Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump's Trade War Defeat?
#1
I thought it was worth opening a thread on this topic.


As predicted, trump can put all the tariffs he wants, it will always be cheaper to buy from China. And not just cheaper, but available in China while not available in the US.  S14

Now he tells Apple to produce in the US. For what? The US job market is already at full capacity now. Why does he need more plants in the US?
As salaries increase, the smartphone will be more expensive than with tariffs. Not even counting the cost of building new plants.

reuters Wrote:Even with U.S. tariffs targeting $50 billion of Chinese exports in effect for their first full month in August, China’s exports to the United States still accelerated, growing 13.2 percent from a year earlier from 11.2 percent in July. 

Mr. Yi, an economist at Zhonghai Shengrong Capital Management Wrote:There is still an impact from front-loading of exports, but the main reason (for still-solid export growth
Reply
#2
It would be amusing to see just how successful Trump will be with Apple... perhaps he will manage to destroy it! We will then have to eat oranges ... hmm... maybe this is the plan, oranges for orangeheads ? 


Let's however notice that Trump is getting somewhere.... he did manage to rape Mexico once again :S2

[Image: DlubcJGU8AEPGgm.jpg]
Reply
#3
Yes, LOL, That's Trump 40 years ago on this cartoon. S1

_______________________________

Levies piling up on both sides:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKCN1LY22V
Reply
#4
(09-18-2018, 06:10 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: _______________________________

Levies piling up on both sides:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKCN1LY22V

We now have some data about the impact of the tariffs, it appears that Trump succeeded in causing 20% damage to the Chinese agriculture. Below is the map of China showing the damage by region

[Image: farm.jpg]

Good job!
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#5
Yes, Trump's geographic knowledge is very poor: He mixed China and the US. Hence targeted the wrong country.
You will admit the two countries have similar shapes, so he is excused.

[Image: populationdensitymap.gif]



The US just lost one million (1,000,000) job creations by Ali Baba alone because of Trump's tarrifs.

Trump doesn't understand that Ali-Baba is a commerce  which simply won't exist if all the goods had to be produced in the US (also valid for Europe).
If poeple can't buy these things for 3, 5 or sometimes 10x cheaper, they just don't buy them and survive without. Poeple buy them because they are cheap. They wouldn't buy them if they were expensive and meant to fund US jobs.
Poeple will just consume less and not a single US job will be created while all Ali-Baba related jobs in the US will disapear.

Ma Wrote:Trade tensions between the United States and China could last for two decades and would be “a mess” for all parties involved.
Reply
#6
The shapes are indeed similar and a couple of thermonuclear bombs over northern Florida to create a Hainan analog would make them even more similar.

(Hey, someone should give the orangehead this idea! Drop the bombs, and let the Chinese sue for the copyright infringement, they will get nowhere).

However....

maybe he knows what he is doing exactly. One way to build THE WALL without building the wall is to kill off all the jobs those guacamole people Palladin talks about are so attracted by. No jobs, no food, no guacamole people. Unless the guacamole people come to the US as food.

Did I just reveal the master plan?
Reply
#7
(09-19-2018, 04:51 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: The US just lost one million (1,000,000) job creations by Ali Baba alone because of Trump's tarrifs.

Trump doesn't understand that Ali-Baba is a commerce  which simply won't exist if all the goods had to be produced in the US (also valid for Europe).
If poeple can't buy these things for 3, 5 or sometimes 10x cheaper, they just don't buy them and survive without. Poeple buy them because they are cheap. They wouldn't buy them if they were expensive and meant to fund US jobs.
Poeple will just consume less and not a single US job will be created while all Ali-Baba related jobs in the US will disapear.

Ma Wrote:Trade tensions between the United States and China could last for two decades and would be “a mess” for all parties involved.

It's not trade tensions that are causing problems, it is the playing field. In the USA, businesses get taxed out of existence if they can't produce profit. In China, there are millions leaving agricultural lives and going to cities to survive. It is the number one problem. China has built entire ghost cities for make-work to keep the superfluous populations occupied. Truthfully, it doesn't matter if a profit is made or not. The idea is to keep them busy. It's an impossible solution set for them, and they cash in on any advantage they can. This makes China very susceptible to trade negotiations - but they just don't have a winning option. They need our help.
Reply
#8
Sure: What help are you offering?
Reply
#9
(09-20-2018, 04:27 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Sure: What help are you offering?

