And another blow against America

[The Barbarian]

China said it is rolling out new tariffs on meat, fruit, wine and other products from the United States as retaliation against taxes approved by President Donald Trump on imported steel and aluminum.

The Chinese finance ministry said in a statement that the new tariffs will take force on Monday.

The announcement follows weeks of warnings from Chinese officials in an escalating trade dispute between the world's two largest economies.

China's Customs Tariff Commission is increasing the tariff rate on pork products and aluminium scrap by 25 percent. It is also imposing a new 15 percent tariff on 120 other imported American commodities, from almonds to apples and berries.

The White House didn't respond to a message from The Associated Press on Sunday seeking comment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-us-tariffs-pork-wine-120-products-trade-war/

And we did it to ourselves. Who would have not anticipated this? A few industries in America (and China) will do better. Vast numbers of others will be damaged.

Protectionism is always a recipe for disaster.

 

[The Barbarian]

China’s targeted tariff retaliation threatens Trump heartland
Levies on agricultural specialty products designed to hurt US farming communities

Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/8022a546-3651-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8

China’s tit-for-tat retaliation for Washington’s tariffs on steel and aluminium will affect roughly $3bn in US products, and comes as both sides prepare for the Trump administration’s threatened tariffs on high-tech Chinese manufacturing.

American trade promoters have warned that Chinese retaliation could hit large-volume US exports, especially soyabeans, grown in heartland states that voted for the New York real estate developer. Beijing’s more targeted tariffs are likely to have a similar effect, while hurting China far less in return.
https://www.ft.com/content/8022a546-3651-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8

 

[john w]

https://www.olympic.org/pyeongchang-2018/results/en/curling/round-robin-results-women.htm

Yes, The Women's 2018 US Olympic Curling Team lost-another blow against America.

 

[fool]

How much does a war with North Korea cost?

 

[The Barbarian]

How much does a war with North Korea cost?

Don't worry; China will help us with North Korea, even though Trump started a trade war with them. They recognize that a war with North Korea won't help them at all.

I hope so, anyway. I'm counting on them to be more rational about it than our government is, currently.

 

[Gary K]

China said it is rolling out new tariffs on meat, fruit, wine and other products from the United States as retaliation against taxes approved by President Donald Trump on imported steel and aluminum.

The Chinese finance ministry said in a statement that the new tariffs will take force on Monday.

The announcement follows weeks of warnings from Chinese officials in an escalating trade dispute between the world's two largest economies.

China's Customs Tariff Commission is increasing the tariff rate on pork products and aluminium scrap by 25 percent. It is also imposing a new 15 percent tariff on 120 other imported American commodities, from almonds to apples and berries.

The White House didn't respond to a message from The Associated Press on Sunday seeking comment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-us-tariffs-pork-wine-120-products-trade-war/

And we did it to ourselves. Who would have not anticipated this? A few industries in America (and China) will do better. Vast numbers of others will be damaged.

Protectionism is always a recipe for disaster.

This is some of the worst reasoning possible.

For decades we, the Federal government, have allowed foreign goods to enter the US almost duty free. All the while those nations given unlimited access to US markets have put very high tariffs on products US companies have been trying to sell in their nation. This is anything but a level playing field. It punishes US companies while rewarding companies outside the US. Japan is given free access to market cars here, while US made cars have had a high tariff in Japan. The same goes for China, Germany, France, and many other nations. These nations have not only placed high tariffs on our products they have subsidized the products they have sold here with those products often being sold at less than what it cost to produce them. Jobs for US workers have disappeared as a result of US companies being unable to compete even in our own country.

However, to listen to the mockingbird marxist media and globalists who want to see the US become a third world nation you would think that Trump leveling the playing field so that US companies can compete is the worst thing anyone could have ever done. It's not. It's a good thing for US workers. It's a good thing for US industries. This is already bringing back industrial jobs in the US. This hasn't happened in decades. Yet listen to the marxist/democrats scream. People going to work is something they do not want. They want people dependent on government to survive not able to support themselves. They want people to believe the US is done for, that the "new normal" created by Obama with his fiscal insanity is a permanent thing.

Stop listening to the insanity and start thinking on your own.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that protectionism is a recipe for disaster.

