SURVEY: Trade Wars -- necessary or not?

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Lots of things you can do. You can pass a law that says that if your company hopes to sell it's product in our country xx.x% of production must take place in our country. If the business chooses not to meet that number you impose tariffs based upon how far they have missed the mark.

More regulations...wonderful.  Tariffs are essentially a tax on consumers, everyone knows this (well, except for our POTUS).  Trump is pretending to be strong and pro-American, but he doesn't really have a plan.  There are all kinds of unintended consequences of tariffs, but Trump really, really doesn't care.  Here's just one example...

 

[Nike Inc., Adidas AG and other footwear giants urged President Donald Trump to reconsider his tariffs on shoes made in China, saying the policy would be “catastrophic for our consumers, our companies and the American economy as a whole.”]

[In all, 173 companies signed an open letter to the president....]

[“On behalf of our hundreds of millions of footwear consumers and hundreds of thousands of employees, we ask that you immediately stop this action to increase their tax burden,” the group said. “Your proposal to add tariffs on all imports from China is asking the American consumer to foot the bill. It is time to bring this trade war to an end.”]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/nike-adidas-call-tariffs-catastrophic-in-open-letter-to-trump/ar-AABDNLT?ocid=wispr

 

 

[zydeco]

17 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

More regulations...wonderful.  Tariffs are essentially a tax on consumers, everyone knows this (well, except for our POTUS).  Trump is pretending to be strong and pro-American, but he doesn't really have a plan.  There are all kinds of unintended consequences of tariffs, but Trump really, really doesn't care.  Here's just one example...

 

[Nike Inc., Adidas AG and other footwear giants urged President Donald Trump to reconsider his tariffs on shoes made in China, saying the policy would be “catastrophic for our consumers, our companies and the American economy as a whole.”]

[In all, 173 companies signed an open letter to the president....]

[“On behalf of our hundreds of millions of footwear consumers and hundreds of thousands of employees, we ask that you immediately stop this action to increase their tax burden,” the group said. “Your proposal to add tariffs on all imports from China is asking the American consumer to foot the bill. It is time to bring this trade war to an end.”]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/nike-adidas-call-tariffs-catastrophic-in-open-letter-to-trump/ar-AABDNLT?ocid=wispr

 

 

Of course, Nike isn't necessarily "required" to pass on the cost of tariffs to Americans, is it? Imagine taking a 25 percent hit on a $16 shoe ($4) that you then inflate by $534 or more in price.

"Air Jordans are manufactured in China and reportedly cost Nike a bit more than $16 a pair. The Air Jordan 10s are listed on Amazon for $250 to $550 a pair, depending on the style and color."

 

https://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/07/27/real-costs-pair-sneakers/13181055/

[lannarebirth]

14 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

More regulations...wonderful.  Tariffs are essentially a tax on consumers, everyone knows this (well, except for our POTUS).  Trump is pretending to be strong and pro-American, but he doesn't really have a plan.  There are all kinds of unintended consequences of tariffs, but Trump really, really doesn't care.  Here's just one example...

 

[Nike Inc., Adidas AG and other footwear giants urged President Donald Trump to reconsider his tariffs on shoes made in China, saying the policy would be “catastrophic for our consumers, our companies and the American economy as a whole.”]

[In all, 173 companies signed an open letter to the president....]

[“On behalf of our hundreds of millions of footwear consumers and hundreds of thousands of employees, we ask that you immediately stop this action to increase their tax burden,” the group said. “Your proposal to add tariffs on all imports from China is asking the American consumer to foot the bill. It is time to bring this trade war to an end.”]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/nike-adidas-call-tariffs-catastrophic-in-open-letter-to-trump/ar-AABDNLT?ocid=wispr

 

 

 

What's wrong with a tax on consumers that are content to buy products that lead to global pollution, vast wealth inequality, substandard working conditions, in support of mass civil liberty abuses and a totalitarian regime? In addition to the tariff maybe they should get an electric shock when they pick up the product they wish to buy.

