Who Pays for Tariffs? You Do.

[william the wie]

The big problem with trading with China or for that matter Mexico is that it is a national security risk not an economic risk. survival is more important than net worth.

 

[Andylusion]

The big problem with trading with China or for that matter Mexico is that it is a national security risk not an economic risk. survival is more important than net worth.

How so? I don't see importing a motor, or exporting food, is going to be a security risk.

We have to start grasping that Russia and China are going to be a threat whether we trade with them or not. Even if we cut off all trade, they would still advance, and catch up.

 

[william the wie]

The big problem with trading with China or for that matter Mexico is that it is a national security risk not an economic risk. survival is more important than net worth.

How so? I don't see importing a motor, or exporting food, is going to be a security risk.

We have to start grasping that Russia and China are going to be a threat whether we trade with them or not. Even if we cut off all trade, they would still advance, and catch up.

China cannot finish building its latest carrier without US trade, not to mention deal with its growing internal debt problems.
Russia has an AIDS epidemic of African proportions, It also has a drug problem that may be worse. Go to RT and Chinese GDP to debt ratio pops up on nearly all business/economic sites.

Tariffs are a much lower cost means of national defense.

 

[Andylusion]

The big problem with trading with China or for that matter Mexico is that it is a national security risk not an economic risk. survival is more important than net worth.

How so? I don't see importing a motor, or exporting food, is going to be a security risk.

We have to start grasping that Russia and China are going to be a threat whether we trade with them or not. Even if we cut off all trade, they would still advance, and catch up.

China cannot finish building its latest carrier without US trade, not to mention deal with its growing internal debt problems.
Russia has an AIDS epidemic of African proportions, It also has a drug problem that may be worse. Go to RT and Chinese GDP to debt ratio pops up on nearly all business/economic sites.

Tariffs are a much lower cost means of national defense.

Are you sure about that? You are telling me that no other nation on the face of the Earth can supply what they need to build a carrier? I think we can delay it perhaps... but I highly doubt that just by blocking a few trade deals, is going to stop the Chinese.

Now let me clarify. There is a massive difference between protectionism and tariffs, and having limits on technology exports.

I have no problem for example, in preventing the sale of high end computers that can control a missile, such as the tech deal that Bill Clinton signed off on, when a Chinese front company paid him off.

But that limited specific tech being sold to specific countries, is a far cry from tariffs on imported goods, that just cost the US tax payers money.

The two thing are not comparable or connected.

 

[Unkotare]

Why must you educate us?

Yes, it is passed onto the consumer but you know I feel doing business with China is bad business for the U.S. and Canada.

I would prefer the U.S. and Canada move away from China and build up trade partners with Mexico, Central America, and South America.

Sure in the short period it will hurt but in the long run it will better for the U.S. and Canada...

Sure, who needs a billion or so customers? Brilliant economic thinking.

 

[william the wie]

The big problem with trading with China or for that matter Mexico is that it is a national security risk not an economic risk. survival is more important than net worth.

How so? I don't see importing a motor, or exporting food, is going to be a security risk.

We have to start grasping that Russia and China are going to be a threat whether we trade with them or not. Even if we cut off all trade, they would still advance, and catch up.

China cannot finish building its latest carrier without US trade, not to mention deal with its growing internal debt problems.
Russia has an AIDS epidemic of African proportions, It also has a drug problem that may be worse. Go to RT and Chinese GDP to debt ratio pops up on nearly all business/economic sites.

Tariffs are a much lower cost means of national defense.

Are you sure about that? You are telling me that no other nation on the face of the Earth can supply what they need to build a carrier? I think we can delay it perhaps... but I highly doubt that just by blocking a few trade deals, is going to stop the Chinese.

Now let me clarify. There is a massive difference between protectionism and tariffs, and having limits on technology exports.

I have no problem for example, in preventing the sale of high end computers that can control a missile, such as the tech deal that Bill Clinton signed off on, when a Chinese front company paid him off.

But that limited specific tech being sold to specific countries, is a far cry from tariffs on imported goods, that just cost the US tax payers money.