How about replacing a demand economy with free enterprise?
Reply
#10
Caterpilar:
reuters Wrote:Six months into the U.S. tariffs on imported aluminum and steel, Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) is finding that one of the best ways it can protect profits is a cost cutting strategy that is more than two years old.
....
Even though demand has picked up since then, its Clayton plant still runs a single shift and operates only four days a week. One third of the facility’s 550 employees are on flexible contracts.
....
Now, these cost cutting approaches are helping counter the financial impact of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade wars.

The heavy-duty equipment maker estimates the import tariffs will inflate its raw materials costs by up to $200 million between July and December, though it does not provide a forecast for manufacturing costs in 2018. Caterpillar has said it would offset the impact through a price increase that went into effect on July 1

link
Reply
#11
Next chapter in the "Everybody Loose" story...

New tariffs would slow down hiring

Many economists Wrote:new tariffs would on balance either slow down hiring or cause job losses in a manufacturing sector where employment has grown by 10 percent over the past eight years without special protection

CEO and furniture company founder’s great grandson. Wrote:The theory is you turn (imports) off, the jobs come back. That’s not really true... The buildings don’t exist. The people don’t exist. The machinery does not exist.

What the company needs now, is the open markets and steady economy that have allowed it to grow its workforce from below 800 at the end of the 2007-2009 recession to almost 1,500 today - partly on the basis of exports to China.

Bluetooth products JLab's CEO Wrote:I would love to build products onshore, but consumers have proven time and time again that “Made in America” isn’t as valuable a statement as it once was

Bluetooth earbud would jump from $20 to as much as $50 if it was made in the United States

Trump's tariffs costs Ford $1 billion

Ford's CEO James Hackett Wrote:The irony of which is we source most of that in the U.S. today anyway.
S6 WTF????
Reply
#12
(09-26-2018, 02:54 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Next chapter in the "Everybody Loose" story...

New tariffs would slow down hiring

Many economists Wrote:new tariffs would on balance either slow down hiring or cause job losses in a manufacturing sector where employment has grown by 10 percent over the past eight years without special protection

CEO and furniture company founder’s great grandson. Wrote:The theory is you turn (imports) off, the jobs come back. That’s not really true... The buildings don’t exist. The people don’t exist. The machinery does not exist.

What the company needs now, is the open markets and steady economy that have allowed it to grow its workforce from below 800 at the end of the 2007-2009 recession to almost 1,500 today - partly on the basis of exports to China.

Bluetooth products JLab\s CEO Wrote:I would love to build products onshore, but consumers have proven time and time again that “Made in America” isn’t as valuable a statement as it once was

Bluetooth earbud would jump from $20 to as much as $50 if it was made in the United States

Fred, as a Classic Liberal(the Real Liberals), I naturally abhor tariffs, for tariff's sake.  Its a "Lose-Lose" for all concerned.  But Trump has implicitly, not explicitly, made it clear that this is shock to the system aimed at the country using unfair tariffs, and he really, Really, REALLY, wants to resolve this impass, so everyone can get back to fair, i.e. free, trade.  Trump would be a fool not to know this already.  

Further, he is only going after a target, such as PRC, when he knows the deck is stacked against the Chinese, and they will be forced to yield sooner rather than later.  China is in a real economic bind, which they have manged to keep out of the limelight, for years.  They are teetering on the edge of the preface, and about to crash.  If PRC doesn't give in, it will collapse much sooner than it otherwise would.  Mark my word on this, Trump is playing hardball, just as he is playing hardball with Canada's "so called" Liberal Party.  

(09-26-2018, 02:54 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Trump's tariffs costs Ford $1 billion

Ford\s CEO James Hackett Wrote:The irony of which is we source most of that in the U.S. today anyway.
S6 WTF????

Its called 'outsourcing' Fred, where Ford, amongst others, hands out business to other companies for an agreed upon price.  And said company being outsourced is responsible for spending on labour.  It happens all the time here in the US.  I can't vouch for Euros, because the unions there have power far more than they should possess.  From my recollection living in Germany, everybody has to be a union member if they want to make a decent living.  In the US, the unions were never allowed to acquire such powers, thank heavens.  S5

Fred, in a fair number of states, primarily in the South, but increasing all over the country, individuals states are acquiring "Right to Work" laws, which make it official that in a union dominated state, an employee has the choice of whether or not he/she wishes to be a union member, and not be penalized as a result.  If anything, this keeps the union's powers in the hands of the voters.  Those states, which do not pass "Right to Work" laws are at a select disadvantage over those that do.  Northern states, such as New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and others, are bleeding like crazy, while the South is growing like 'Gangbusters'.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#13
John, how was it unfair if it was, so far profitable to the US economy? The US economy has never been better for a while, maybe ever, at least never for such a continuous duration.

