and predictions.

Trump is entirely focused on the U.S. trade deficit. He does not care about global supply chains or least-cost production. He cares about U.S. growth, and one way to increase growth is to reduce the trade deficit. That makes Trump’s trade policy a simple numbers game rather than a complicated multilateral puzzle palace.

If the U.S. can gain jobs at the expense of Korea or Vietnam, then Trump will do it; too bad for Korea and Vietnam. From there, the next step is to consider what’s causing the U.S. trade deficit. This chart tells the story. It shows the composite U.S. trade deficit broken down by specific trading partners:

[Image: unnamed-1.png]

The problem quickly becomes obvious. The U.S. trade deficit is due almost entirely to four trading partners: China, Mexico, Japan and Germany. Of those, China is 64% of the total. President Trump has concluded a trade deal with Mexico that benefits both countries and will lead to a reduced trade deficit as Mexico buys more U.S. soybeans.

The U.S. has good relations with Japan and much U.S.-Japanese trade is already governed by agreements acceptable to both sides. This means the U.S. trade deficit problem is confined to China and Germany (often referred to euphemistically as “Europe” or the “EU”). The atmosphere between the U.S. and the EU when it comes to trade is still uneasy, but not critical.

But the global trade war is not global at all but really a slugfest between the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest economies. In the realm of global trade, the United States is an extremely desirable customer. In fact, for most, we are their best customer. Think the still export-based Chinese economy can afford to sell significantly less manufactured goods across borders? Think that same Chinese economy can allow for a significant devaluation of U.S. sovereign debt? That’s their book, gang.

But China has finally come to the realization that the trade war is real and here to stay. Senior Chinese policymakers have referred to the trade war as part of a larger strategy of containment of Chinese ambitions that may lead to a new Cold War. They’re right.

Trump seems to relish the idea of bullying the Chinese in public. That’s certainly his style, but it’s also a risky strategy. To quote Sun Tzu: “Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” China doesn’t like to be chastised publicly any more than anyone else, but culturally, saving-face may be more important to the Chinese. The Chinese are all about saving face and gaining face. That means they can walk away from a trade deal even if it damages them economically. Saving face is too important. But Trump is playing for keeps and will not back down either.

Unlike in other policy arenas, Trump has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. The Republicans have backed Trump from a national security perspective and the Democrats have backed him from a pro-labor perspective. China sees the handwriting on the wall.

This trade war will not end soon, because it’s part of something bigger and much more difficult to resolve. This is a struggle for hegemony in the 21st century. The trade war will be good for U.S. jobs but bad for global output. The stock market is going to wake up to this reality. The currency wars and trade wars are set to get worse. We should be prepared."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#71
WmLambert
When Chinese sell something for 100$ and Trump puts a 25% tariff, you pay 100$ to the chinese and 25$ to the US governement.
As simple as that.
Maybe not you personally, but the company which is importing from China and then along the chain, they pass the cost to you, the end customer.

NEVER a chinese or foreign company will make a payment to the US customs.
It's ALWAYS a US company (or a physical person if you buy directly)

It's impossible to import and pay the custom fee and tariffs if you are not a US registrated company.

Please google the topic if you don't believe me.

Now, let's say, you still don't believe me and keep on saying that Chinese pay them because Trump tweeted it, so it's true.
How can it be false if Trump tweeted it? Impossible!
Ok. I know (everybody knows) it's not the reality, but let's imagine it's the case, pure fiction, just for debate sake:
The Chinese pay the tariff to the US governement for the right to send the goods through the custom. Well: "Look: Chinese are paying!"
Yes, but inside the US somebody is buying the goods and somehow have to pay the Chinese. And the Chinese are charging the US buyer what they have to pay for the tarrif. So at the end of the day (well, may take several days to get cleared in fact), at the end of the process, the US consumer is paying it anyway.

JohnL Wrote:Fred, you are missing the point here. The US has been getting a 10% tariff, and China has been levying 25%.