 

I can still remember when people used to be called citizens rather than consumers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 5/19/2019 at 2:24 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

The next financial crisis, like the last two is being created by uncontrolled banking.

Since the 4 biggest banks in the world all are in China, we might see the mother of all banking crises in a few years.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, MickeyDelux said:

The survey question give's the wrong information. Not really a surprise the media promotes more lies. Everyone knows China has been stealing from the West. Now, finally a US President doesn't allow Chine to continue its unfair practices, the leftist call it retaliatory... Get real  

Exactly which Chinese unfair trade practices has trump managed to stop?

[Brunolem]

2 hours ago, MickeyDelux said:

The survey question give's the wrong information. Not really a surprise the media promotes more lies. Everyone knows China has been stealing from the West. Now, finally a US President doesn't allow Chine to continue its unfair practices, the leftist call it retaliatory... Get real  

China doesn't have to steal. 

 

Western companies who want to enjoy the benefits of slave labor and other Chinese goodies have to give away some of their knowhow, which they gladly do, since they are only motivated by short term profit and have no interest at all in the future. 

 

 

[Brunolem]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Lots of things you can do. You can pass a law that says that if your company hopes to sell it's product in our country xx.x% of production must take place in our country. If the business chooses not to meet that number you impose tariffs based upon how far they have missed the mark.

In theory yes, if Trump was sincere, which he is not. 

 

Why is the worst offender by far, the mighty Apple company, excluded from Trump's list? 

 

A company that not only uses and abuses of Chinese sweatshops, but on top of that has stashed more than a hundred billion dollars in some tropical islands in order to avoid paying taxes. 

 

Apple should get a special treatment indeed, with 50% import duties instead of 25%!

 

The truth is that these sanctions are not inflicted for economic reasons, but for geopolitical ones. 

 

The declining empire can't fathom the idea that it will be taken over by a rising opponent, fair or unfair, and is going to push the envelope as far as needed, which will include military action, sooner rather than later. 

 

As an aside, be aware that with the first exchange of fire, all the Chinese tourists, high quality or not, will disappear from Thailand, resulting in empty hotels and super discounts for the residents... can't wait... 

[zydeco]

1 hour ago, Brunolem said:

As an aside, be aware that with the first exchange of fire, all the Chinese tourists, high quality or not, will disappear from Thailand, resulting in empty hotels and super discounts for the residents... can't wait... 

Don't worry. Their uniformed compatriots will fill the void. It will only take them an hour or so on the new high speed rail they are building for the Chinese to come through Laos and occupy Thailand--officially.

[Berkshire]

On 5/21/2019 at 12:51 PM, zydeco said:

Of course, Nike isn't necessarily "required" to pass on the cost of tariffs to Americans, is it? Imagine taking a 25 percent hit on a $16 shoe ($4) that you then inflate by $534 or more in price.

 

On 5/21/2019 at 12:52 PM, lannarebirth said:

What's wrong with a tax on consumers that are content to buy products that lead to global pollution, vast wealth inequality, substandard working conditions, in support of mass civil liberty abuses and a totalitarian regime? In addition to the tariff maybe they should get an electric shock when they pick up the product they wish to buy.

Amazing.  I gave you guys ONE example, but there are many, many others.  Dozens.  Here is another one....Maine lobster.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/05/21/maine-lobster-industry-trade-war-newday-vpx.cnn

 

 

 

[Kelsall]

We have been in a trade with China for 30 years.  Trump is turning the tables on them (and a lot of other people).  MAGA.

[xylophone]

59 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

We have been in a trade with China for 30 years.  Trump is turning the tables on them (and a lot of other people).  MAGA.

Something to consider...............China accounts for over 95 percent of the world's production of rare earths. Therefore, having control of these elements puts China at a powerful position esp as they are used in electronics production/manufacture etc, and cutting off the supply to the USA for example would prove catastrophic.

 

Trump doesn't necessarily hold a trump hand here.