This is some of the worst reasoning possible.

It's an observed fact. Trade wars are not, as Trump insisted, "easy." They are damaging to everyone. Every person in America and most people in China will end up paying for this exercise in international socialism.

When a country puts a high tariff on goods that other countries can make more cheaply, it merely takes money out of the pockets of it's citizens. If steel and aluminum cost more, we'll pay more for anything made that uses those metals. And whatever we make of steel or aluminum will be less competitive, reducing exports.

However, to listen to the mockingbird marxist media and globalists who want to see the US become a third world nation you would think that Trump leveling the playing field so that US companies can compete is the worst thing anyone could have ever done.

That was the argument in the 1920s when the United States moved to a protectionist stance, triggering trade wars with other nations. The resulting loss of trade was a major factor in the Great Depression.

Protectionism is always a disaster. Anytime government steps in to manipulate prices, it hurts citizens of that nation. Always.

 

[fool]

Don't worry; China will help us with North Korea, even though Trump started a trade war with them.

China will help with North Korea Because Trump stated a trade war with them.

They recognize that a war with North Korea won't help them at all.

And yet they have enabled North Korea to keep a buffer between them and us.

I hope so, anyway. I'm counting on them to be more rational about it than our government is, currently.

They better get a lot more rational.

 

[Gary K]

Barbarian notes that protectionism is a recipe for disaster.



It's an observed fact. Trade wars are not, as Trump insisted, "easy." They are damaging to everyone. Every person in America and most people in China will end up paying for this exercise in international socialism.

When a country puts a high tariff on goods that other countries can make more cheaply, it merely takes money out of the pockets of it's citizens. If steel and aluminum cost more, we'll pay more for anything made that uses those metals. And whatever we make of steel or aluminum will be less competitive, reducing exports.



That was the argument in the 1920s when the United States moved to a protectionist stance, triggering trade wars with other nations. The resulting loss of trade was a major factor in the Great Depression.

Protectionism is always a disaster. Anytime government steps in to manipulate prices, it hurts citizens of that nation. Always.

LOL. I cannot believe you made this argument. It is dumber than a box of rocks. The US ought to roll over and surrender to the trade wars being prosecuted against it because the nations currently at economic war with us might not like us fighting back. What kind of an idiotic idea is that? We are guaranteed to lose if we don't fight back. Fighting back is a far better option than just surrendering and accepting the guaranteed outcome of becoming a third world nation.

You're marxist through and through. There is zero libertarian thought in you.

 

[The Barbarian]

LOL. I cannot believe you made this argument. It is dumber than a box of rocks. The US ought to roll over and surrender to the trade wars being prosecuted against it because the nations currently at economic war with us might not like us fighting back.

What I'm showing you is that trade wars are what a nation imposing high tariffs does to itself. To the extent that China was cheating on trade (and it was) it was harming itself. Government cannot use punishing tariffs to cure economic problems. Government is not the solution.

What kind of an idiotic idea is that?

In the 1700s, it was called "liberalism." Today, it's called "libertarianism."

We are guaranteed to lose if we don't fight back. Fighting back is a far better option than just surrendering and accepting the guaranteed outcome of becoming a third world nation.

Here's an article, explaining why you're wrong:


Rep. Bob Ney’s Jan. 20 op-ed column, “Steelworkers Betrayed,” which called for protection against imported steel, betrays the interests of most Americans who benefit from lower steel prices.

Despite Mr. Ney’s protests, the system already is stacked in favor of domestic steel producers. U.S. antidumping laws punish foreign producers for engaging in practices that are legal and common in our domestic market. U.S. firms, including steel makers, routinely sell the same product at different prices in different places depending on local conditions, or temporarily sell at a loss in order to liquidate inventories and cover fixed costs.

If every domestic sale were required to be at a “fair” price according to the antidumping law’s definition, most U.S. companies would be vulnerable to government sanction, and U.S. consumers would find far fewer bargains.

Because of the antidumping laws, a huge dose of protection already is working its way into the steel market. Imports from Russia almost have stopped because of the threat of retroactive duties approaching 200 percent, and the Commerce Department is all but certain to announce hefty duties against imports from Russia, Japan and Brazil. Meanwhile, the administration has been browbeating Japan to “voluntarily” reduce its exports to the United States, even though its steel production has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years.

