Trump Trade Agreement A Grand Slam Home Run

[Brain357]

The tariffs are paid for by the importer.

You just said our tariffs have slowed their economy, then you say we are paying for it. We are not. I'm sorry, but we're not.

I think I get your point of view. Really. You think the buyer of the tariffed good is , from an economic point of view, the one who is absorbing the cost of the tariff. I get that. It's naive, but I get it. My point has nothing to do with exchange of dollars though, but you can't seem to see what it is despite my attempts to explain it. I guess we will leave it at that.

No, I said their tariffs have slowed their economy. Our would only slow their economy if we started buying less. That is obviously not happening:

China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

YOu already quoted that. It seems irrelevant to me. So what if China is doing better on trade? We are too. We're doing way better domestically as well.

Also, why say that their tariffs are hurting their economy? That's false. They've had tariffs on us for decades and they've had the fastest growing economy on earth because of it. It's only now that we have also imposed tariffs that they're lagging.

China upset at high US tariffs on steel imports

China is very upset that we are paying more for steel for some reason. Those good samaritans! They must realize, like you, that we're hurting ourselves and are upset because of it.. or maybe it's something else.

You think their economy has been fast growing because of tariffs? That is funny. We don't buy from them because they put tariffs on our goods. How are tariffs helping their economy?

Because their tariffs hurt us more than it hurts them. Pretty simple. LIke our tariffs will hurt them more than us ( what I've been saying all along).

China is built upon having a trade deficit with us. They want to keep our goods out by making it too expensive for us to do business there, and abuse the fact that we have no such protection against their goods. It's been a one way economic robbery for decades.

So you are ignoring they have dirt cheap labor and until recently almost no environmental regulations? You think it's all tariffs? That is very funny.

 

[Jerico]

What is also not accounted for is that when we have a deficit with a nation, it may not be because they are robbing us blind as some think. If this is the case, Wal Mart has a trade deficit with everyone who shops there. Few consumers sell anything to Wal Mart.

It is the same with nations. Do they automatically need what we are exporting? To think that a nation needs what we manufacture just because we need what they manufacture is pretty silly. We’re good at making cars here for example. Afghanistan has a lot of raw materials. Are we to expect them to buy enough cars to equal or exceed what they sell us?

Why America Can't Just Make Everything It Needs

Give it some thought.

A deficit can mean many things, but I would fall short of calling it good. It should be minimized. Why? Because of security, in case of war, you want to be self sufficient, tax revenue which you can more easily get from local production rather than tariffs which are avoidable, or to be more efficient, energy wise.

There's a difference between getting something we absolutely cannot make, and letting a country flood our country with cheap goods because they have no human rights, we have no tariffs.

Consider that most of our deficit is comprised of goods that once were made here, but are now cheaper to make elsewhere. It's cheaper to make elsewhere, in part, because the tariff issue is one way right now. We can't make anything here and export it because tariffs make it too expensive. It/s far cheaper to make it in china, then sell it to us with no tariffs. That's what is happening. Nobody will buy our goods because they have all made it impossible for our goods to compete in their markets. WHile buyers over there might pay more initially, it's our producers who have been eviscerated. The proof is in the pudding.

It's killed our manufacturing centers.

 

[Jerico]

You just said our tariffs have slowed their economy, then you say we are paying for it. We are not. I'm sorry, but we're not.

I think I get your point of view. Really. You think the buyer of the tariffed good is , from an economic point of view, the one who is absorbing the cost of the tariff. I get that. It's naive, but I get it. My point has nothing to do with exchange of dollars though, but you can't seem to see what it is despite my attempts to explain it. I guess we will leave it at that.

No, I said their tariffs have slowed their economy. Our would only slow their economy if we started buying less. That is obviously not happening:

China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

YOu already quoted that. It seems irrelevant to me. So what if China is doing better on trade? We are too. We're doing way better domestically as well.

Also, why say that their tariffs are hurting their economy? That's false. They've had tariffs on us for decades and they've had the fastest growing economy on earth because of it. It's only now that we have also imposed tariffs that they're lagging.

China upset at high US tariffs on steel imports

China is very upset that we are paying more for steel for some reason. Those good samaritans! They must realize, like you, that we're hurting ourselves and are upset because of it.. or maybe it's something else.

You think their economy has been fast growing because of tariffs? That is funny. We don't buy from them because they put tariffs on our goods. How are tariffs helping their economy?

Because their tariffs hurt us more than it hurts them. Pretty simple. LIke our tariffs will hurt them more than us ( what I've been saying all along).

