Trump's Trade WarS

[bendog]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

 

[forkup]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

Not for nothing trade deficits as an indication of "unfair" trade practices is a very one dimensional way of looking at it. It's also in the case of the US also not the negative influence as one might expect. The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit
The US naturally developed a trade deficit because of both the wealth of it's citizens and an incredible drive to consume. Consumption that those citizens want to do as cheaply as possible. I have a question what does a "win" mean for the US? Does it mean the US will stop consuming cheap products? Does it mean that China goes bankrupt? How would you define a "win"?

 

[Some Guy]

Tariff = tax. So hey, if you're into higher taxes, then i can see why you'd be into tariffs. Making it harder to do business with people outside your country just makes everything more expensive for everyone involved. It's dumb.

 

[bendog]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

Not for nothing trade deficits as an indication of "unfair" trade practices is a very one dimensional way of looking at it. It's also in the case of the US also not the negative influence as one might expect. The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit
The US naturally developed a trade deficit because of both the wealth of it's citizens and an incredible drive to consume. Consumption that those citizens want to do as cheaply as possible. I have a question what does a "win" mean for the US? Does it mean the US will stop consuming cheap products? Does it mean that China goes bankrupt? How would you define a "win"?

A win would be China floated the yung and opened it's markets to for capital and goods. That's not going to happen it totality. But Munchkin tried to head off the tariffs by proposing Jina cut the deficit to 200 billion or so. Trump distrusted the deal and went with his tariffs.

Jina also fundamentally looks at intellectual property law differently than do we.

I think you misunderstood my post. The people who buy their kids' back to school clothes at Walmart and pig farmers will bear the brunt of the US costs of the war.

 

[bendog]

Tariff = tax. So hey, if you're into higher taxes, then i can see why you'd be into tariffs. Making it harder to do business with people outside your country just makes everything more expensive for everyone involved. It's dumb.

Trumpenomics appears to rest on the assumption that making goods cost more for US consumers will cause US capital to invest in making those goods at the higher prices, which will employ more Americans and higher wages.

However, if goods are more expensive, people may consume less.

And Jina today is continuing to devalue the yung. Which will make their exports cheaper for us and out exports more expensive for them.

 

[Siete]

preach no tax fair trade to the world then show how F'n schitzo you are..

GOOD JOB DONNIE.

 

[forkup]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

Not for nothing trade deficits as an indication of "unfair" trade practices is a very one dimensional way of looking at it. It's also in the case of the US also not the negative influence as one might expect. The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit
The US naturally developed a trade deficit because of both the wealth of it's citizens and an incredible drive to consume. Consumption that those citizens want to do as cheaply as possible. I have a question what does a "win" mean for the US? Does it mean the US will stop consuming cheap products? Does it mean that China goes bankrupt? How would you define a "win"?

A win would be China floated the yung and opened it's markets to for capital and goods. That's not going to happen it totality. But Munchkin tried to head off the tariffs by proposing Jina cut the deficit to 200 billion or so. Trump distrusted the deal and went with his tariffs.

Jina also fundamentally looks at intellectual property law differently than do we.

I think you misunderstood my post. The people who buy their kids' back to school clothes at Walmart and pig farmers will bear the brunt of the US costs of the war.

How I took your post is that you think the US is justified for imposing tariffs and that doing so will force China to give in to the US's demands, because they will hurt more then the US. I'm claiming that line of thinking is both wrong (trade deficits aren't caused by unfair trade practices) and doesn't take in all the consequences.
-Let's just assume you are right and that China will hurt more. This still means that US consumers will hurt themselves and for what? So China will honor intellectual property? Devaluating their currency is a possible solution to alleviate the problems these tariffs cause because that makes exporting more attractive by their point of view so they won't stop it. Trump is using a bazooka to shoot a mosquito that isn't even the cause of the real problems. Because make no mistake, free trade is not going to stop. People aren't going to be willing to pay the prices that will be charged if you do. And even if they would be willing they won't be able to afford it.