And so what? Why is it a problem for you, if the Chinese are paying 25% on the products they buy from the US? It's not you who are paying. It's a tax chinese pay to their governement. So why do you care.
They could pay 50%. It wouldn't change anything.

Of course you may sell a bit less because of the tariffs. And by puting tariffs on others, you may protect some of your local industries.
But there is no rule, that because one put 25% on foreign imports, that you must do the same.


This is just a stupid pretext to justify a new tax. It's art of communication. People always agree better with new taxes when they believe others are going to pay them.
Then they see that prices at the store increased by the same amount but they don't make the link and blame the seller's greed instead. Because they have seen on TV Trump saying that Chinese are under pressure and other lies. And you believe it too, which I can't understand.



If you lose jobs because others are exporting to your country, this is a problem with YOUR production costs.
In business, it's always better to buy from local suppliers even when they are a little bit more expensive.
The transportation costs alone should be enough a deterrant. But when you see that a foreign supplier is giving you affordable prices and your local one is insanely expensive, and on top of that, don't even reply to you, don't read your e-mails, never pick up the phone, make mistakes in your address, etc then it means there is a problem with YOUR country, not with China.
With Chinese, you ask a quote, you get 10 replies within a couple of hours. Means eveything is OK with them. When a local producer treat me the same way a chinese one does, then I buy local.
Reply
#72
(05-07-2019, 05:48 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: ...the company which is importing from China and then along the chain, they pass the cost to you, the end customer.
You've got it backwards. We pay more to China because of their tariffs. We do not pay more because of our own tariffs.
Reply
#73
(05-07-2019, 05:48 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: WmLambert
When Chinese sell something for 100$ and Trump puts a 25% tariff, you pay 100$ to the chinese and 25$ to the US governement.
As simple as that.

As simple as that (of course you are correct), but actually more interesting.  

So the payers are "you" == US customers.  The receiver is the US government.  This means we are talking about a TAX.

As a New Yawker, Trump comes from an environment that loves taxing....  and he got a huge on in place. Yes, targeted on the Chinese manufacturers, and (oops!) US customers.  Not a way to retire the US deficit, but it does slow its growth, a tiny bit.

--

Yes, Jim Rickards' article is a good one.  Another important one is by Steve Bannon. Find it yourself, worth it.

(Bannon is an unusual case of a Trump-affiliated person capable of registering brain waves with an EKG ....  )

====

Quote:We pay more to China because of their tariffs.

We pay more to China because China is a country capable of efficient manufacturing, whereas the Entity is anything but. The rest is irrelevant.
Reply
#74
Steve Bannon On Why President Trump Should Not Compromise With China & How Joe Biden Is Quasi-Compromised On China


Bannon: Today is the most important day of Trump's presidency




If you watched this, you heard Bannon state that "Russia is a Sideshow".  He's right, China is the main threat.  

And whether the Russians realize it or not, China is their worst 'long term' threat.  They're already invading Siberia for the short run and will be going after its resources,........while they can.  Furthermore, when this next glaciation begins soon, Russia is going to be covered in ice sheets over a mile thick.  Where are Russians going to go?  Do you think China will willingly open their arms to the millions of Russian refugees?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#75
(05-08-2019, 03:58 PM)John L Wrote: ...Do you think China will willingly open their arms to the millions of Russian refugees?

You just built a climatology model. Since they are seemingly foolish and disinformational, I doubt glaciation will drive babushkas into China within the foreseeable future.
Reply
#76
We've been through the China-invading-Siberia thing before, this is a non-issue.

What Bannon is talking about is that Russia is not in a position to compete for the world domination, whereas China is well on its way toward just it.
And -- not sure if he mentions this in this clip or not -- the Trump's goal is not to fix the deficit so much, but to put China under control. Which of course means that the negotiations will be just as successful as the ones Trump has with Kim. S6
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#77
(05-08-2019, 05:45 PM)WmLambert Wrote:
(05-08-2019, 03:58 PM)John L Wrote: ...Do you think China will willingly open their arms to the millions of Russian refugees?