China is built upon having a trade deficit with us. They want to keep our goods out by making it too expensive for us to do business there, and abuse the fact that we have no such protection against their goods. It's been a one way economic robbery for decades.

So you are ignoring they have dirt cheap labor and until recently almost no environmental regulations? You think it's all tariffs? That is very funny.

Nope never ignored that. I've stated repeatedly that no human rights is one issue. You're the one making this about all or nothing arguments. To you it's all the buyer's cost, or all tariffs or all this or all that. It's frustrating. Surely you can atleast admit that I am to a large extent right. I moved on from the buyer after my first post, you're still fixated on that aspect.

 

[Brain357]

No, I said their tariffs have slowed their economy. Our would only slow their economy if we started buying less. That is obviously not happening:

China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

YOu already quoted that. It seems irrelevant to me. So what if China is doing better on trade? We are too. We're doing way better domestically as well.

Also, why say that their tariffs are hurting their economy? That's false. They've had tariffs on us for decades and they've had the fastest growing economy on earth because of it. It's only now that we have also imposed tariffs that they're lagging.

China upset at high US tariffs on steel imports

China is very upset that we are paying more for steel for some reason. Those good samaritans! They must realize, like you, that we're hurting ourselves and are upset because of it.. or maybe it's something else.

You think their economy has been fast growing because of tariffs? That is funny. We don't buy from them because they put tariffs on our goods. How are tariffs helping their economy?

Because their tariffs hurt us more than it hurts them. Pretty simple. LIke our tariffs will hurt them more than us ( what I've been saying all along).

China is built upon having a trade deficit with us. They want to keep our goods out by making it too expensive for us to do business there, and abuse the fact that we have no such protection against their goods. It's been a one way economic robbery for decades.

So you are ignoring they have dirt cheap labor and until recently almost no environmental regulations? You think it's all tariffs? That is very funny.

Nope never ignored that. I've stated repeatedly that no human rights is one issue. You're the one making this about all or nothing arguments. To you it's all the buyer's cost, or all tariffs or all this or all that. It's frustrating. Surely you can atleast admit that I am to a large extent right. I moved on from the buyer after my first post, you're still fixated on that aspect.

I don't think you have been right about anything actually. Not even close.

 

[Jerico]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

 

[Brain357]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

China seems to be doing fine:
China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

 

[Jerico]

YOu already quoted that. It seems irrelevant to me. So what if China is doing better on trade? We are too. We're doing way better domestically as well.

Also, why say that their tariffs are hurting their economy? That's false. They've had tariffs on us for decades and they've had the fastest growing economy on earth because of it. It's only now that we have also imposed tariffs that they're lagging.

China upset at high US tariffs on steel imports

China is very upset that we are paying more for steel for some reason. Those good samaritans! They must realize, like you, that we're hurting ourselves and are upset because of it.. or maybe it's something else.

You think their economy has been fast growing because of tariffs? That is funny. We don't buy from them because they put tariffs on our goods. How are tariffs helping their economy?

Because their tariffs hurt us more than it hurts them. Pretty simple. LIke our tariffs will hurt them more than us ( what I've been saying all along).

China is built upon having a trade deficit with us. They want to keep our goods out by making it too expensive for us to do business there, and abuse the fact that we have no such protection against their goods. It's been a one way economic robbery for decades.

So you are ignoring they have dirt cheap labor and until recently almost no environmental regulations? You think it's all tariffs? That is very funny.

Nope never ignored that. I've stated repeatedly that no human rights is one issue. You're the one making this about all or nothing arguments. To you it's all the buyer's cost, or all tariffs or all this or all that. It's frustrating. Surely you can atleast admit that I am to a large extent right. I moved on from the buyer after my first post, you're still fixated on that aspect.

I don't think you have been right about anything actually. Not even close.

Like wise, bro, like wise. I'm pretty sure we're arguing about whether the drapes are purple or burgundy. Maybe I'm biased, but I think you are not seeing at all what I'm even talking about. I understand that you are viewing this from the point of view as a guy pulling a $20 out of his wallet to buy chinese steel now has to pull out $24, but that has nothing to do with this. There are far deeper mechanics at work here.

 

[Brain357]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

The importer pays the tariff, it's another tax. Both economies are hurt.

 

[Jerico]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

The importer pays the tariff, it's another tax. Both economies are hurt.

Atleast now you went from saying I'm wrong to admitting I am, in fact, right. If both countries hurt, then that means it's not all on the buyer isn't it? Let's agree now and end this discussion.

