The Issue: Tariffs

[Wry Catcher]

"The U.S. Department of Commerce announced recommendations on February 16, 2018 to impose heavy tariffs or quotas on foreign producers of steel. This could help domestic steel producers, but it would harm U. S. manufacturing industries that use steel and products made of steel as inputs. The number of jobs in U.S. industries that use steel or inputs made of steel outnumber the number of jobs involved in the production of steel by roughly 80 to 1."

The Facts:

Econofact

Trump&Co. once again put politics first, and not our country.

 

[Jomama]

Yes, it's all political.

 

[Auld Phart]

another thread on tariffs?

 

[Sunni Man]

Thank you Pres. Trump!! ...

 

[Supposn]

Wry Catcher,
I'm among the proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate” article. Similar to tariffs, all net expenses are passed on to the nation's purchasers of imported goods and there can be additional increases of those prices due to markets' behaviors.

Unlike tariffs, it's not a source of net government tax revenue Its rates are set and monitored by law to do no more than defray all of the government's net direct costs due to the policy. Any net costs beyond the government's direct net expenses serve as indirect subsidies of the nation's exported goods at no increased cost to anyone.

Unlike tariffs, government doesn't determine differing rates for differing types of products, or nation's of origin or particular enterprises or industries; government doesn't choose winners or losers.

Import Certificate policy is a unilateral trade policy that's only of benefit for a nation that would otherwise suffer chronic annual trade deficits of goods. Many nations would benefit from adopting this unilateral trade policy, but the USA, (which has been experiencing the greatest and chronic annual trade deficits every year of the past half century), would be the greatest beneficiary if we adopted this policy.

Regardless of other nations responses to USA's adoption of an Import Certificate policy, it would significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficit of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificate” article.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[rshermn]

Wry Catcher,
I'm among the proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate” article. Similar to tariffs, all net expenses are passed on to the nation's purchasers of imported goods and there can be additional increases of those prices due to markets' behaviors.

Unlike tariffs, it's not a source of net government tax revenue Its rates are set and monitored by law to do no more than defray all of the government's net direct costs due to the policy. Any net costs beyond the government's direct net expenses serve as indirect subsidies of the nation's exported goods at no increased cost to anyone.

Unlike tariffs, government doesn't determine differing rates for differing types of products, or nation's of origin or particular enterprises or industries; government doesn't choose winners or losers.

Import Certificate policy is a unilateral trade policy that's only of benefit for a nation that would otherwise suffer chronic annual trade deficits of goods. Many nations would benefit from adopting this unilateral trade policy, but the USA, (which has been experiencing the greatest and chronic annual trade deficits every year of the past half century), would be the greatest beneficiary if we adopted this policy.

Regardless of other nations responses to USA's adoption of an Import Certificate policy, it would significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficit of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Refer to Wikipedia's “Import Certificate” article.
Respectfully, Supposn

Long time no speak, Supposn! Thoughtful post. I will check out the source.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - Chinamens stealin' our IP's...

How much has US lost from China's IP theft?
March 23, 2018 | 7-month investigation into theft conducted

President Donald Trump has slapped tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, taking aim at China's theft of U.S. intellectual property. The United States has long said that intellectual property theft has cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs. So just how much damage has it done? The United States Trade Representative, which led the seven-month investigation into China's intellectual property theft and made recommendations to the Trump administration, found that "Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually." Those numbers are in line with a 2017 report from the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property.

Chinese officials have said that protecting foreign companies' intellectual property rights is important to China. But many of its companies appear to have missed that memo. "China has sought to acquire U.S. technology by any means, licit or illicit," James Andrew Lewis, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, wrote in a blog post Thursday. "Espionage and theft were part of this, but so were forced technology transfers or mandatory joint ventures as a condition for doing business in China," he wrote.

One of the most recent high profile examples of theft of U.S. intellectual property happened earlier this year. In January, a Beijing-based wind turbine company was found guilty in the U.S. of stealing trade secrets, using secretly downloaded source code stolen from a Massachusetts company. Forced technology transfer is also a growing concern for U.S. companies, especially tech firms. To get an idea of how much forced technology transfer costs the U.S., some experts say to look at the costs associated with the theft of trade secrets. Total theft of U.S. trade secrets accounts for anywhere from $180 billion to $540 billion per year, according to the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property -- as "the world's principal IP infringer," China accounts for the most of that theft.

