Trump's trade war with China

[Harpy Eagle]

China has a trade surplus with every nation it trades with, and for good reason.

In contrast, New Zealand sold more to China than it bought in return, resulting in the biggest trade surplus of any trading partner at $5.1 billion.
New Zealand trade in the red with EU, in the black with China | Stats NZ​

I should have said “most every”, my bad

 

[cnm]

Yeah, those economists should go into the working class bars in the rust belt and explain that to the people there.

Would it really kill the USA to redistribute a bit of wealth to compensate for changes in economies? Apparently so, and it is China's responsibility to look after US workers.

 

[cnm]

China has a trade surplus with every nation it trades with, and for good reason.

In contrast, New Zealand sold more to China than it bought in return, resulting in the biggest trade surplus of any trading partner at $5.1 billion.
New Zealand trade in the red with EU, in the black with China | Stats NZ​

I should have said “most every”, my bad

But your essential point is spot on. My last three folding knives have been of Chinese manufacture. They can now deliver a quality of knife that would cost three times as much if bought from America.

 

[easyt65]

As Feinstein was caught betraying her country - engaging in facilitation of Chinese Espionage against the United States - Obama surrendered to China. He openly declared the factories and jobs that had left the United States - due in large part to his record-setting number of oppressive, business-killing regulations - were gone forever, never coming back, and the loss of all those jobs were the 'new norm'....

President Trump changed that by fighting back rather than accepting defeat / surrender...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

China has a trade surplus with every nation it trades with, and for good reason.

In contrast, New Zealand sold more to China than it bought in return, resulting in the biggest trade surplus of any trading partner at $5.1 billion.
New Zealand trade in the red with EU, in the black with China | Stats NZ​

I should have said “most every”, my bad

But your essential point is spot on. My last three folding knives have been of Chinese manufacture. They can now deliver a quality of knife that would cost three times as much if bought from America.

Plus everyone on this forum whining about China uses a cellphone made in China and is typing on a computer mostly of Chinese make.

 

[cnm]

uses a cellphone made in China and is typing on a computer mostly of Chinese make

#metoo

 

[Brain357]

You must give Obama a lot of credit since most if it is his.

There's the irony. Now I don't give Obama credit for the economy Trump inherited, but deficits were declining and tax receipts gaining, and he did have at least some control over that. BUT EVEN TRUMP said he had to take on Jina while the economy was strong enough to sustain the growth killing aspect of tariffs. He didn't put enough pain on Jina to get it done in time though, and probably he screwed himself in bitching about Nato and in general being pissy to Europe instead of pushing their similar complaints on China to get a "coalition."

But by his own estimation, he was using the strong economy because Americans wouldn't feel the pain.

Nobody wins a trade war. Both sides suffer.

Funny, that Xi doesn't seem to know that.

How do you mean? Both sides seem to be losing.

Exactly. So why is he fighting? Just let Trump and America have the little pieces of paper. It's not big deal, right?

We are the ones fighting.

 

[Brain357]

Got it. You are citing the US longest lasting economic expansion ever, at over TEN ******* YEARS, as proof of a trade policy failure.


Bold move, citing a massive success as evidence of failure.


You lose.

The trade policy in place prior to Trump is what brought us the economic expansion of TEN ******* YEARS, Yet all your Trump worshipers say we have to change because the trade policies were to terrible.

My concern is about the underlying trend in wages and jobs for the American workers, more than the current expansion.


Expansions come and go, but for the last 50 years, wages have lagged, especially at the lower end, and that needs addressed.

I think that problem isn't trade, it is more to do with the decline in Unions. Manufacturing jobs paid well because of unions, not because manufacturing is such a hard or skilled job. The service industry needs unions.

Unions were at least partially responsible for so many jobs leaving the country, they priced themselves out of being competitive.

Yet, when manufacturing moved to non union plants, and wages fell, we still werent' competitive for some reason.


AND, it seems that places like Germany, manage have high wages and still manage to be "competitive".

Lots of unions in Germany. CEOs aren’t making insane amounts of money either. Our Corp profits go to execs and investors. Workers get little.

 

[Brain357]

Cutting military spending won’t help us out of recession,

Correct. I was agreeing with your point about spending a lot during an expansion, what to do when the cycle turns and you are in a recession.

If we had reduced commitments/spending over the LAST 10 years of growth, then we would have lower spending now, that could be increased then.

Yes if we had good leadership that would have happened. Trump chose not to. Obama was clearly not good for the debt, but Trump increased his deficits during a strong economy. He's probably spending to cover up the damage done by his trade war.

Agreed. Both Trump and Obama. And before that. All of them.


Since the end of the Cold War, we have been just coasting, sticking with massive and expensive commitments, that were made to stop World Communism, but now serve no purpose.