 

[Brain357]

You think their economy has been fast growing because of tariffs? That is funny. We don't buy from them because they put tariffs on our goods. How are tariffs helping their economy?

Because their tariffs hurt us more than it hurts them. Pretty simple. LIke our tariffs will hurt them more than us ( what I've been saying all along).

China is built upon having a trade deficit with us. They want to keep our goods out by making it too expensive for us to do business there, and abuse the fact that we have no such protection against their goods. It's been a one way economic robbery for decades.

So you are ignoring they have dirt cheap labor and until recently almost no environmental regulations? You think it's all tariffs? That is very funny.

Nope never ignored that. I've stated repeatedly that no human rights is one issue. You're the one making this about all or nothing arguments. To you it's all the buyer's cost, or all tariffs or all this or all that. It's frustrating. Surely you can atleast admit that I am to a large extent right. I moved on from the buyer after my first post, you're still fixated on that aspect.

I don't think you have been right about anything actually. Not even close.

Like wise, bro, like wise. I'm pressure sure we're arguing about whether the drapes are purple or burgundy. Maybe I'm biased, but I think you are not seeing at all what I'm even talking about. I understand that you are viewing this from the point of view as a guy pulling a $20 out of his wallet to buy chinese steel now has to pull out $24, but that has nothing to do with this. There are far deeper mechanics at work here.

You realize that if we are now paying more for steel because of tariffs, our exports that use steel go down because they are now more expensive?

 

[Jerico]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

China seems to be doing fine:
China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

Yes, that's the third time you've pasted that. So how does this disprove what I'e said all along? How does this disprove that reducing the trade deficit can offset the cost of trump's wall?

This is just going in circles.

 

[Jerico]

Because their tariffs hurt us more than it hurts them. Pretty simple. LIke our tariffs will hurt them more than us ( what I've been saying all along).

China is built upon having a trade deficit with us. They want to keep our goods out by making it too expensive for us to do business there, and abuse the fact that we have no such protection against their goods. It's been a one way economic robbery for decades.

So you are ignoring they have dirt cheap labor and until recently almost no environmental regulations? You think it's all tariffs? That is very funny.

Nope never ignored that. I've stated repeatedly that no human rights is one issue. You're the one making this about all or nothing arguments. To you it's all the buyer's cost, or all tariffs or all this or all that. It's frustrating. Surely you can atleast admit that I am to a large extent right. I moved on from the buyer after my first post, you're still fixated on that aspect.

I don't think you have been right about anything actually. Not even close.

Like wise, bro, like wise. I'm pressure sure we're arguing about whether the drapes are purple or burgundy. Maybe I'm biased, but I think you are not seeing at all what I'm even talking about. I understand that you are viewing this from the point of view as a guy pulling a $20 out of his wallet to buy chinese steel now has to pull out $24, but that has nothing to do with this. There are far deeper mechanics at work here.

You realize that if we are now paying more for steel because of tariffs, our exports that use steel go down because they are now more expensive?

yeah ofcourse, but not by nearly the same margin as you make it seem. A 20% tariff on chinese steel does not cause all steel to go up 20%. So it's china who is getting screwed by the full 20% tariff, our buyers will average out to a much lower cost increase. I also am not suggesting that is all there is to it. Obviously there are dozens of variables at play. That's why I take issue with the notion that we can just put it all on the buyer and call that a good answer.

it's also why China is more upset than domestic steel consumers. They're happy with this because in the long run it will make steel cheaper and easier to get domestically even if it inflates costs by a few points in the short term.

 

[Brain357]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

The importer pays the tariff, it's another tax. Both economies are hurt.

Atleast now you went from saying I'm wrong to admitting I am, in fact, right. If both countries hurt, then that means it's not all on the buyer isn't it? Let's agree now and end this discussion.

The importer pays the tariff. It really depends on the size of the tariff now doesn't it? Our economy is hurt for sure because we are now paying more for goods. So far China isn't hurt because they have been shipping a record number to us. Now if the tariffs get big enough to slow China imports then they would be hurt, but less than us.

 

[Brain357]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

China seems to be doing fine:
China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

Yes, that's the third time you've pasted that. So how does this disprove what I'e said all along? How does this disprove that reducing the trade deficit can offset the cost of trump's wall?

This is just going in circles.

You seem to be claiming the tariffs are hurting China, that clearly is not currently the case. For it to hurt them their exports to us would have to go down, it is increasing. Meanwhile paying more for Chinese goods certainly hurts us.