The two thing are not comparable or connected.

sorry, that's wrong. the US tariffs reduce sales of Chinese goods that feed their economic growth. lower growth forces hires of more secret police, which is an economic dead loss. The trade war is as cheap an effective national security policy as can be.

 

[Andylusion]

The big problem with trading with China or for that matter Mexico is that it is a national security risk not an economic risk. survival is more important than net worth.

How so? I don't see importing a motor, or exporting food, is going to be a security risk.

We have to start grasping that Russia and China are going to be a threat whether we trade with them or not. Even if we cut off all trade, they would still advance, and catch up.

China cannot finish building its latest carrier without US trade, not to mention deal with its growing internal debt problems.
Russia has an AIDS epidemic of African proportions, It also has a drug problem that may be worse. Go to RT and Chinese GDP to debt ratio pops up on nearly all business/economic sites.

Tariffs are a much lower cost means of national defense.

Are you sure about that? You are telling me that no other nation on the face of the Earth can supply what they need to build a carrier? I think we can delay it perhaps... but I highly doubt that just by blocking a few trade deals, is going to stop the Chinese.

Now let me clarify. There is a massive difference between protectionism and tariffs, and having limits on technology exports.

I have no problem for example, in preventing the sale of high end computers that can control a missile, such as the tech deal that Bill Clinton signed off on, when a Chinese front company paid him off.

But that limited specific tech being sold to specific countries, is a far cry from tariffs on imported goods, that just cost the US tax payers money.

The two thing are not comparable or connected.

sorry, that's wrong. the US tariffs reduce sales of Chinese goods that feed their economic growth. lower growth forces hires of more secret police, which is an economic dead loss. The trade war is as cheap an effective national security policy as can be.

I don't buy that.

OEC - China (CHN) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners

The US is only 20% of Chinese exports, and only 9% of imports.

Would a US trade barrier harm China? No doubt! Absolutely. But it will harm us, and likely more so.

However, if you think that is going to stop China, you are crazy. There are only 325 Million people in this country for China to sell stuff too. There are 7.2 Billion people outside this country to sell to.

If you think that removing our markets from China is going to harm them, as much as it will harm us, no... I don't believe so.

It will harm us, far more than them. Our market might be the largest single market... that's true.... but our market is tiny compared to the world. Even now, Apple makes more money outside the US, than inside. I think GM is the same.

Now if you can get the entire world to block off China, then you have a solution. This is why the sanctions against Russia have been devastating. It's not because the lost access to the US market... it's because they lost access to the vast western markets as a whole.

Replacing the demand of one country isn't that hard. Replacing the demand of half the world... that's hard.

So, no I absolutely do not believe that tariffs are going to destroy China. Harm it? Sure. It will cause some problems, no doubt.

But they hundreds of markets that will take our place. We might be the biggest single market, but there are hundreds of other markets that will gladly step in our place. This is why China is pushing their ASEAN and other free-trade treaties.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Tariffs are taxes. When tariffs go up, prices go up as businesses pass on the increases to you. Trump’s trade taxes have cost the American consumer $69 billion thus far.

Businesses have captured most of that, but as any Economics 101 student knows, there is a deadweight loss to the economy. This is why 99.99999% of economists oppose tariffs.

That deadweight loss to the US economy has been about $7 billion.

U.S. Consumers Hit Hardest by Trade Tariffs, Studies Find

No a huge difference between tariffs and a higher minimum wage, We dont have to buy the things tariffs are put on ............we have a choice, but with a higher minimum wage we have no choice, because everything cost more.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Tariffs are taxes. When tariffs go up, prices go up as businesses pass on the increases to you. Trump’s trade taxes have cost the American consumer $69 billion thus far.

Businesses have captured most of that, but as any Economics 101 student knows, there is a deadweight loss to the economy. This is why 99.99999% of economists oppose tariffs.

That deadweight loss to the US economy has been about $7 billion.

U.S. Consumers Hit Hardest by Trade Tariffs, Studies Find

In further news, it turns out that water is wet...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why must you educate us?

Yes, it is passed onto the consumer but you know I feel doing business with China is bad business for the U.S. and Canada.

