# [Poll]Your prediction of the escalating trade taxes...



## Taleweaver (Jun 20, 2018)

Economy is a field I really don't understand. Or more to the point: I'm interested in it and I can follow reasoning (assuming speakers don't go overboard on financial terms), but I have no fucking idea to properly predict ANYTHING. Meaning: I had no idea of the financial crisis until it happened and for the life of me, I can't predict any outcome on most actions. I mean...my views on the blonde president are pretty known by now, but AMERICAN ECONOMY IS ACTUALLY DOING GREAT.

And I'm sure that's pretty hard to combine that (or 'reconcile with'? sorry, but I don't know the correct English term here) with the constant...erm...lack of diplomacy on behalf of the US government toward the rest of the world.


As such, I've mostly ignored the news on the economic stuff. I mean...I don't work in the steel industry, so this was (and still is) just another episode in the daily Trump soap opera. And admitted: I assumed it would blow over. Trade taxes are nothing new and used often by countries to simulate internal industry over extern imports, so...what's the big deal? Should Trump not get to exercise this presidential right because he's handling it in an anti-diplomatic matter? I should also note that his behavior in the past has caused some sort of schadenfreude-effect (meaning: whenever an article has "Trump" in the headline, we read it more for gossip material than to actually learn something), so...I dismissed it.

I'm not sure if that can still be said. Things are escalating on this front. So let's recap things a bit (copied from my local newspaper):

-march 22: US starts with 25% import taxes on steel and 10% on aluminium. Since lots of countries are excluded, China feels targetted
-april 4th: China announces retaliation import taxes, mostly on food beverages
-june 1st: the exemption of the EU, Canada and Mexio ends (meaning: they get the same trade taxes).
-june 19: Trump announces more taxes on Chinese goods. China immediately responds with further import taxes as well (as well as "qualitative measurements", though it's barely specified in the paper outside "bureaucratic pandering toward US multinationals").
Next step will be july 6th, when the US (and then China) puts these taxes in effect.

The article also talks about economists fearing things. America is in a better economic position, but...well...like I said, I simply don't know how this'll turn out. Hence this thread: What do YOU think will happen?


Of course the floor is open to discussion as well (but PLEASE keep it a tad on-topic. I wanna know what you think will happen to the USA and/or the rest of the world. There are plenty of threads where you can insult Trump in a creative way...please use those. Thanks.


----------



## Viri (Jun 20, 2018)

*Not much: boosting in the press, but most/all of this will be quietly lowered/removed in the future.*


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 20, 2018)

I DOUBT that it will end up going into actual combative war, but I do think that at some point one party or the other is going to have to give in, and I honestly don't see how it couldn't be the U.S. Everything will become too expensive to consume at some point due to tariffs, and you can only foot the blame on "poor people ruining the economy" for so long


----------



## Xzi (Jun 20, 2018)

It'll go until Trump crashes the US economy.  While other countries have been prospering economically, they've in turn been paying down their national debts, which is what helps to create stability.  While the economy's been good, the US has just been giving out corporate welfare for free instead, and this has the opposite effect of ballooning our debt/deficit.  Not to mention the Trump administration repealed Dodd-Frank and other protections put in place after the 2008 crash.  All this combined with the trade war pretty much insures that the next crash will be worse than the last.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 26, 2018)

There's some news on this front. In the EU, we counteracted with the taxes by taxing some American stuff. Among which: Harley-Davidson. This morning, I read that they'll be outsourcing their motors for the EU market, as to evade the taxes.

Donald Trump obviously doesn't like that consequence, and threaten to tax H.D.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 26, 2018)

On the one hand there is much truth to the following


On the other then seeing what China is doing in the world now with diplomats, investment and the like everywhere then I might go with the US will probably come out OK here, but not anywhere like the position it enjoyed. It is coasting on its laurels, such as they are, and basically then eating its reserves so as to be a lazy bastard. It is a fine policy for individual people (so many I know packed in the crazy work hours to instead enjoy more time, this running the gamut of ages) but for a nation state when not in some kind of post scarcity setup... not so much.

Also related at this point


Actually if we are doing historical things then some have pondered the present US' similarities to Rome, I would more look at the Hapsburgs.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 7, 2018)

I somewhat thought of bumping this thread a few times but forgot. What has happened:

-tensions with China are still up. More than ever, though that may be a hyperbole considering the guy that announces these things.
-with the EU, things seem to have settled down (quick source). Not sure how long that'll last once it turns out that elimination of taxes is something that is done directly and promises over what happens in the future is something that politicians can't make on behalf of their companies (I can get why we'd change to gas from USA rather than from Russia, but why would we increase soy when there's no demand for it?  )
-Iran is quickly becoming very isolated. It still respects the clausules of the original treaty but its partners (including Belgium) back out because the USA might get pissed off at them.