 

[Brain357]

So you are ignoring they have dirt cheap labor and until recently almost no environmental regulations? You think it's all tariffs? That is very funny.

Nope never ignored that. I've stated repeatedly that no human rights is one issue. You're the one making this about all or nothing arguments. To you it's all the buyer's cost, or all tariffs or all this or all that. It's frustrating. Surely you can atleast admit that I am to a large extent right. I moved on from the buyer after my first post, you're still fixated on that aspect.

I don't think you have been right about anything actually. Not even close.

Like wise, bro, like wise. I'm pressure sure we're arguing about whether the drapes are purple or burgundy. Maybe I'm biased, but I think you are not seeing at all what I'm even talking about. I understand that you are viewing this from the point of view as a guy pulling a $20 out of his wallet to buy chinese steel now has to pull out $24, but that has nothing to do with this. There are far deeper mechanics at work here.

You realize that if we are now paying more for steel because of tariffs, our exports that use steel go down because they are now more expensive?

yeah ofcourse, but not by nearly the same margin as you make it seem. A 20% tariff on chinese steel does not cause all steel to go up 20%. So it's china who is getting screwed by the full 20% tariff, our buyers will average out to a much lower cost increase. I also am not suggesting that is all there is to it. Obviously there are dozens of variables at play. That's why I take issue with the notion that we can just put it all on the buyer and call that a good answer.

it's also why China is more upset than domestic steel consumers. They're happy with this because in the long run it will make steel cheaper and easier to get domestically even if it inflates costs by a few points in the short term.

China is only hurt if we buy less of their steel. Given their trade surplus is increasing I see no reason to believe that is happening.

 

[Jerico]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

China seems to be doing fine:
China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

Yes, that's the third time you've pasted that. So how does this disprove what I'e said all along? How does this disprove that reducing the trade deficit can offset the cost of trump's wall?

This is just going in circles.

You seem to be claiming the tariffs are hurting China, that clearly is not currently the case. For it to hurt them their exports to us would have to go down, it is increasing. Meanwhile paying more for Chinese goods certainly hurts us.

Why? Why must they go down? If they don't go down that means we're making money now whereas without tariffs we wouldn't be. That's wall money dude.

Also, as I said, there are way too many variables to make that statement. Just because China has a larger surplus doesn't mean the tariffs aren't working. The goal isn't to make China's trade surplus go down, it's to reduce or offset our deficits. China is just one country, these tariffs were just put into effect. Give our steel industry time to rekindle itself then we will see.

None of this is relevant to the goal of the tariffs. We aren't doing it to hurt china, we're doing it to reduce the damage their tariffs do to our producers.

 

[Jerico]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

China seems to be doing fine:
China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

Yes, that's the third time you've pasted that. So how does this disprove what I'e said all along? How does this disprove that reducing the trade deficit can offset the cost of trump's wall?

This is just going in circles.

You seem to be claiming the tariffs are hurting China, that clearly is not currently the case. For it to hurt them their exports to us would have to go down, it is increasing. Meanwhile paying more for Chinese goods certainly hurts us.

No, I never claimed that. I said their tariffs are hurting us because it's a one way road. We are beginning to counter their tariffs with our own. The endgoal is to reduce the deficit. That won't happen overnight, and just because China's trade surprlus with us went up doesn't mean much. Our demand has also gone way up. For many businesses their growth in our strengthened economy outweighs the tariff. There's nothing wrong with this.

 

[Brain357]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

China seems to be doing fine:
China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

Yes, that's the third time you've pasted that. So how does this disprove what I'e said all along? How does this disprove that reducing the trade deficit can offset the cost of trump's wall?

This is just going in circles.

You seem to be claiming the tariffs are hurting China, that clearly is not currently the case. For it to hurt them their exports to us would have to go down, it is increasing. Meanwhile paying more for Chinese goods certainly hurts us.

Why? Why must they go down? If they don't go down that means we're making money now whereas without tariffs we wouldn't be. That's wall money dude.

Also, as I said, there are way too many variables to make that statement. Just because China has a larger surplus doesn't mean the tariffs aren't working. The goal isn't to make China's trade surplus go down, it's to reduce or offset our deficits. China is just one country, these tariffs were just put into effect. Give our steel industry time to rekindle itself then we will see.

None of this is relevant to the goal of the tariffs. We aren't doing it to hurt china, we're doing it to reduce the damage their tariffs do to our producers.

We pay the tariffs. China is only affected if their production goes down. Given their surplus that is not the case.