I would prefer the U.S. and Canada move away from China and build up trade partners with Mexico, Central America, and South America.

Sure in the short period it will hurt but in the long run it will better for the U.S. and Canada...

How is all of us being poorer, somehow good for the US and Canada?

so you dont like higher paying blue collar jobs now?

 

[Uncensored2008]

No a huge difference between tariffs and a higher minimum wage, We dont have to buy the things tariffs are put on ............we have a choice, but with a higher minimum wage we have no choice, because everything cost more.

Tariffs are a tax intended to punish those who but Chinese goods. Is the minimum wage intended to punish those who buy products from businesses that employs unskilled labor.

 

[jwoodie]

You are telling me that no other nation on the face of the Earth can supply what they need to build a carrier?

No other nation has equivalent aircraft carriers.

 

[Andylusion]

Why must you educate us?

Yes, it is passed onto the consumer but you know I feel doing business with China is bad business for the U.S. and Canada.

I would prefer the U.S. and Canada move away from China and build up trade partners with Mexico, Central America, and South America.

Sure in the short period it will hurt but in the long run it will better for the U.S. and Canada...

How is all of us being poorer, somehow good for the US and Canada?

so you dont like higher paying blue collar jobs now?

Not going to happen. Most blue collar jobs are being replaced by automation, not imports.

If you think that tariffs are going to bring back jobs, you are crazy. When they looked at the cost of using manual labor to build iPhones like they do in China, the cost of an iPhone made in the US, using the same manual labor, would be so expensive that not a single phone would have ever sold.

No, if they actually did start making iPhones in the US, it would be almost entirely automated. Not a single blue collar job would be created. Or I should say, very few. You might get a few forklift drivers loading trucks, but you are not going to get any significant increase in blue collar jobs.

But that assumes that manufacturing itself would come back at all. That's a questionable claim.

If Apple has to choose between working inside the US, and outside the US, they may very well choose outside the US.

Apple right now, makes more money outside the US, than inside. If they wish to open a $5 Billion dollar manufacturing plant to build all their products, they are going to choose a location that gives them access to the largest possible market.

If you engage in protectionism, that could in theory force Apple to choose between the US market and the world market. If you have to pick one, the World market is much larger than the US market.

So you may end up actually driving away even more jobs by engaging in protectionism.

Again, there is not one single example in the world, and throughout history, having an economic benefit from protectionism and tariffs. Not one.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why must you educate us?

Yes, it is passed onto the consumer but you know I feel doing business with China is bad business for the U.S. and Canada.

I would prefer the U.S. and Canada move away from China and build up trade partners with Mexico, Central America, and South America.

Sure in the short period it will hurt but in the long run it will better for the U.S. and Canada...

How is all of us being poorer, somehow good for the US and Canada?

so you dont like higher paying blue collar jobs now?

Not going to happen. Most blue collar jobs are being replaced by automation, not imports.

If you think that tariffs are going to bring back jobs, you are crazy. When they looked at the cost of using manual labor to build iPhones like they do in China, the cost of an iPhone made in the US, using the same manual labor, would be so expensive that not a single phone would have ever sold.

No, if they actually did start making iPhones in the US, it would be almost entirely automated. Not a single blue collar job would be created. Or I should say, very few. You might get a few forklift drivers loading trucks, but you are not going to get any significant increase in blue collar jobs.

But that assumes that blue collar jobs would come back. That's a questionable claim.

If Apple has to choose between working inside the US, and outside the US, they may very well choose outside the US.

Apple right now, makes more money outside the US, than inside. If they wish to open a $5 Billion dollar manufacturing plant to build all their products, they are going to choose a location that gives them access to the largest possible market.

If you engage in protectionism, that could in theory force Apple to choose between the US market and the world market. If you have to pick one, the World market is much larger than the US market.

So you may end up actually driving away even more jobs by engaging in protectionism.

Again, there is not one single example in the world, and throughout history, having an economic benefit from protectionism and tariffs. Not one.

do you read the newspaper and research before you post, or do you just spout opinions out your bung hole?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why must you educate us?