Of course it's easy to see the USA want the same Iran-scenario happening in China but that strikes me as pretty unlikely. China simply exports too much stuff to everyone. But as I mentioned in OP, I'm terrible at predicting these sorts of consequences.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 7, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> (I can get why we'd change to gas from USA rather than from Russia, but why would we increase soy when there's no demand for it?  )


We don't. My home state is suffering right now agriculturally because China was our #1 importer of our #1 and 2 export


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 11, 2018)

Okay...yet another bump. Partially because I've read an interesting article about it (this import tax escalation is 100 days old, apparently), and partially...well...because things are happening.

-there's this weird bloomberg article that claims that China has put rice-sized chips in lots of ICT products. Weird because everyone's denying it except a few anonymous sources. Nonetheless, it is accepted as being the truth. I know bloomberg isn't a tabloid, but the ICT companies aren't pussies either.
-at the moment, US's tariffs are at about 200 billion dollars (China taxes for about 60 billion dollars). Trump is apparently threatening to tax the full 500 billion dollars worth of US imports
-Mike Pompeo visited China last monday, but instead of meeting the president he was "only" met with his colleague.
-not sure how reliable "The atlantic" is, but they claim that US really wants a new cold war. (Ely Ratner "there are no plans for an agreement over tariffs").
-China didn't like Pence's speech at Hudson. My local newspaper claims the language directly came from the cold war

What worries me most is the bit where "less than ten days ago, an American and Chinese war ship came dangerously close to confrontation in the South Chinese sea".


As I clearly said in the OP, I'm not smart enough to know much about economy. I do know that I trust economists more than Trump, because...well...Trump is an idiot. Economists predict worse times, and make adjustments for it. If not for anything else, it's because of 10 years of economic prosperity is pretty long. And there is something else, namely that economic war that is going on. Basically: economists imply that this whole Trump vs Xi thing is bad for the economy in the long run. Trump, however, doesn't do implying and directly says that these economists are insane.

I'll leave you all to make up your mind on whom to believe.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 11, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...yet another bump. Partially because I've read an interesting article about it (this import tax escalation is 100 days old, apparently), and partially...well...because things are happening.
> 
> -there's this weird bloomberg article that claims that China has put rice-sized chips in lots of ICT products. Weird because everyone's denying it except a few anonymous sources. Nonetheless, it is accepted as being the truth. I know bloomberg isn't a tabloid, but the ICT companies aren't pussies either.
> -at the moment, US's tariffs are at about 200 billion dollars (China taxes for about 60 billion dollars). Trump is apparently threatening to tax the full 500 billion dollars worth of US imports
> ...



The tariff war, imo, is just a front. They both tend to talk strong and demand absurdities in public for the sake of their respective countries, but there's a hella lot happening in the background that we aren't seeing.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 11, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> The tariff war, imo, is just a front. They both tend to talk strong and demand absurdities in public for the sake of their respective countries, but there's a hella lot happening in the background that we aren't seeing.


Erm...I don't always dismiss conspiracy theories, but you really might want to look into what you're saying here.

That "front" you're talking about currently amounts to TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS! That's already a lot, and on top of that it threatens the economy of at least the USA and China (most likely the rest of the world with it). If that's supposed to be the small stuff, then I certainly don't want to think what you might be talking about what the actual deal is, or how it could be hidden from the elite of economists.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm...I don't always dismiss conspiracy theories, but you really might want to look into what you're saying here.
> 
> That "front" you're talking about currently amounts to TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS! That's already a lot, and on top of that it threatens the economy of at least the USA and China (most likely the rest of the world with it). If that's supposed to be the small stuff, then I certainly don't want to think what you might be talking about what the actual deal is, or how it could be hidden from the elite of economists.



That's chump change, all things considered. And besides, you misunderstood me. Trump has always been a talk-big-compromise-later business guy. That's his style. So I sincerely doubt that He'll keep raising the tariffs for very long.

The entire thing is smoke and mirrors. They're screaming about it now (Why? Publicity is a guess, but still a guess.), But there's almost certainly going to be a backroom deal down the line. Moost likely to lower the tariffs quietly, but there could be something else.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 12, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...yet another bump. Partially because I've read an interesting article about it (this import tax escalation is 100 days old, apparently), and partially...well...because things are happening.
> 
> -there's this weird bloomberg article that claims that China has put rice-sized chips in lots of ICT products. Weird because everyone's denying it except a few anonymous sources. Nonetheless, it is accepted as being the truth. I know bloomberg isn't a tabloid, but the ICT companies aren't pussies either.
> -at the moment, US's tariffs are at about 200 billion dollars (China taxes for about 60 billion dollars). Trump is apparently threatening to tax the full 500 billion dollars worth of US imports
> ...