Both Bill Clinton and GHWBush, imo, deserve the lion's share of that blame.

You have lost me there. GHW Bush was a pretty forgettable president. Clinton decreased deficits and ended with a surplus. Now the younger Bush increased deficits and entered us in 2 wars so that's the most to blame.

Sorry, I meant Bill Clinton and GWBush.

Clinton deadlocked with a republican congress ended with lower deficits and a PROJECTED surplus.

HE also presided over NATO expansion, one of the worst ideas ever.

GWBush continued in the same path, without a hint of noticing that the Cold War was over.

Clinton has been the best president for debt. I’m not sure nato expansion is such a big deal. Other than the stupid war GW started the world has had lots of peace. GW policy ruined the projected surplus.

 

[Brain357]

Democrats and snowflakes want the nation to surrender to China....

So you want China to stop sending us their resources for next to nothing?

 

[cnm]

Our Corp profits go to execs and investors. Workers get little.

China's fault.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

“If I wanted to do nothing with China, my stock market — our stock market — would be 10,000 points higher than it is right now. But somebody had to do this. To me this is much more important than the economy,” our President said today.

Good Lord!

"Somebody had to do this." Why? We have the hottest economy the world has ever known. We have virtual full employment. The trade deficit is normal. Wealthier Americans buy more than the Chinese people. Our economy is 20% larger than China.

What is the freaking problem Trump is trying to solve? He has never answered that question. He just has said he is the "chosen one" who had deal with China.

That is typical Trumpian. Create a problem where none exists.

With a 237 point advance today, the Dow is still less than what it was in January 2018. Trump's trade war with China began in March 2018.

One person is pleased about the weakening of our economy -- Vladimir Putin, the communist dictator of Russia, Trump's mentor.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

“If I wanted to do nothing with China, my stock market — our stock market — would be 10,000 points higher than it is right now. But somebody had to do this. To me this is much more important than the economy,” our President said today.

The Post writes, "Trump has made three key concessions in the past few weeks on matters he had earlier denied or deflected: American companies pay the tariffs on the goods they import; those costs can be passed on to consumers; and those increased costs can lead to an economic slowdown. [Finally, he tells his base the truth. Everyone else knew the truth.]

"Trump has tethered his job performance as president to the stock market and regularly criticized his predecessors when stock market performance was poor.

"For months, Trump blamed the Federal Reserve for the slowing of U.S. economic growth and for the volatility in U.S. markets."

“If [the Fed] would have not done the quantitative tightening, our market would have been up another 10,000 points,” Trump said in June.

That was all a lie. Now Trump has admitted it.

 

[Correll]

Short term pain to deal with a long term injury.

What does China have to give up in order for you to consider the pain worthwhile?

Jobs.

You are going to be so sadly disappointed

Possibly.

If we don't benefit from this trade, why should we do it at all?

We do benefit from this trade, that is why we are 10 years into economic expansion.

The macro economic numbers have hidden a number of costs that have accumulated to the point that this is no longer sustainable.

Please don't act like this is the first time you have heard this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What does China have to give up in order for you to consider the pain worthwhile?

Jobs.

You are going to be so sadly disappointed

Possibly.

If we don't benefit from this trade, why should we do it at all?

We do benefit from this trade, that is why we are 10 years into economic expansion.

The macro economic numbers have hidden a number of costs that have accumulated to the point that this is no longer sustainable.

Please don't act like this is the first time you have heard this.

I have heard it 1000 times from you, and it is still bull shit

 

[Correll]

Possibly. If we don't benefit from this trade, why should we do it at all?

China has been waging this war on the United States for decades, stealing our Intellectual Property, robbing, cheating us, using the money to build up their military....but you say if there is no 'win' for the American people it is not worth fighting the Chinese in this Economic WAR, suggesting it is better to surrender and keep the status quo.



This type of thinking is proof that many people just don't get 'it' - what is really going on, what is at stake.

Diane Feinstein and her husband sold out this country to the Chinese decades ago for hundreds of millions of dollars....Democrats are trying to convince as many Americans as possible that they should just surrender / sell out to the Chinese as well except only for the benefit of getting cheap sh!t.

Defending this country, winning this war & protecting our freedoms, to them / snowflakes, is not worth the horrendous torture of having to pay a little more things.



.

The Free Traders, at least have an ideology based reason for their actions, with the overall good of the nation as the goal. EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG, they at least believe in what they say.



The rest of these guys, the more you push, the more evasive and circular their reasoning gets.


At some level, they know they are defending something indefensible. But they can never admit why.

 

[Correll]

Yeah, those economists should go into the working class bars in the rust belt and explain that to the people there.