Yes, it is passed onto the consumer but you know I feel doing business with China is bad business for the U.S. and Canada.

I would prefer the U.S. and Canada move away from China and build up trade partners with Mexico, Central America, and South America.

Sure in the short period it will hurt but in the long run it will better for the U.S. and Canada...

How is all of us being poorer, somehow good for the US and Canada?

so you dont like higher paying blue collar jobs now?

Not going to happen. Most blue collar jobs are being replaced by automation, not imports.

If you think that tariffs are going to bring back jobs, you are crazy. When they looked at the cost of using manual labor to build iPhones like they do in China, the cost of an iPhone made in the US, using the same manual labor, would be so expensive that not a single phone would have ever sold.

No, if they actually did start making iPhones in the US, it would be almost entirely automated. Not a single blue collar job would be created. Or I should say, very few. You might get a few forklift drivers loading trucks, but you are not going to get any significant increase in blue collar jobs.

But that assumes that blue collar jobs would come back. That's a questionable claim.

If Apple has to choose between working inside the US, and outside the US, they may very well choose outside the US.

Apple right now, makes more money outside the US, than inside. If they wish to open a $5 Billion dollar manufacturing plant to build all their products, they are going to choose a location that gives them access to the largest possible market.

If you engage in protectionism, that could in theory force Apple to choose between the US market and the world market. If you have to pick one, the World market is much larger than the US market.

So you may end up actually driving away even more jobs by engaging in protectionism.

Again, there is not one single example in the world, and throughout history, having an economic benefit from protectionism and tariffs. Not one.

do you read the newspaper and research before you post, or do you just spout opinions out your bung hole?

Iron Range jobs, exports bounce back with help of Trump tariffs

Iron Range jobs, exports bounce back with help of Trump tariffs
Iron ore prices and Minnesota's mining operations have seen a boost. And that could mean a political boost, too.
By Jessie Van Berkel Star Tribune

MARCH 2, 2019 — 2:10AM

GLEN STUBBE – STAR TRIBUNE
The MINNTAC taconite mine in Mountain Iron, Minn. State budget officials credited tariffs on imported steel with helping bolster the economy of the Iron Range.

123
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://strib.mn/2Xx8emb
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?ur...xports+bounce+back+with+help+of+Trump+tariffs

EMAIL

PRINT
MORE
Mines and logging companies are hiring, small businesses are expanding and Minnesota’s Iron Range is bouncing back from the mine and production facility closures that hit hard just a few years ago.

A new state budget and economic forecast reflected positive news for the Iron Range, which added jobs in recent years and has seen a strong boost in iron ore exports, used to create steel. State budget officials credited tariffs on imported steel with helping bolster the local economy.

“A 5.2 percent increase in employment means a lot of money in the economy in northeastern Minnesota,” s

 

[Andylusion]

You are telling me that no other nation on the face of the Earth can supply what they need to build a carrier?

No other nation has equivalent aircraft carriers.

I highly doubt that we are selling them parts that allow them to make an aircraft carrier that is on par with US carriers.

I have not yet looked into exactly what type and quality of carrier the Chinese are making, but the entire pentagon would be bouncing off the walls if we were actually selling them anything that would put them on equal footing with the US.

If it is anything like our weapon sales to other countries, we are selling obsolete tech at a massive profit, that is so out-dated as to be irrelevant compared to our carriers.

Just on a whim, I punched up what the last major arms sale was. I saw that we sold (2) units of AN/AAQ 24(V)N to India. These are anti-missile countermeasures.

My understanding is that while these are sold world wide, they are not what our military currently uses. They were intended for AC-130 gun ships in the late 90s. Today we use newer and more effective versions of this unit. I believe the AN/AAQ 47 and AN/AAQ 54 Models are what we use in our military.

Point being, we would never sell arms that gave away our advantage on the battle field.

So I highly doubt that we are selling the Chinese the ability to stand toe to toe with our carriers. I could be wrong. I just thinking out loud here.

 

[Andylusion]

Why must you educate us?

Yes, it is passed onto the consumer but you know I feel doing business with China is bad business for the U.S. and Canada.