Those numbers are likely to go up, as China doubles down on policies that could lead to the acquisition of foreign technology and information -- like the controversial new cybersecurity law that went into effect last year. One of the most contentious parts of the law involves measures that allow China to conduct security reviews of technology products and services that could affect national security. Critics slammed the plans as intrusive and trade-inhibiting, and industry organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say they are concerned over unfair advantages for Chinese companies and trade barriers. Beijing says the new law is meant to strengthen the protection of personal information and combat online fraud.

How much has US lost from China's IP theft?

 

[waltky]

China plans retaliation for Trump tariffs...

China plans tariffs on $3B worth of U.S. goods after Trump order
March 22, 2018 -- The Chinese government plans to impose tariffs on $3 billion worth of imports of U.S. goods in response to President Donald Trump's tariff announcement Thursday.

China's Commerce Ministry said it compiled a list of 120 products worth about $1 billion including fresh fruit and wine that will face a 15 precent tariff it both countries fail to resolve trade differences "within a stipulated time." A 25 percent tariff on other goods such as pork and aluminum, could also be imposed after "further evaluating the impact of U.S. measures on China." "China will certainly take all necessary measures to resolutely defend its legitimate rights and interests," Beijing's Ministry of Commerce said in a statement Thursday.

A soldier stands in Tiananmen Square at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, Tuesday. Chinese officials said Thursday they will take all necessary measures to guard against potential new U.S. tariffs.​

Trump signed a presidential order to impose new tariffs, which could be worth about $60 billion, on imported Chinese products, as a means to stem "economic aggression" by Beijing. Trump has said new tariffs will help lower the $375 billion U.S. trade deficit with China, while punishing what he says are unfair Chinese trade practices. The plan would affect imports that made up roughly 10 percent of Chinese goods sent to the United States last year. The newly ordered tariffs are the first time the Trump administration has directly targeted China with trade sanctions. The administration's recent pledge to impose tariffs on foreign-made steel, aluminum and solar panels also impacts China.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China-U.S. economic relations are mutually beneficial, have opened vast markets and created a significant number of jobs in both countries in the last 40 years. "[A] trade war will only produce losers. The legendary impenetrable 'super armor' that shields one from any harm simply does not exist," Hua said. "We want no trade war with anyone, but if our hands are forced, we will not quail nor recoil from it. "If the day did come when the U.S. took measures to hurt our interests, we will definitely take firm and necessary countermeasures to safeguard our legitimate interests." During a news conference Wednesday, Hua said trade with China has also lowered financial burdens for U.S. families. In 2015, China-U.S. trade helped each family save $850 on average, she said.

China plans tariffs on $3B worth of U.S. goods after Trump order

See also:

China Warns US Actions Could Push Ties into Danger Zone
March 23, 2018 — China responded swiftly to President Donald Trump's announced plans to levy tariffs on up to $60 billion on Chinese goods, warning the proposed move risks pushing trade relations into the danger zone.

In a statement early Friday, just hours after President Trump signed a memo paving the way for major tariffs on nearly 1,300 Chinese imports, China's Commerce Ministry called on Washington to carefully consider its next policy steps, urging it to "pull back from the brink." The ministry also announced in a separate statement on Friday it was mulling retaliatory measures to steel and aluminum tariffs announced by the Trump administration earlier this month. In the statement, the ministry said if necessary it would target 128 different U.S. imports. The measures include a possible 15 percent tariff on goods such as fruits, nuts, wine and steel pipes and a 25 percent levy on pork and aluminum imports.

China has said the actions, which amount to some $3 billion in trade, will be put into place if a trade remedy agreement cannot be reached between China and the United States. Beijing also said it will take action at the World Trade Organization in response to Trump's trade actions to protect its rights. China has said if it has to fight a trade war, it will fight to the end.