What "impass"? The only impass is the one he creates.

What "fair" trade if it costs jobs and money to the US economy?

He wanted to get out of NAFTA, just to find out that they had to come back to it because it was still the best option. The definition of a circus is that you go in circle. That's exactly what this clown is doing.

And, no, he didn't go after PRC. Thought that was his biggest target. He puts tariffs on everyone.

Tariffs on chinese goods are not going to bring a single job in the US. Americans will just pay more, and maybe buy less as a result. China will sell a little bit less but no one will build their things in the US.

I don't think China will collapse because of this. Not because Trump raised tariffs and americans buy 5% less from China.


About Unions. Each European country has their own laws and habits. I never heard of any obligation for workers to belong to a union. In Belgium it's not an obligation. But every company of more than 50 workers must have a union representation and they can influence decisions about laying workers.
Usually unions don't interfere with the management unless one or more workers are planned to be laid off. Sometimes they make a strike just for one worker. Sometimes they win, sometimes not.
When their demand are really over the top, usually they lose. They just try as often as they can.

But Unions have a huge political weight. If the government wants to move in a more liberal way, a less socialist way, they can call a general strike and bring 200 000 people in the streets, paralyse the country and force the government to back down.
Happened more than once. That's why we stay with high unemployment and no way to reform.

To sum it up: They interfere much more with politics than with the management of private companies.
Reply
#14
(10-02-2018, 06:25 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: John, how was it unfair if it was, so far profitable to the US economy? The US economy has never been better for a while, maybe ever, at least never for such a continuous duration.

What "impass"? The only impass is the one he creates.

What "fair" trade if it costs jobs and money to the US economy?

He wanted to get out of NAFTA, just to find out that they had to come back to it because it was still the best option. The definition of a circus is that you go in circle. That's exactly what this clown is doing.

Fred, it was unfair in that the other nation had far more higher tariffs at their end of the equation.  The US's was lower.  In other words, the other country at the end of the equation was enjoying a better trade relationship, due to the US's lower tariffs.  But at the same time they were being more Protectionist, in that they penalized the US for trying to compete on an even playing field.  

Granted, eventually this would come back to haunt the one doing the protectionist practices.  But that takes time, and Trump wanted results quickly.  So he played hard ball with countries that weren't practicing trade in good faith.   He knew that he could do this because the other end were in an economic bind, And at a disadvantage.  And he was right.  As for the "impass" he realized that this would almost certainly have a better resolution, and fairer economic trade relations.

And it hasn't cost the US jobs, because he knew things would be resolved quickly, just as every one has.Hey, when you are using tariffs for handling operating expenses, and the other partner is charging double the tariffs you are, it needs to be corrected.  And if you had been listening to him, he almost always verbally promoted what he called "Fair Trade".  And "Fair Trade" is just the CODB(Cost of Doing Business), which equals free trade.  No unfair restrictions. BTY, the Euros have been very good at playing the high tariff business.  After all, their governments are so heavily into the Welfare State that they are always behind the economic "8-Ball".  

The old NAFTA again had the US at an economic disadvantage, and Trump wanted a even playing field.  He took each one on and has now reached an agreement.  I suspect he still isn't finished with PRC.  China is in deep economic peril, and Trump is acutely aware of just how vulnerable they are.  PRC is a Collectivist country with a Collectivist economy.  

China’s economy faces deeper risks than trade war

What’s the greatest risk to China’s economy? Look no further than its growing corporate and household debt
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#15
It looks to me like President Trump has had nothing but victories in his Trade War.
Reply
#16
(10-03-2018, 10:05 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: It looks to me like President Trump has had nothing but victories in his Trade War.

He has lined up all of his targets, and gone after the easiest first, followed by the next up on the ladder.   At some point the steamroller effect will be much harder to fight.  I wonder if the EU is paying attention to all this.  

Incidentally, here is something else to consider for everyone, and not just PRC.