You just built a climatology model. Since they are seemingly foolish and disinformational, I doubt glaciation will drive babushkas into China within the foreseeable future.

Tactically(short term), you're correct.  Strategically(long term) China has been preparing for just such issues.  That's what all the empty cities in Southern China and East Africa are all sitting there for. https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/i...&fr=opera2.  

[Image: gVbWeJVi43qolyvLt4uyiRhua4PdtW4O90Zaw_tX...37e180e4a5]

China knows the planet is headed for another major climate catastrophe, and this time there are over a billion humans in China who will be caught in the  upheaval.  Remember, when the ice sheets start moving outward from the poles, there will be billions of displaced humans around the globe.  Imagine the turmoil.

In the Western hemisphere, our problems will be more manageable.  People living in Alaska and Canada are low in numbers and can immediately fit into the mainstream of existing US.  Not so in Europe and Asia.  This is going to be the biggest upheaval in the history of mankind.  And there are no space habitats being planned for construction.  I suspect this upcoming major glaciation is going to put the expansion into space on hyperdrive.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#78
Except that there is no cheap way to get into space. Rocket propulsion is way too expensive because it is inherently inefficient. We need to develop some kind of "impulse drive" where heat energy is turned into directional kinetic energy. This would also revolutionize air travel, since long runways would no longer be needed, and any air vessel could land anywhere in an emergency. It would also be much quieter, and involve far less exhaust emissions. If "Progressives" would just get out of the way of real progress, and we resumed rewarding creative, productive people instead of punishing them, we could have such technological advances in a surprisingly short time. Anything that can be imagined is possible!
Reply
#79
(05-08-2019, 08:16 PM)John L Wrote:
(05-08-2019, 05:45 PM)WmLambert Wrote:
(05-08-2019, 03:58 PM)John L Wrote: ...Do you think China will willingly open their arms to the millions of Russian refugees?

You just built a climatology model. Since they are seemingly foolish and disinformational, I doubt glaciation will drive babushkas into China within the foreseeable future.

Tactically(short term), you're correct.  Strategically(long term) China has been preparing for just such issues.  That's what all the empty cities in Southern China and East Africa are all sitting there for. https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/i...&fr=opera2.  

[Image: gVbWeJVi43qolyvLt4uyiRhua4PdtW4O90Zaw_tX...37e180e4a5]

China knows the planet is headed for another major climate catastrophe, and this time there are over a billion humans in China who will be caught in the  upheaval.  Remember, when the ice sheets start moving outward from the poles, there will be billions of displaced humans around the globe.  Imagine the turmoil.

In the Western hemisphere, our problems will be more manageable.  People living in Alaska and Canada are low in numbers and can immediately fit into the mainstream of existing US.  Not so in Europe and Asia.  This is going to be the biggest upheaval in the history of mankind.  And there are no space habitats being planned for construction.  I suspect this upcoming major glaciation is going to put the expansion into space on hyperdrive.

You are also correct - but those empty cities were first designed to give work for the millions of rural transplanted Chinese who besiege the urban areas. With the failure of family farms all over the outback, the mass of people jamming the cities were truly unmanageable, so taking work crews out to uninhabited spaces to make empty cities was their solution. In order to prepare for ice-age emigres, the Chinese should have been building "Winterfells" not "Miamis". Far smarter to build greenhouses and hydroponics. Far term plans probably take into consideration of the transition time (measured in centuries). No need to solve climate problems now, when all that is needed now is work for the masses.
Reply
#80
What a great television series it would be to point at one of these ghost cities. Imagine how homeless must gravitate to all the empty housing, and the security force necessary to keep empty buildings safe from use. Like the original Gene Roddenberry series, it would allow moralizing on broad cultural matters. Why build them in the first place? How will the squatters make food without being discovered? What do the construction gangs do when the cities are finished?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)