Would it really kill the USA to redistribute a bit of wealth to compensate for changes in economies? Apparently so, and it is China's responsibility to look after US workers.

1. You would like to see all those people, just being dependent on the government would you not? So, is that what this is about? Reducing the working class to the Dole?


2. Asking the AMERICAN government to have trade policy to serve the interests of AMERICAN WORKERS, instead of CHINESE WORKERS, is sane. What you said there, pretending that I am asking chinese government to take care of American workers, was ******* bullshit. Don't be an asshole.




3. The current status qou, while good for corporations and macroeconomic growth, has been devastating to the American worker, and put tremendous pressure on generations of American families and communities.

 

[Correll]

There's the irony. Now I don't give Obama credit for the economy Trump inherited, but deficits were declining and tax receipts gaining, and he did have at least some control over that. BUT EVEN TRUMP said he had to take on Jina while the economy was strong enough to sustain the growth killing aspect of tariffs. He didn't put enough pain on Jina to get it done in time though, and probably he screwed himself in bitching about Nato and in general being pissy to Europe instead of pushing their similar complaints on China to get a "coalition."

But by his own estimation, he was using the strong economy because Americans wouldn't feel the pain.

Nobody wins a trade war. Both sides suffer.

Funny, that Xi doesn't seem to know that.

How do you mean? Both sides seem to be losing.

Exactly. So why is he fighting? Just let Trump and America have the little pieces of paper. It's not big deal, right?

We are the ones fighting.

He is fighting "back" as you said.


If it is just "little pieces of paper", why is he fighting FOR that? Just give US what Trump wants, and 5 years down the road when nothing changes, he can laugh at Trump and America and humiliate US in front of the world.

 

[Correll]

The trade policy in place prior to Trump is what brought us the economic expansion of TEN ******* YEARS, Yet all your Trump worshipers say we have to change because the trade policies were to terrible.

My concern is about the underlying trend in wages and jobs for the American workers, more than the current expansion.


Expansions come and go, but for the last 50 years, wages have lagged, especially at the lower end, and that needs addressed.

I think that problem isn't trade, it is more to do with the decline in Unions. Manufacturing jobs paid well because of unions, not because manufacturing is such a hard or skilled job. The service industry needs unions.

Unions were at least partially responsible for so many jobs leaving the country, they priced themselves out of being competitive.

Yet, when manufacturing moved to non union plants, and wages fell, we still werent' competitive for some reason.


AND, it seems that places like Germany, manage have high wages and still manage to be "competitive".

Lots of unions in Germany. CEOs aren’t making insane amounts of money either. Our Corp profits go to execs and investors. Workers get little.

How would you go about supporting your claim, that ceo wages and profit taking are the CAUSES of lower wages?

 

[Correll]

Correct. I was agreeing with your point about spending a lot during an expansion, what to do when the cycle turns and you are in a recession.

If we had reduced commitments/spending over the LAST 10 years of growth, then we would have lower spending now, that could be increased then.

Yes if we had good leadership that would have happened. Trump chose not to. Obama was clearly not good for the debt, but Trump increased his deficits during a strong economy. He's probably spending to cover up the damage done by his trade war.

Agreed. Both Trump and Obama. And before that. All of them.


Since the end of the Cold War, we have been just coasting, sticking with massive and expensive commitments, that were made to stop World Communism, but now serve no purpose.


Both Bill Clinton and GHWBush, imo, deserve the lion's share of that blame.

You have lost me there. GHW Bush was a pretty forgettable president. Clinton decreased deficits and ended with a surplus. Now the younger Bush increased deficits and entered us in 2 wars so that's the most to blame.

Sorry, I meant Bill Clinton and GWBush.

Clinton deadlocked with a republican congress ended with lower deficits and a PROJECTED surplus.

HE also presided over NATO expansion, one of the worst ideas ever.

GWBush continued in the same path, without a hint of noticing that the Cold War was over.

Clinton has been the best president for debt. I’m not sure nato expansion is such a big deal. Other than the stupid war GW started the world has had lots of peace. GW policy ruined the projected surplus.

1. My wife loves to point out to me that the ONLY time, in the modern era we have seen progress on the deficit, has been with DEADLOCK. Neither party seems to have any ability to restrain spending when they have control, it is only when control is split that either side seems to remember how to say "no".



2. The Cold War is over. The next logical step is to reduce or end Cold War commitments that require massive military might to meet, such as defending Western Europe. Instead of doing that, we have made the job BIGGER, because now we have to defend ******* ESTONIA.


You want to spend less on defense, we have to commit to defend less.


3. I like the way that you dont' give Saddam or Iraq as a nation, any moral responsibility for their actions, like they are children. Very racist of you.