[ExpatOilWorker]

15 hours ago, xylophone said:

Something to consider...............China accounts for over 95 percent of the world's production of rare earths. Therefore, having control of these elements puts China at a powerful position esp as they are used in electronics production/manufacture etc, and cutting off the supply to the USA for example would prove catastrophic.

 

Trump doesn't necessarily hold a trump hand here.

I don't think China will ever play the rare earth card. They tried once and there is a WTO ruling on the subject, which China dutifully complied to.

Rare earth minerals do exist outside China, it is just a dirty mining process so most big miners stay clear of it.

During the oil embargo in the '70 when Saudi cut oil export in half overnight, they were soon facing gushing oil well in the North Sea. To this date, 40 years late the Saudis are still fighting for market share and have pretty much lost price control over crude.

Could China do the same mistake? most likely not. 

[lannarebirth]

On 5/20/2019 at 10:39 PM, Berkshire said:

More regulations...wonderful.  Tariffs are essentially a tax on consumers, everyone knows this (well, except for our POTUS).  Trump is pretending to be strong and pro-American, but he doesn't really have a plan.  There are all kinds of unintended consequences of tariffs, but Trump really, really doesn't care.  Here's just one example...

 

[Nike Inc., Adidas AG and other footwear giants urged President Donald Trump to reconsider his tariffs on shoes made in China, saying the policy would be “catastrophic for our consumers, our companies and the American economy as a whole.”]

[In all, 173 companies signed an open letter to the president....]

[“On behalf of our hundreds of millions of footwear consumers and hundreds of thousands of employees, we ask that you immediately stop this action to increase their tax burden,” the group said. “Your proposal to add tariffs on all imports from China is asking the American consumer to foot the bill. It is time to bring this trade war to an end.”]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/nike-adidas-call-tariffs-catastrophic-in-open-letter-to-trump/ar-AABDNLT?ocid=wispr

 

 

 

What's wrong with a tax on consumers? Clearly consumers are not now paying the "full price" for the goods they buy from places like China. They are not paying for the environmental degradation, the rapid acceleration in climate change brought on by irresponsible manufacturing processes; they're not paying for the human rights abuses that implicitly support with their consumer spending. Taxation is one of the best ways I know of to curb dangerous practices. It has worked for the most part with tobacco, why wouldn't it work to curb the purchase of products that cause other harmful affects?

[xylophone]

3 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

I don't think China will ever play the rare earth card. They tried once and there is a WTO ruling on the subject, which China dutifully complied to.

Rare earth minerals do exist outside China, it is just a dirty mining process so most big miners stay clear of it.

During the oil embargo in the '70 when Saudi cut oil export in half overnight, they were soon facing gushing oil well in the North Sea. To this date, 40 years late the Saudis are still fighting for market share and have pretty much lost price control over crude.

Could China do the same mistake? most likely not. 

Always respect your posts and I think you have a very valid point, although you never know what a large superpower like China will do if it is cornered, so best not to provoke it in my opinion.

 

Then of course there's the huge amount of US debt they hold, so they do have some good cards in their hand, just a case of whether or how they will play them or not.

 

The unfortunate thing is that the orange clown doesn't really understand how tariffs affect both parties in the tariff war and that's a worry.

 

PS. I worked on a couple of BP rigs in the North Sea early in the 70s, Forties Alpha and Bravo, as well as training for the Mobil Beryl platform which I never actually got on. Later worked on the Elf platform construction in the Frigg Field, offshore Norway, and that was a mess and extremely dangerous due to very poor health and safety regulations – – but that's a different story for another time! 

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Always respect your posts and I think you have a very valid point, although you never know what a large superpower like China will do if it is cornered, so best not to provoke it in my opinion.

 

Then of course there's the huge amount of US debt they hold, so they do have some good cards in their hand, just a case of whether or how they will play them or not.

 

The unfortunate thing is that the orange clown doesn't really understand how tariffs affect both parties in the tariff war and that's a worry.