The victims of this war are consumers. If antidumping duties and quotas are enacted, Americans will pay more for a range of products, including household appliances, new construction, machinery, trucks and automobiles. The typical five-passenger sedan, for example, contains $700 worth of steel. If government intervention raises the price of steel by $50 a ton, American steel users will pay an extra $6.5 billion for the 130 million tons they consume annually.

Quotas and duties on imported steel will not “protect” U.S. industry. They will profit only a small sector employing fewer than 200,000 production workers. Higher steel prices will endanger jobs in industries that employ 40 times as many workers as does the domestic steel industry.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/protectionism-hurts-consumers

You're marxist through and through. There is zero libertarian thought in you.

The Cato Institute is one of the most prominent libertarian think tanks in the country. I think we've just located your problem.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's an article worth reading, explaining why protectionism is so appealing an idea, but such a disastrous policy:

Throughout the post-World War II era, the United States has been the world’s staunchest supporter of open trade. With our trade deficit topping $170 billion in 1986, however, it is not surprising that this support for open trade has ebbed and, indeed, turned into outright calls for protectionist measures. One need look no further than this journal for a recent expression of discontent about free trade doctrine.1

A dangerous imbalance between U.S. production and spending since 1981 has produced the mushrooming trade deficit; only a reversal of this imbalance can close the gap. How the United States chooses to accomplish this reversal is perhaps the most important economic policy matter facing our nation in the years just ahead.

Advocates of protection rest their case mainly on two premises. The first appeals to the commonsense notion that high-wage countries like the United States cannot compete with low-wage countries. If workers are paid $12 an hour in America and less than $2 in Korea, and both countries have access to world markets for capital and technology, Korean companies can always underprice U.S. companies. In free trade between such countries, workers in the high-wage economy face two disastrous options: unemployment or slave-level wages.

The second line of attack, the unlevel playing field argument, appeals to self-interest. The world is dominated by nationalistic economic policies; the competitive, open environment assumed by international trade economists simply doesn’t exist. While the United States plays by the rules of the free market, foreign governments support targeted industries with subsidies, selective procurement, and trade protection. The result is an “unlevel” playing field, and the ball inevitably bounces toward the U.S. goal.

The proper response to these problems seems clear: America should abandon the view that market forces dominate trade flows. It should act like other countries and manage trade to its advantage. Foreign imports should be strictly controlled with quotas until and unless foreign wage levels and industrial policies resemble those of the United States. Unless we protect our markets, the trade deficit will balloon even more and our manufacturing base will continue to shrink

...

Fundamental truths

• the United States now imports far less from low-wage countries than it did in 1960
• since 1981, when the United States last enjoyed a surplus in the trade of manufactured goods, the levels of protection have not changed much
• The facts show, however, that tariffs and quotas seldom save jobs for long or preserve the competitiveness of the industry to be “saved.”
• The recent deterioration in the U.S. trade position resulted from the decline in net national saving when the growing budget deficit far outstripped any increase in net private saving.
• Proponents of protection often claim that it is needed to preserve jobs in particular industries. But this is a very expensive means of saving jobs—it raises consumers’ costs for both imported goods and the domestically produced goods with which they compete. The consumer cost in 1980 per job saved for quotas on imported TV sets was estimated at $74,155; for tariffs and quotas on footwear, $77,155; and for tariffs and quotas on carbon steel, $85,272.2 In 1984, American consumers paid an estimated $53 billion in higher prices because of the import restrictions levied that year.

https://hbr.org/1987/05/why-protectionism-doesnt-pay

 

[The Barbarian]

A central tenet of Donald Trump’s platform is to enact a series of protectionist trade measures to isolate the United States from the rest of the global economy. Specifically, Trump wants to levy tariffs of 45% on Chinese goods and 35% on Mexican goods, in addition to withdrawing from a number of multilateral agreements—all in the hopes of undoing globalization.

Would Trump’s isolationist policy work? If you look back, the United States has implemented protectionist policies on a number of occasions. And the results have been the same: grave economic consequences.
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/history-says-trade-protectionism-has-never-worked

The article is worth reading, even if you already realize this fact. Take a look.