I would prefer the U.S. and Canada move away from China and build up trade partners with Mexico, Central America, and South America.

Sure in the short period it will hurt but in the long run it will better for the U.S. and Canada...

How is all of us being poorer, somehow good for the US and Canada?

so you dont like higher paying blue collar jobs now?

Not going to happen. Most blue collar jobs are being replaced by automation, not imports.

If you think that tariffs are going to bring back jobs, you are crazy. When they looked at the cost of using manual labor to build iPhones like they do in China, the cost of an iPhone made in the US, using the same manual labor, would be so expensive that not a single phone would have ever sold.

No, if they actually did start making iPhones in the US, it would be almost entirely automated. Not a single blue collar job would be created. Or I should say, very few. You might get a few forklift drivers loading trucks, but you are not going to get any significant increase in blue collar jobs.

But that assumes that blue collar jobs would come back. That's a questionable claim.

If Apple has to choose between working inside the US, and outside the US, they may very well choose outside the US.

Apple right now, makes more money outside the US, than inside. If they wish to open a $5 Billion dollar manufacturing plant to build all their products, they are going to choose a location that gives them access to the largest possible market.

If you engage in protectionism, that could in theory force Apple to choose between the US market and the world market. If you have to pick one, the World market is much larger than the US market.

So you may end up actually driving away even more jobs by engaging in protectionism.

Again, there is not one single example in the world, and throughout history, having an economic benefit from protectionism and tariffs. Not one.

do you read the newspaper and research before you post, or do you just spout opinions out your bung hole?

If you think the recent economic upswing is due to protectionism, you are wrong.

 

[Supposn]

Tariffs are taxes. When tariffs go up, prices go up as businesses pass on the increases to you. Trump’s trade taxes have cost the American consumer $69 billion thus far.

Businesses have captured most of that, but as any Economics 101 student knows, there is a deadweight loss to the economy. This is why 99.99999% of economists oppose tariffs.

That deadweight loss to the US economy has been about $7 billion.

U.S. Consumers Hit Hardest by Trade Tariffs, Studies Find

Toro,
(1) To the extent that USA products are “crowded out” of marketplaces by foreign goods, USA experiences chronic annual trade deficits of goods and our domestic production is less than otherwise.
(2) Regardless of the nation's economic condition, (i.e. in rich or poor years), lesser domestic production reflects lesser (than otherwise) payrolls.
(3) Annual trade deficits indicate the nation has purchased greater values of products than it has produced.

Rarely, if ever do credible economists refute any of these contentions and this holds true even among credible economists that are ardent proponents of pure free trade.

I'm among the proponents of the improved trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

The proposal's applicable to almost all tangible products and would be of some benefit All USA producers of goods competing with foreign goods anywhere in the world. The policy would be of no less benefit to USA sheep ranchers rather than to USA vehicle or aircraft manufactures.

The proposal is substantially market driven. It would significantly reduce, if not eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods in a manner that would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

The extent of trade surplus nations' increases, or trade deficit nations' decreases of their nation's domestic production, actually exceed their nation's net balance of international trade.

Google Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Wyatt earp]

Tariffs are taxes. When tariffs go up, prices go up as businesses pass on the increases to you. Trump’s trade taxes have cost the American consumer $69 billion thus far.

Businesses have captured most of that, but as any Economics 101 student knows, there is a deadweight loss to the economy. This is why 99.99999% of economists oppose tariffs.

That deadweight loss to the US economy has been about $7 billion.

U.S. Consumers Hit Hardest by Trade Tariffs, Studies Find

So in your mind we dont pay for a higher minimum wage?

 

[westwall]

Tariffs are taxes. When tariffs go up, prices go up as businesses pass on the increases to you. Trump’s trade taxes have cost the American consumer $69 billion thus far.

Businesses have captured most of that, but as any Economics 101 student knows, there is a deadweight loss to the economy. This is why 99.99999% of economists oppose tariffs.

That deadweight loss to the US economy has been about $7 billion.

U.S. Consumers Hit Hardest by Trade Tariffs, Studies Find

Better to pay now, and save our manufacturing base, then pay later when we are a subjugated country.