The tariffs are not a good idea. 

Economists predicting the economy is a hard thing because they would have to predict what politicians are going to do, and nothing is more unpredictable then politicians.

Here’s a real life example of steel tariffs. 

In the 80’s the steel industry feel from 340,000 to 125,000. 

Then they created laws and regulations to reduce imported steel. Since there was less steel overall, (and the basic economics of supply and demand), less steel meant higher prices in the U.S. 

Higher prices for industries that buy and make products out of steel (like cars, oil rigs, and anything else made of steel), means their products cost more to make up for more expensive steel they buy. 

American stuff made of steel being more expensive put us at a disadvantage in the international markets when competing with foreign products. 

Steel tariffs did create more jobs in the steel industry; 5,000 new jobs. And they did make $240 million in additional profits. But all the other American industries that made products out of steel lost $600 million dollars. And lost 26,000 jobs from more expensive steel. 

The American industry as a whole was worse off on net balance. People only look at the benefits tarrifs have on single industries rather than the whole industry.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 2, 2018)

Another bump. As it turns out, there has been a massive dump of...well...billions of dollars lately.

-Russia and China are dumping dollars the most. Neither are unexpected: Russia isn't allowed to trade in dollars, and the trade war obviously discourages China to keep their depth. The result is that e.g. (and foremost) oil trades to and from these countries can be done in yuan or euro's rather than dollars.
-less expected is that other countries, like Japan, Venezuela and India do the same (though on a smaller scale).

It was pretty known that China is/was US's factory: they provided a lot of goodies Americans wanted - and still want. As such, USA owed China a lot of money. So when I read that the majority of sellers of these "billions of dollars" (in IOU's, I guess?  ) were Americans, I assumed that they were just repaying their depth. But that's not really what's going on. It's mostly American investors and institutions, who weren't the ones creating the dept in the first place. I...don't know what that means for USA internal (if the repayments can't be done anymore, it won't be the other party that suffers the consequences, but USA itself...so I guess this is rather volatile?  ).

On the other hand, the dumping of the dollar made those countries more free. For as long as I can remember, the dollar was known as the lingua franca of currencies. All oil trades happened in dollars because the USA could vouch for it. This, in turn, allowed the USA some sort of influence over trades, though I don't know how THAT works. However, the recent protectionist course of USA ("USA first!!") has paved the way for trades in other currencies.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Here’s a real life example of steel tariffs.
> 
> In the 80’s the steel industry feel from 340,000 to 125,000.
> 
> ...




There's another consideration though - the United States as a nation _needs_ to maintain a domestic steel industry for national security and defense purposes. It doesn't have to be on the level of the WWII - 1950's peak, but there needs to be some degree of heavy industry infrastructure present domestically. If preserving that negatively impacts other sectors to some extent, that's an acceptable loss for the sake of preventing the country becoming ENTIRELY dependent on imported sources for steel (which could be interrupted by the source nations) because domestic production capabilities would atrophy.

Those kind of policy considerations may or may not be applicable in the current situation. Just point being, there are other factors to a healthy economy than the "net balance," particularly when longterm security is considered.


----------



## Viri (Nov 2, 2018)

Imo, China deserved to be sanctioned years ago, for what it's doing in the South China Sea. Claiming other country's lands as their own, and building artificial land on them.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 14, 2019)

This news flew under the radar because some other news was deemed more important...until you look at the numbers.

The negotiations were fairly normalized between US and China. Then, at the end of last week...surprise! US put up 200 billion dollar extra trade taxes on China.

Trump warned them not to strike back, but of course China did just that: they also raised US goods for 60 billion dollar. Not as much, but then again: China imports far less from the USA than vice versa. And these numbers don't say anything of potential alternatives (if that one tiny piece of your iphone can only be manufactured in China, then it can mean more than dozens of other goods).


So...the conflict certainly grew in a full scale trade war between the two largest economies on this planet. While perhaps theoretically okay (or even beneficial) to be an outsider, the truth is that we too have lots of goods from both USA and China, so we might share in the fallout. And indeed are more likely to share in that. Not as much as either participant, but more than enough to say we won't benefit.


And whereas I am personally quite an adversary of Trump (not much of a surprise), this position is more ambigue than just about any of his other policies. Namely: China wasn't innocent to begin with. there were - and still are - elements in their laws that provide them superfluous benefits over foreign competitors. Their intellectual property laws are too loose, the control over foreign companies too strict...I'm no professional, but I have no reason to doubt any of this.

The only reservation I have is "is this really how the conflict should be dealt with?". Diplomacy is an art, and Trump most certainly does NOT posses it. This means that this situation is more like a poker match between an established pro player (that'd be China) and an amateur (America). Like it or not, but the USA is represented by someone who's only good at bluffing.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 24, 2019)

I feel like another bump is necessary here. 