 

PS. I worked on a couple of BP rigs in the North Sea early in the 70s, Forties Alpha and Bravo, as well as training for the Mobil Beryl platform which I never actually got on. Later worked on the Elf platform construction in the Frigg Field, offshore Norway, and that was a mess and extremely dangerous due to very poor health and safety regulations – – but that's a different story for another time! 

The $3 trillion China hold in foreign reserves is not a weapon, it is a lifevest for China. They need it to maintain their 10.92% inclusion in the IMF special drawing rights basket of currencies. 

Whenever you see China is reducing their foreign reserves, like they did in 2015 when it dropped from $4 to $3 trillion, it is because ordinary Chinese and companies are pulling money out of China, which the central government is doing everything in their power to stop.

 

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/09/30/AM16-PR16440-IMF-Launches-New-SDR-Basket-Including-Chinese-Renminbi

[mikebike]

On 5/21/2019 at 12:55 PM, ExpatOilWorker said:

Since the 4 biggest banks in the world all are in China, we might see the mother of all banking crises in a few years.

My reading of those four banks indicates they are operating more like western banks 40-50 yrs ago. They are not heavily invested in derivatives or sub-prime loans... Not anywhere near the risk-level of some US institutions.

[mikebike]

On 5/21/2019 at 12:24 AM, usviphotography said:

The problem is that by "allies" they mean the usual crop of Western European countries run by Neoliberal Globalists who are the very reason the current unfair trade agreements exist in the first place. You aren't going to accomplish anything by working with the Swamp. Trump has proven that more than anyone as any issue that he "worked with" the Establishment on was promptly sabotaged and subverted. Trade would have been no different. This is a policy issue where you needed somebody to just dive in and start brawling. 

Wow, a post packed with understanding, subtlety and nuance. 

 

Neoliberal globalists AND conservative corporatists are BOTH driving the forces which benefit China. Thy both have the same (swampy) funding.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The $3 trillion China hold in foreign reserves is not a weapon, it is a lifevest for China. They need it to maintain their 10.92% inclusion in the IMF special drawing rights basket of currencies. 

Whenever you see China is reducing their foreign reserves, like they did in 2015 when it dropped from $4 to $3 trillion, it is because ordinary Chinese and companies are pulling money out of China, which the central government is doing everything in their power to stop.

 

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/09/30/AM16-PR16440-IMF-Launches-New-SDR-Basket-Including-Chinese-Renminbi

Chinese reserve are a lifevest for the Chinese but not because of Special Drawing Rights. SDR's used to be important before floating exchange rates. Not really now. It's dubious that China cares all that much about it or that its actions are governed by whether or not its currency is included as a percentage of SDR's. 

[bristolboy]

On 5/21/2019 at 9:53 AM, Brunolem said:

Yet how can you support your economy when your own companies move their production abroad, in search of slave workers? 

 

You can cut your market from China, even 100%, that doesn't mean that production will come back home, it will simply and quickly move to Vietnam or Cambodia. 

 

Trump is very naive, risking war, hot war not trade war, with China for absolutely nothing in return in the long run... 

 

The fact is that even if China didn't exist there would be a lot less workers from the developed economies employed in manufacturing. Automation and now robotics (a kind of automation) have vastly increased the productivity of workers in developed nations. So you need less of them. The question you should be asking is why have virtually all the benefits of this increased productivity flowed to the top 10 percent, and really mostly to the 1 percent. This is particularly true of nations where workers face laws and courts that usually rule against them. The USA comes to mind, in particular. And given the kind of justices appointed by Republican presidents, it looks like this is set to continue for a long time to come.

[pegman]

No more rare earths for you America. Trump well on his way to his 5th bankruptcy. Outdone himself this time taking down a whole country.

[pegman]

Trump goes into full on socialist mode. $16b for new farmer welfare program. Isn't it past time these bums got real jobs?