Titans clash

Despite the tough talk, Beijing has come up with little in the way of retaliatory action. Its $3 billion plan in targeted U.S. goods is still a tiny fraction of Washington's $60 billion trade restriction plan. For now, Beijing seems to be avoiding a head-on collision in the trade arena and focusing on optics. Raymond Yeung, a senior economist for Greater China at the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ Banking Group), said he was not surprised by Beijing's response to the announcement. But, clearly the Trump administration's approach has hit a nerve for China, he added. "I don't think the figures matter, I think the focus should be more on the worsening of the relationship of the two biggest nations in the world, which is much more important," Yeung said. On Friday, markets were clearly concerned about the broader impact the growing dispute could have as the announcement shook stock indexes across the region.

Pressure points

China has taken note of the strong backlash in response to the steel and aluminum tariffs announced earlier this month and suggested it could work together with other nations at the World Trade Organization who are also in opposition. But that may not be easy. Late Thursday, after the announced China trade actions, the White House announced temporary exemptions for the steel and aluminum tariffs for a number of countries including Canada, Mexico, South Korea Australia and the European Union. And the United States is not the only country concerned with China's practices of forced technology transfers in joint ventures, subsidies for state-owned companies, and intellectual property theft.

MORE

 

[Supposn]

China plans tariffs on $3B worth of U.S. goods after Trump order

China plans retaliation for Trump tariffs...

China plans tariffs on $3B worth of U.S. goods after Trump order
March 22, 2018 -- The Chinese government plans to impose tariffs on $3 billion worth of imports of U.S. goods in response to President Donald Trump's tariff announcement Thursday.

Waltky, I'm among the proponents of the trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. Annual trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations' GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Import Certificates would enable exporters of USA goods to request any or all of their shipments be value assessed prior to departing from the USA and agreeing to pay the federal rate based upon those assessments. Their motivation would be acquiring the valuable Import Certificates with face values equal to assessed values.
Importers of goods would be required to surrender certificates with face values sufficient to cover the assessed value of goods they wish to bring into the USA; (surrendered certificates are canceled).
The certificates global values, (i.e. the trade policy's entire net costs) are passed on as price increases to USA purchasers of imported goods.

With absolutely no government action but due only to markets' behaviors, to the extent that the global value of the certificates are expected to exceed the federal fees paid to acquire them; to that extent they indirectly but effectively subsidize USA's exported goods.

Unlike tariffs, the policy by law would treat all foreign nations, all types of goods, and all enterprises in an equitable manner. If we consider importing and exporting as a single industry of global trade, the policy treats all industries equitably.
Exporters of USA goods need not be USA citizens or residents.
Import Certificates comply with the concept of “most favored nations” which does not prevent a nation from favoring its own entities.
The policy is much less likely to evoke another nation to conduct a “trade war” but if any nation sought to undermine the global trade of an Import Certificate nation, they would do more harm to themselves rather than harm they intended upon others. Regardless of other nation's responses, USA's adoption of the Import Certificate policy would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

"The U.S. Department of Commerce announced recommendations on February 16, 2018 to impose heavy tariffs or quotas on foreign producers of steel. This could help domestic steel producers, but it would harm U. S. manufacturing industries that use steel and products made of steel as inputs. The number of jobs in U.S. industries that use steel or inputs made of steel outnumber the number of jobs involved in the production of steel by roughly 80 to 1."

The Facts:

Econofact

Trump&Co. once again put politics first, and not our country.

Yes, not only will every job made lose maybe 500 jobs, but also other areas will lose out on exporting to China, which will be a very important market in the future.

It's a very important time for companies wanting to establish their brand as many Chinese people suddenly find wealth. If it's not US companies, it'll be other foreign companies establishing.

 

[Supposn]

Yes, not only will every job made lose maybe 500 jobs, but also other areas will lose out on exporting to China, which will be a very important market in the future.

It's a very important time for companies wanting to establish their brand as many Chinese people suddenly find wealth. If it's not US companies, it'll be other foreign companies establishing.

FrigidWeirdo, annual trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations' GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Unlike tariffs, a USA Import Certificate policy could not be used to enable our federal government to discourage a particular foreign nations' or any enterprises' types of goods from being imported into the USA. The policy cannot effectively prevent any goods for which there's an effective USA demand, from being imported into the USA. Within Import Certificate laws, all foreign nations and all types of globally traded goods are treated equally.
Nations' are effectively required to respond against insulting tariffs with less or no regard even for consequences to their own economy.
Refer to post #9 of this thread and to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, not only will every job made lose maybe 500 jobs, but also other areas will lose out on exporting to China, which will be a very important market in the future.