New USMCA trade deal prevents Canada and Mexico from making free trade deals with China

Quote:The new trade deal that the United States, Canada, and Mexico have agreed to prevents Canada and Mexico from creating a free trade agreement with China without U.S. approval, Reuters reported.

What are the details?
After threats from President Donald Trump that he could leave the Canadians out of a trade deal altogether, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico agreed to a trilateral trade named simply the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The USMCA deal has a lot in common with its predecessor, NAFTA, but includes a few key changes. Among these are the promise of improved labor laws for Mexican workers, more access to Canadian markets for American farmers, and a clause that limits future free trade agreements with nations like China.

The clause stipulates that the other two nations in the pact have the option of pulling out of the deal if any one of them signs a free trade deal with a “non-market” country.

Article 32.10 of the agreement states, in part, “Entry by any Party into a free trade agreement with a non-market country, shall allow the other Parties to terminate this Agreement on six-month notice and replace this Agreement with an agreement as between them (bilateral agreement).”

This article of the agreement also defines a “non-market” country as “a country that on the date of signature of this agreement at least one Party has determined to be a non-market economy for purposes of its trade remedy laws and is a country with which no Party has a free trade agreement.”

In 2017, the Department of Commerce published a report that concluded that China was a non-market economy.

I wonder if any of the EU countries have been playing the same game as China has? Just curious, of course.  Spiteful
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#17
TED MALLOCH: Trumpism vs. Globalism

Globalism is the reinvention off feudalism: shut down well-paying American industry and replace the jobs with low-paying call centers while sending the jobs to sweatshops in Asia.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#18
Will Trump succeed in crashing the stock market?

That would be an achievement! If ain't broke, unfix it.

Bernard Baumohl, Managing Director And Chief Global Economist Wrote:When you combine a decline in sales with an increase in costs, costs coming from rising import tariffs in addition to a pickup in wages at that point that’s going to affect margins and I think more investors are becoming increasingly concerned that the squeeze in margins will add some downward pressure on prices.

“That’s been behind the decline in the market the past few days. It’s rising costs and the difficulty that companies have in passing on these costs to consumers.

U.S. business group says Trump China tariffs cost $1.4 billion/month
Angela Hofmann Wrote:These tariffs are taxes on American businesses and consumers. They aren’t paid by other countries. They are paid here at home


John, others (China) charging double tariffs? Show datas.
I call this BS. Even if there were differences, so what?

YOU decide NOT TO put tariffs because YOU know it's in YOUR interest. Others are not responsible for you not to put tariffs on their goods.
If others put tariffs it's their problem.

But putting tariff JUST because others do and not because it's in the interest of the US, just by intellectual principle, is plain silly.

It's obvious that if there were no tariffs on chinese goods, it was because it profited to everybody: Chinese producers, US producers and US consumers.
China wouldn't buy american products anyway. Just one sample to copy it. They have a terrific production capacity. It just doesn't make sens to import. The few very specific things they do need to import are probably with concession.

JohnL Wrote:I wonder if any of the EU countries have been playing the same game as China has?
In the EU there is a flat, VAT equivalent tariff on every good imported from outside the EU. It's 21%. IMO a reasonable tariff.
There is no à la carte tariffs, higher for some goods, lower for others, or different regime by origine or the mood of the day.
There may be an extra 3% tax on some items, but it's rarely apply.
The goal is to get an even playing field with countries where producers don't pay the VAT, even if they do. In practice, it doesn't matter if the exporting country has a VAT regime or not. If they do have one, they can negociate an agreement.

Quote:and a clause that limits future free trade agreements with nations like China.
Of course. That's the goal, the basis and the sens of a free trade agreement: That your partners can't import and resell to you tax free. If not why having an agreement???

That's the whole issue with the Brexit: The Leave group wants to use the Brexit to import tariff free from Asia and export, under a free trade deal, to the EU.
It didn't work out. If the UK wants a trade deal after Brexit they must apply with the same rules as before. Among others: Not to make trade deal with other countries. And of course it makes void any projected advantage from a Brexit.

If UK wants to make free trade agreement with China, they are free to do so. But then no trade deal with the EU. They choose.

In the context of NAFTA, it's obvious that the same rule should apply. I'm very dubious that it didn't before. This so called new clause is probably BS too.