 

[bendog]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

Not for nothing trade deficits as an indication of "unfair" trade practices is a very one dimensional way of looking at it. It's also in the case of the US also not the negative influence as one might expect. The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit
The US naturally developed a trade deficit because of both the wealth of it's citizens and an incredible drive to consume. Consumption that those citizens want to do as cheaply as possible. I have a question what does a "win" mean for the US? Does it mean the US will stop consuming cheap products? Does it mean that China goes bankrupt? How would you define a "win"?

A win would be China floated the yung and opened it's markets to for capital and goods. That's not going to happen it totality. But Munchkin tried to head off the tariffs by proposing Jina cut the deficit to 200 billion or so. Trump distrusted the deal and went with his tariffs.

Jina also fundamentally looks at intellectual property law differently than do we.

I think you misunderstood my post. The people who buy their kids' back to school clothes at Walmart and pig farmers will bear the brunt of the US costs of the war.

How I took your post is that you think the US is justified for imposing tariffs and that doing so will force China to give in to the US's demands, because they will hurt more then the US. I'm claiming that line of thinking is both wrong (trade deficits aren't caused by unfair trade practices) and doesn't take in all the consequences.
-Let's just assume you are right and that China will hurt more. This still means that US consumers will hurt themselves and for what? So China will honor intellectual property? Devaluating their currency is a possible solution to alleviate the problems these tariffs cause because that makes exporting more attractive by their point of view so they won't stop it. Trump is using a bazooka to shoot a mosquito that isn't even the cause of the real problems. Because make no mistake, free trade is not going to stop. People aren't going to be willing to pay the prices that will be charged if you do. And even if they would be willing they won't be able to afford it.

Of course the US is justified for doing "something" about China's closed markets, dumping and currency manipulation.

Trump is not using a 'bazooka." He is selectively targeting sectors in not just China but also the EU. If you factor in products our corps make in the EU and what they make here, there isn't much of a trade imbalance with the EU. Trump's motives with the EU may be partially based upon his personal dislikes, perhaps from past grievances or perceptions of disrespect, or he may be doing Putin's bidding, or a combination. But since the EU takes world trade organization disputes seriously, we had a means to redress out complaints.

Trump is also selectively letting out sectors of China. Perhaps not coinicidentally those include where his family makes money.

If he really wanted to take on China every dollar of that 550billion surpulus would have a tariff. And if the yung goes down, the tariff goes up.

But with all tariffs, even if all goods from china are targeted, only some sectors of the US will be affected. Textiles will be more expensive, and our farmers will get lower prices, for example. Oil prices may go up, but not because of China. Iran and possibly the EU. Americans will only tolerate pain for a short time.

 

[fncceo]

Tariff = tax. So hey, if you're into higher taxes, then i can see why you'd be into tariffs. Making it harder to do business with people outside your country just makes everything more expensive for everyone involved. It's dumb.

I'm all for higher taxes... on other people.

Maybe I am a Democrat?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

There is no reason there has to be a winner in a trade war, most likely all sides will come out worse than they went in.

One more casualty of the trade war

Too Much Pork, Tariffs Mean Too Few Buyers • farmdoc daily

 

[bendog]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

There is no reason there has to be a winner in a trade war, most likely all sides will come out worse than they went in.

One more casualty of the trade war

Too Much Pork, Tariffs Mean Too Few Buyers • farmdoc daily

Yeah. I agree. It's just that given the size of the trade deficit, China probably has more to lose. And the communist party's claim to legitimacy is that it's managing the economy to create growth.

It's just that it seems to me that Trump is taking on too many "wars" and the US will accept a limited amount of pain. And of course, he's never shown that he can focus on something longterm. He builds, he goes bankrupt, he sells, and repeat.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One thing everyone needs to do is quit talking about "fair" and "unfair", those are child's concepts that we tell our children to make them feel better, they have no place in the adult world. Fair is always in the eye of the beholder, and I am pretty sure that China and Canada think they are being fair.