 

[Brain357]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

China seems to be doing fine:
China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

Yes, that's the third time you've pasted that. So how does this disprove what I'e said all along? How does this disprove that reducing the trade deficit can offset the cost of trump's wall?

This is just going in circles.

You seem to be claiming the tariffs are hurting China, that clearly is not currently the case. For it to hurt them their exports to us would have to go down, it is increasing. Meanwhile paying more for Chinese goods certainly hurts us.

No, I never claimed that. I said their tariffs are hurting us because it's a one way road. We are beginning to counter their tariffs with our own. The endgoal is to reduce the deficit. That won't happen overnight, and just because China's trade surprlus with us went up doesn't mean much. Our demand has also gone way up. For many businesses their growth in our strengthened economy outweighs the tariff. There's nothing wrong with this.

What is it you think we are going to start selling more of to China?

 

[Jerico]

Seriously. I'm done with this discussion.

Let's just recap.

You think that the buyer bears the sole cost of tariffs.

I gave examples of why that's wrong( or atleast only naively true because you aren't technically wrong per se..). Proof being that as we have raised tariffs, other countries are very upset about it. This proves to you, if you go and ready any economic papers, that tariffs do infact cost more to the exporter than the buyer. They are a tool used by the importer, after all.

You can also see that just about every other country puts tariffs on our goods. They do this to keep our products off their shelves. This would not be the effect if the cost were not borne by our suppliers. Clearly our suppliers DO NOT like other countries tariffs. It means that to suggest only buyers are harmed is far from a complete answer.

I also said that we can use tariffs to build the wall. Originally, and I admitted this long ago, I made it seem like I was talking about THEIR tariffs. No, I am talking about OUR tariffs which are being used to reduce the trade deficit. Whether it's income from those tariffs as a tax, or the tax gained from increased local production, I said we can use that funding to counter the cost of the wall.

You, and others, disagreed with me because you made this about the technicality that the buyer is the one actually paying the cost. This was not, and never will be my point. In case you were confused about where I stand, please reread all my posts. I am NOT trying to say you are wrong merely for saying the buyer pays the tariff cost. Obviously, if there is no buyer, there is no tariff. My point is that the one who ends up paying for it, without doubt, is the exporter who WILL, absolutely lose valuation equal to the cost of the Tariff. This is why nobody but our suppliers are happy we are using Tariffs. To suggest that the buyer is the one who is screwed IS what is wrong with your point of view.

Buyers can get goods from other suppliers who are not tariffed. Sure, the cost overall WILL go up slightly because SOME of the supply cost has gone up, but the real loser here is the exporter as can be seen by just going out and actually reading about how these tariffs work and who is pissing their pants over them. Hint. It's not our buyers.

So, any questions?

China seems to be doing fine:
China's trade surplus with US grows to new record in August, adding fuel to trade war fire

Yes, that's the third time you've pasted that. So how does this disprove what I'e said all along? How does this disprove that reducing the trade deficit can offset the cost of trump's wall?

This is just going in circles.

You seem to be claiming the tariffs are hurting China, that clearly is not currently the case. For it to hurt them their exports to us would have to go down, it is increasing. Meanwhile paying more for Chinese goods certainly hurts us.

Why? Why must they go down? If they don't go down that means we're making money now whereas without tariffs we wouldn't be. That's wall money dude.

Also, as I said, there are way too many variables to make that statement. Just because China has a larger surplus doesn't mean the tariffs aren't working. The goal isn't to make China's trade surplus go down, it's to reduce or offset our deficits. China is just one country, these tariffs were just put into effect. Give our steel industry time to rekindle itself then we will see.

None of this is relevant to the goal of the tariffs. We aren't doing it to hurt china, we're doing it to reduce the damage their tariffs do to our producers.

We pay the tariffs. China is only affected if their production goes down. Given their surplus that is not the case.

I don't care what happens to China. I only care what happens to us. If people keep buying from china, great. It means that the tariffs are generating revenue that can offset taxes. If they don't, great, it means they're buying domestically made steel or they found a cheaper option. This is win/win. China doesn't have to get screwed for us to not be screwed. They've been cheating the whole "free trade" mantra for long enough. They're just spoiled and upset that we're fighting fire with fire.

I will take tariffs over taxes any day. Taxes are often unavoidable while tariffs are a business decision. I'm more a fan of having a choice than not and tariffs give us a choice where taxes don't.

If done right, it means that the tariffs generated will pay for things like the wall, and reduce the trade deficit. What's not to like about this?