[Thakkar]

On 5/21/2019 at 12:24 AM, usviphotography said:

The problem is that by "allies" they mean the usual crop of Western European countries run by Neoliberal Globalists who are the very reason the current unfair trade agreements exist in the first place. You aren't going to accomplish anything by working with the Swamp. Trump has proven that more than anyone as any issue that he "worked with" the Establishment on was promptly sabotaged and subverted. Trade would have been no different. This is a policy issue where you needed somebody to just dive in and start brawling. 

“Neoliberal Globalist”

Is this the definition: A person with assets and liabilities in various currencies, business interests around the world, products designed and sold in one country while manufactured in other countries, someone who supported invasive wars and called for the seizure of others’ resources?

[WeekendRaider]

it was not a trade war anymore than a better border wall is about "Mexican Rapists" and "jobs" is either. 

it is ***called*** a trade war.  it is more like a 5G war.  

but what it really is racism.   and money money money.

the USA will lose.  TSMC is shipping again.  End of Story.

sorry Steve Bannon. oh so so sorry.  not.

[Thakkar]

16 hours ago, mikebike said:

My reading of those four banks indicates they are operating more like western banks 40-50 yrs ago. They are not heavily invested in derivatives or sub-prime loans... Not anywhere near the risk-level of some US institutions.

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

22 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

What's wrong with a tax on consumers? Clearly consumers are not now paying the "full price" for the goods they buy from places like China. They are not paying for the environmental degradation, the rapid acceleration in climate change brought on by irresponsible manufacturing processes; they're not paying for the human rights abuses that implicitly support with their consumer spending. Taxation is one of the best ways I know of to curb dangerous practices. It has worked for the most part with tobacco, why wouldn't it work to curb the purchase of products that cause other harmful affects?

But why apply that only to China? And as has been shown, voters aren't really keen even on a carbon tax.

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But why apply that only to China? And as has been shown, voters aren't really keen even on a carbon tax.

 

I would not apply it only to China. I'd also apply to petrochemicals, wich cost xx.xx per barrel, plus 30% of our defense budget and X many lives, and X many limbs of damaged persons whose families we we will be supporting forever. 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I would not apply it only to China. I'd also apply to petrochemicals, wich cost xx.xx per barrel, plus 30% of our defense budget and X many lives, and X many limbs of damaged persons whose families we we will be supporting forever. 

It's a great idea to make polluters pay for what economists call "externalities" but politically it's a no-go. Which is a shame.

[ExpatOilWorker]

17 hours ago, mikebike said:

My reading of those four banks indicates they are operating more like western banks 40-50 yrs ago. They are not heavily invested in derivatives or sub-prime loans... Not anywhere near the risk-level of some US institutions.

Each of the 4 state banks are about $3 trillion in size, 60 times bigger than the 2010 Dodd-Frank "too big to fail" threshold. (Revised from $50 to $250 billion in 2018).

Anyhow, the Chinese state banks have been pumping money in state project like these:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/business/china-economy-debt-tianjin.html

 

Why? Because of connections:

 

That official, He Lifeng, was once the No. 2 Communist Party official in Tianjin. Mr. He now heads the central government agency that approves all major development projects, meaning he can authorize banks to lend more money to Tianjin.

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Each of the 4 state banks are about $3 trillion in size, 60 times bigger than the 2010 Dodd-Frank "too big to fail" threshold. (Revised from $50 to $250 billion in 2018).

Anyhow, the Chinese state banks have been pumping money in state project like these:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/business/china-economy-debt-tianjin.html

 

Why? Because of connections:

 

That official, He Lifeng, was once the No. 2 Communist Party official in Tianjin. Mr. He now heads the central government agency that approves all major development projects, meaning he can authorize banks to lend more money to Tianjin.

Yes. The efficiency of returns on Chinese investment has become dismal with the rise of Xi.

https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/china/04061801.html

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

It's a great idea to make polluters pay for what economists call "externalities" but politically it's a no-go. Which is a shame.

It's not going to happen unless there's a general boost in mindfullness and an understanding of the interconnectedness of all things. That's not going to happen in cultures like the US's anytime soon.