Trade deals should be mutually beneficial, both sides should come out the other side of them better off than they were.

The US is 108 months into the 2nd longest period of economic expansion in the history of our country and currently have more open positions than people to fill them.

Seems we have indeed benefited.

 

[otto105]

Tariff = tax. So hey, if you're into higher taxes, then i can see why you'd be into tariffs. Making it harder to do business with people outside your country just makes everything more expensive for everyone involved. It's dumb.

I'm all for higher taxes... on other people.

Maybe I am a Democrat?

Nope, a libertarian.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

There is no reason there has to be a winner in a trade war, most likely all sides will come out worse than they went in.

One more casualty of the trade war

Too Much Pork, Tariffs Mean Too Few Buyers • farmdoc daily

Yeah. I agree. It's just that given the size of the trade deficit, China probably has more to lose. And the communist party's claim to legitimacy is that it's managing the economy to create growth.

And the Chinese government will use this "attack" by the US as a way to appease the people for a time should that growth slow. Remember, China has a Socialist Market Economy, their Central government has much more control over their economy than we want ours to have. I for one am not willing to cede that much power in the name of a "trade war'.

It's just that it seems to me that Trump is taking on too many "wars" and the US will accept a limited amount of pain. And of course, he's never shown that he can focus on something longterm. He builds, he goes bankrupt, he sells, and repeat.

The problem is when he bankrupts the country there will be nobody there to bail him out like they did when he bankrupted his company. Or maybe there will and that is all part of the plan, to knock the US down a few pegs closer to the rest of the world.

 

[forkup]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

Not for nothing trade deficits as an indication of "unfair" trade practices is a very one dimensional way of looking at it. It's also in the case of the US also not the negative influence as one might expect. The Pros & Cons of a Trade Deficit
The US naturally developed a trade deficit because of both the wealth of it's citizens and an incredible drive to consume. Consumption that those citizens want to do as cheaply as possible. I have a question what does a "win" mean for the US? Does it mean the US will stop consuming cheap products? Does it mean that China goes bankrupt? How would you define a "win"?

A win would be China floated the yung and opened it's markets to for capital and goods. That's not going to happen it totality. But Munchkin tried to head off the tariffs by proposing Jina cut the deficit to 200 billion or so. Trump distrusted the deal and went with his tariffs.

Jina also fundamentally looks at intellectual property law differently than do we.

I think you misunderstood my post. The people who buy their kids' back to school clothes at Walmart and pig farmers will bear the brunt of the US costs of the war.

How I took your post is that you think the US is justified for imposing tariffs and that doing so will force China to give in to the US's demands, because they will hurt more then the US. I'm claiming that line of thinking is both wrong (trade deficits aren't caused by unfair trade practices) and doesn't take in all the consequences.
-Let's just assume you are right and that China will hurt more. This still means that US consumers will hurt themselves and for what? So China will honor intellectual property? Devaluating their currency is a possible solution to alleviate the problems these tariffs cause because that makes exporting more attractive by their point of view so they won't stop it. Trump is using a bazooka to shoot a mosquito that isn't even the cause of the real problems. Because make no mistake, free trade is not going to stop. People aren't going to be willing to pay the prices that will be charged if you do. And even if they would be willing they won't be able to afford it.

Of course the US is justified for doing "something" about China's closed markets, dumping and currency manipulation.

Trump is not using a 'bazooka." He is selectively targeting sectors in not just China but also the EU. If you factor in products our corps make in the EU and what they make here, there isn't much of a trade imbalance with the EU. Trump's motives with the EU may be partially based upon his personal dislikes, perhaps from past grievances or perceptions of disrespect, or he may be doing Putin's bidding, or a combination. But since the EU takes world trade organization disputes seriously, we had a means to redress out complaints.

Trump is also selectively letting out sectors of China. Perhaps not coinicidentally those include where his family makes money.