It's a very important time for companies wanting to establish their brand as many Chinese people suddenly find wealth. If it's not US companies, it'll be other foreign companies establishing.

FrigidWeirdo, annual trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations' GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.

Unlike tariffs, a USA Import Certificate policy could not be used to enable our federal government to discourage a particular foreign nations' or any enterprises' types of goods from being imported into the USA. The policy cannot effectively prevent any goods for which there's an effective USA demand, from being imported into the USA. Within Import Certificate laws, all foreign nations and all types of globally traded goods are treated equally.
Nations' are effectively required to respond against insulting tariffs with less or no regard even for consequences to their own economy.
Refer to post #9 of this thread and to Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully Supposn

Yes, so, if they're a detriment to the GDP, why is the US's GDP going up and not down?

US Real GDP by Year

Dec 31, 2017 17.27 trillion
Dec 31, 2016 16.85 trillion
Dec 31, 2015 16.55 trillion
Dec 31, 2014 16.22 trillion
Dec 31, 2013 15.79 trillion
Dec 31, 2012 15.38 trillion
Dec 31, 2011 15.19 trillion
Dec 31, 2010 14.94 trillion
Dec 31, 2009 14.54 trillion
Dec 31, 2008 14.58 trillion
Dec 31, 2007 14.99 trillion
Dec 31, 2006 14.72 trillion

Only in 2009 did it drop.

So, how is the US losing out from trading with China?

 

[Supposn]

FrigidWeirdo, annual trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations' GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs. ...

Yes, so, if they're a detriment to the GDP, why is the US's GDP going up and not down?

US Real GDP by Year

Dec 31, 2017 17.27 trillion
Dec 31, 2016 16.85 trillion
Dec 31, 2015 16.55 trillion
Dec 31, 2014 16.22 trillion
Dec 31, 2013 15.79 trillion
Dec 31, 2012 15.38 trillion
Dec 31, 2011 15.19 trillion
Dec 31, 2010 14.94 trillion
Dec 31, 2009 14.54 trillion
Dec 31, 2008 14.58 trillion
Dec 31, 2007 14.99 trillion
Dec 31, 2006 14.72 trillion

Only in 2009 did it drop.

So, how is the US losing out from trading with China?

Frigidweirdo, regarding correlation between GDP and trade deficits:

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP; a trade deficit nation's GDP is less than otherwise due to its negative balance of trade. Within better years or years that the nation's economy performed poorly, due to an annual trade deficit the nation's GDP would be less than otherwise, otherwise being if the nation had not experienced an annual negative global balance of trade.

Imported and domestic produced goods are sold within the nation's domestic markets. There is no particular reason to suppose that their proportional volumes of imported goods sales within the nation's domestic markets differ during poorer or richer years, but certainly domestic markets total sales are more than otherwise during richer years and less than otherwise during poorer years.

Trade deficits decline during poorer years because in those years, less imported goods than otherwise are sold in the nation's domestic markets; trade deficits increase during richer years because in those years, more imported goods than otherwise are sold in the nation's domestic markets.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Frigidweirdo, balance of trade is an explicit component of the expenditure formula for calculating GDP. Trade surpluses directly increase, and trade deficits directly decrease the calculated GDP. Within all other conventional GDP formulas where trade balances are not explicitly referred to, they are indirectly reflected and have the same effect upon the nation's GDP.
Refer to Encyclopedia Britannica's GDP article.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's gross domestic product; anything detrimental to a nation's annual GDP also drags upon its numbers of jobs. Thus USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods (that has consistently occurred in excess of a half century), has more than otherwise been net detrimental to our nation's annual economies. This has been true during years of better and of lesser USA economic performances.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

FrigidWeirdo, annual trade deficits are always detrimental to their nations' GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs. ...

Yes, so, if they're a detriment to the GDP, why is the US's GDP going up and not down?

US Real GDP by Year

Dec 31, 2017 17.27 trillion
Dec 31, 2016 16.85 trillion
Dec 31, 2015 16.55 trillion
Dec 31, 2014 16.22 trillion
Dec 31, 2013 15.79 trillion
Dec 31, 2012 15.38 trillion
Dec 31, 2011 15.19 trillion
Dec 31, 2010 14.94 trillion
Dec 31, 2009 14.54 trillion
Dec 31, 2008 14.58 trillion
Dec 31, 2007 14.99 trillion
Dec 31, 2006 14.72 trillion

Only in 2009 did it drop.