JohnL Wrote:China is in deep economic peril, and Trump is acutely aware of just how vulnerable they are.
One link said it all: They face other risks than trade war.
In fact China doesn't even get worried about Trump's new tariffs. They know they will still sell as much as before or just slightly less. They know the americans are not going to open new factories to concurrence China just because a clown at his mid-term election campaign raised tariffs.

China should be less protectionist. That would be better for them. but that won;t change much for the US. If China suddenly become open to free trade, the rest of the whole world will concurence the US in the Chinese market.



Ron Wrote:It looks to me like President Trump has had nothing but victories in his Trade War.

That's Pyhrrus victories.

Victories with little or no, or even negative impact in this case, achieved at a disproportionate cost.

Left NAFTA to return to NAFTA. Got some item specific barter deal with the europeans... What else?
Reply
#19
21% is Not a reasonable tariff.  The average percentage is usually between 7-10% for covering the CODB(cost of doing business).  

And no, I am not going to root around and come up with what you want, because I've seen all this before, and its a waste of my time.   China is charging an outrageous tariff compared to what we are charging.   The real numbers are easy to find, so just go look it up.  

For decades now, the US has allowed other countries to take advantage of it, and not raised any squawk about tariffs, because they were willing to go along to get along.  Now there is a president who is a businessman first, and a politician second, or third, or.....whatever.  He's not going to put up with it any more, because unlike politicians and bureaucrats, the object is to make an honest profit.  That's how business works, and it shouldn't be one sided.  

If one trading partner is charging one rate, and the other one is charging twice that, that is a trade imbalance, and shouldn't be tolerated.  But anyway, since you say the EU charges 21%, then why doesn't the US return the same favor?  Doesn't that sound fair?

Oh, and the VAT is nothing more than an added on punishment over and above the existing tariff. If that is alright with the EU they can go play with themselves in the corner. I've been saying this for years and my opinion on VATs is quite clear. Any and All VATS can go F-ck itself. Anyone who has taken any college economic course knows that the VAT is nothing more than an added punishment , and it Ain't there to even the playing field.

Look, I'm sorry Fred, I'm in a piss poor mood right now. The electricity is going on and off, due to what's left of this hurricane, and frankly, as they say in East Tennessee, My patience has "Got Up And Went". I'll probably feel better tomorrow. Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#20
JL Wrote:21% is Not a reasonable tariff.
I agree it's not unsignificant, but it's still a level where if you are realy competitive you can deal with.
Especialy in the context where local producers are impeded by an equivalent tax.

I agree, absolutely, that the VAT is a punishment. Just like any other tax.
I wish it didn't exist. But it does and that's one of the many ways our governements pump money from us.

JL Wrote:ince you say the EU charges 21%, then why doesn't the US return the same favor?
The US long had other protectionist mecanisms.

It's very very complicated because it's different for each product and it changes all the time.
In average, tarrif from the EU to the US are lower than in the opposite direction. But not for every products.
To make it short, It's from 2 to 30% and sometimes it's forbidden.

Some products are just simply barred from entering the US from all or most of EU countries. So it's not even EU-US based. How americans can check from which EU country something comes from, I don't know...
We are not even talking tariffs but purely radical protectionist measures. (pre-Trump).

So it's one more BS to claim that Trump is the first president ever to tackle the issue of fair trade (understand protecting US industries).

JL Wrote:China is charging an outrageous tariff compared to what we are charging.
So why isn't he addressing the issue specificaly?

He doesn't. His moto was that the whole world was unjust with american exporters.

He had to try to get a better deal with China if that was what he thinks is the problem.


Quote:and a clause that limits future free trade agreements with nations like China.

it's BS:
Mexico’s Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray Wrote:none of its (USMCA) conditions constitute an obstacle for bilateral relations or economic exchanges that Mexico, as a sovereign state, maintains with other nations

Basicaly Trump makes a lot of noise about getting out of trade pacts and other other things, about changing the rules of the game, about doing great things to make America great again, while his administration ends up back to the previous deal with very minimal changes if any.

That's typical socialist method: Boasting improvements by acrediting to oneself the achievements of previous governements. He does that by lying about who did it first and about the magnitude of the changes he made and about the resulting benefits.

Then ever-Trumper believe it without question.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin Wrote:Washington wants to include a provision to deter currency manipulation in future trade deals

That's funny because with the massive debt increase since Trump is in office, the US dollar will soon be worth less than the pesos or the yuan.

Funny that nobody here posted anything in the "US debt" thread since Trump is in office... S6
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)