If he really wanted to take on China every dollar of that 550billion surpulus would have a tariff. And if the yung goes down, the tariff goes up.

But with all tariffs, even if all goods from china are targeted, only some sectors of the US will be affected. Textiles will be more expensive, and our farmers will get lower prices, for example. Oil prices may go up, but not because of China. Iran and possibly the EU. Americans will only tolerate pain for a short time.

But with all tariffs, even if all goods from china are targeted, only some sectors of the US will be affected.

Seems we almost agree on the issues only I disagree with using tariffs on China. Since it is a bazooka. The reason it's a bazooka is because the quote I just highlighted is wrong. In fact all sectors of the US will be affected. Higher tariffs means higher prices for consumer goods. Higher prices for consumer goods means more inflation. More inflation means decreased spending power. Decreased spending power means a slowdown of the economy as a whole.

 

[otto105]

Imo there's merit to the notion that the US has a better hand than Jina in a trade war, and we should have played it long ago. They "sell" 550billion more to us than they sell. They have more to lose than we do, and they only hold 2% or so of our debt.
Trump Is Right: The U.S. Can’t Lose a Trade War

And Trump is probably right that they are bucking up Kim's spine in the nukes game, that btw Trump stupidly started to garner some tough guy news stories for a week.

But the question really is which nation will take more pain.

And Trump is simultaneously starting a trade war with the EU. They make more cars here than the sell. Toyota makes cars here too for export. What happens if they shift some of that production elsewhere and layoff US, nonunion, workers. And they too will put tariffs on our agriculture.

Canada's effect is so small no one would notice but for Trumps Yuuge and so fragile ego.

There is no reason there has to be a winner in a trade war, most likely all sides will come out worse than they went in.

One more casualty of the trade war

Too Much Pork, Tariffs Mean Too Few Buyers • farmdoc daily

Yeah. I agree. It's just that given the size of the trade deficit, China probably has more to lose. And the communist party's claim to legitimacy is that it's managing the economy to create growth.

And the Chinese government will use this "attack" by the US as a way to appease the people for a time should that growth slow. Remember, China has a Socialist Market Economy, their Central government has much more control over their economy than we want ours to have. I for one am not willing to cede that much power in the name of a "trade war'.

It's just that it seems to me that Trump is taking on too many "wars" and the US will accept a limited amount of pain. And of course, he's never shown that he can focus on something longterm. He builds, he goes bankrupt, he sells, and repeat.

The problem is when he bankrupts the country there will be nobody there to bail him out like they did when he bankrupted his company. Or maybe there will and that is all part of the plan, to knock the US down a few pegs closer to the rest of the world.

Yeah, Putin’s Russia doesn’t have that type of money.

 

[bendog]

Well, the question is what would cause China to let the yung float? Milton Friedman argued (along with others) that a trade deficit is actually a sign of a strong economy. But buying goods that are artificially cheap because a country can cheat by selling them at less than true cost (with slave labor and currency manipulation) can reduce employment in the buying country.

Americans will buy less textiles and farmers will go broke.

Now Trump's dislike of the EU is simply not rational.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Unlike everyone who is already proclaiming victory or defeat I believe we need to take a wait and see attitude and see how it pans out.
Will there be short term pain? Yes. But the possible long term gains far outweigh the short term losses.

 

[otto105]

Unlike everyone who is already proclaiming victory or defeat I believe we need to take a wait and see attitude and see how it pans out.
Will there be short term pain? Yes. But the possible long term gains far outweigh the short term losses.

Sure, like other countries exploiting our self-inflicted wounds. Trump’s a Merica is an unreliable partner and will be waited out for a better Democratic one.


Long term that

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Unlike everyone who is already proclaiming victory or defeat I believe we need to take a wait and see attitude and see how it pans out.
Will there be short term pain? Yes. But the possible long term gains far outweigh the short term losses.

But will the long term losses be worth the short term pain?