So, how is the US losing out from trading with China?

Frigidweirdo, regarding correlation between GDP and trade deficits:

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP; a trade deficit nation's GDP is less than otherwise due to its negative balance of trade. Within better years or years that the nation's economy performed poorly, due to an annual trade deficit the nation's GDP would be less than otherwise, otherwise being if the nation had not experienced an annual negative global balance of trade.

Imported and domestic produced goods are sold within the nation's domestic markets. There is no particular reason to suppose that their proportional volumes of imported goods sales within the nation's domestic markets differ during poorer or richer years, but certainly domestic markets total sales are more than otherwise during richer years and less than otherwise during poorer years.

Trade deficits decline during poorer years because in those years, less imported goods than otherwise are sold in the nation's domestic markets; trade deficits increase during richer years because in those years, more imported goods than otherwise are sold in the nation's domestic markets.

Respectfully, Supposn

That's all very nice and everything, but the US GDP is still rising every year.

You didn't say why this is rising when supposedly the US is getting poorer.

It doesn't appear to be getting poorer.

 

[Supposn]

That's all very nice and everything, but the US GDP is still rising every year.

You didn't say why this is rising when supposedly the US is getting poorer.

It doesn't appear to be getting poorer.

Frigidweirdo, other nations are improving and reducing our GDP lead. Does a millionaire that lights his cigars with $100 bills become bankrupt due to his habit? I didn't state that USA's trade deficit is unsustainable and the United States will soon cease to exist; I stated nations' annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.

USA's entire economy is not based upon our global balance of trade but we can do better for ourselves if we are better caretakers of our economy.

If USA would have superior educational and training systems, we'd better afford the detrimental effects of our chronic annual trade deficits of goods.

If we were in aggregate would have a more educated and skilled population, we'd less likely have chronic great annual trade deficits of goods. If a nation improves their educational and training systems, it would be reflected to no lesser extent upon their social and economic conditions.

I don't have great confidence in any of the educational and training proposals that I've ever read or heard. I do have such confidence in the proposal described in Wikipedia's Import Certificates” article. It would not improve everything, but if enacted by the USA, it would to some extent be of net social and economic benefit to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's all very nice and everything, but the US GDP is still rising every year.

You didn't say why this is rising when supposedly the US is getting poorer.

It doesn't appear to be getting poorer.

Frigidweirdo, other nations are improving and reducing our GDP lead. Does a millionaire that lights his cigars with $100 bills become bankrupt due to his habit? I didn't state that USA's trade deficit is unsustainable and the United States will soon cease to exist; I stated nations' annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their GDP and drag upon their numbers of jobs.

USA's entire economy is not based upon our global balance of trade but we can do better for ourselves if we are better caretakers of our economy.

If USA would have superior educational and training systems, we'd better afford the detrimental effects of our chronic annual trade deficits of goods.

If we were in aggregate would have a more educated and skilled population, we'd less likely have chronic great annual trade deficits of goods. If a nation improves their educational and training systems, it would be reflected to no lesser extent upon their social and economic conditions.

I don't have great confidence in any of the educational and training proposals that I've ever read or heard. I do have such confidence in the proposal described in Wikipedia's Import Certificates” article. It would not improve everything, but if enacted by the USA, it would to some extent be of net social and economic benefit to our nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yes, other countries are improving.

So what?

China was in massive poverty in the 1970s, that it has 6%+ growth every year has to do with that.

The US can't remain higher than other countries forever.

What I'm talking about is wealth.

Trump says China is stealing US wealth, yet the US is getting RICHER every year. So..... why isn't the US LOSING wealth?

Yes, the US could do better if it looked after its own economy. But it doesn't.

Every 8 years there's a President looking for re-election. He needs the economy to be going well in order to get there. He pushes the economy, which leads to a boom and bust economy.

China is SLOWING its economy down deliberately. Why? To stop boom and bust.

So, the US is essentially blaming China for the US's inability to govern itself properly.

And that makes sense how?