For one : prospects of the economy aren't as good as a year ago. When economists say things like 'hey... At least it's the longest economical boom ever', that's the foreboding of their main talk : recession. Of which I'll know little more than that it's the opposite of inflation (good are getting cheaper? NOOOOOO!). And there's this 'inverted yield' graph which is apparently a signal of a recession as well, but I'm going by experts here. Of course you can always go by Trump, who says the economy is fine (and blames his own appointed federal reserve chairman Powell for fear mongering).

Since the last bump, more tariffs were added to goods from the US to China and vice versa. China's latest batch caused Trump to order his own companies not to deal with China. Which of course everyone immediately adhers to. (except not really)

Oh, and... It's a trade war, all right. It's been far past the point of threats and bluffs.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Aug 24, 2019)




----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 24, 2019)

US manufacturers/brands trading with China for finished goods is like a heroin addict's descent. You keep outsourcing American production line jobs for that cheap, cheap China labor, your customers have to get crappier jobs so they go looking for lower priced products and voila! you're making what they want, in China! Keeps going until nobody in the US can afford the goods you make anymore, but that's ok cuz China!

Fuck that. Get off the smack, junkie. I don't care if it hurts.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 24, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> US manufacturers/brands trading with China for finished goods is like a heroin addict's descent. You keep outsourcing American production line jobs for that cheap, cheap China labor, your customers have to get crappier jobs so they go looking for lower priced products and voila! you're making what they want, in China! Keeps going until nobody in the US can afford the goods you make anymore, but that's ok cuz China!
> 
> Fuck that. Get off the smack, junkie. I don't care if it hurts.


Don't forget about Mexico.  Companies are also moving to Mexico while unskilled workers are illegally crossing our border to take the crappier jobs we need to stay employed because our good manufacturing jobs are going down there.

Thanks to Democrats looking for a bigger demographic to keep them in power, they are killing our trade with other countries since you can't trade with those that are making your products for you.  Oh, but F*** Trump because "he's racist"? Give me a break. 
While the blind faith lefties are bending over to snatch up all the false promises the Democratics are feeding them, their leaders are taking advantage of their backsides.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 24, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> US manufacturers/brands trading with China for finished goods is like a heroin addict's descent. You keep outsourcing American production line jobs for that cheap, cheap China labor, your customers have to get crappier jobs so they go looking for lower priced products and voila! you're making what they want, in China! Keeps going until nobody in the US can afford the goods you make anymore, but that's ok cuz China!
> 
> Fuck that. Get off the smack, junkie. I don't care if it hurts.


While I don't necessarily disagree with thing playing out somewhat like that (and also ponder what is to be the fate of the millions in the working and semi skilled middle classes in years to come) I do have to ask is there scope for semi skilled manufacturing jobs these days if it is somehow to be brought onshore?

I can build robots to do things as well, if not better, than a lot of humans ever would and that is not set to stop any time soon (quite the opposite -- modern big data style vision APIs are probably going to have some real fun in the coming years). So magic some things onshore, deal with the environmental stuff (manufacturing is not pretty or not cheap if you make it, and not just in abstract trying to get people in landlocked locations preventing whales from being unable to communicate or something), possibly deal with the training and social stigma and you will get put out of business by some upstart with a few million* in loans (if not less) and a crew of a few dozen engineering grads. At that point you are either impeding free enterprise within your own borders or subsidising workers, neither of which are a particularly easy sell for many voters (especially not the ones keeping the current mob in power).

*that might even be too high. Many of these robots can be made for about 100 grand outlay, lifetime of years and maintained for a lot less (also have 24 hour operation). If with taxes, pensions, healthcare, admin and the like my worker is costing me 50 grand a year for similar work outputs...


----------



## Xzi (Aug 24, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> US manufacturers/brands trading with China for finished goods is like a heroin addict's descent. You keep outsourcing American production line jobs for that cheap, cheap China labor, your customers have to get crappier jobs so they go looking for lower priced products and voila! you're making what they want, in China! Keeps going until nobody in the US can afford the goods you make anymore, but that's ok cuz China!
> 
> Fuck that. Get off the smack, junkie. I don't care if it hurts.


For the most part I agree with this, but ultimately tariffs do nothing to solve the issue.  As long as Americans continue to buy Chinese goods from Wal-Mart and Amazon, we're just imposing higher taxes on ourselves.  Not to mention strangling our agricultural industry.  Like it or not, as things stand now there can be no victory in a trade war with China.  They've got all the leverage.  The methods by which we slowly wrest control from them as our primary supplier of manufacturing labor have to be a lot more subtle than this, and unfortunately, the current administration is anything but subtle.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> For the most part I agree with this, but ultimately tariffs do nothing to solve the issue.  As long as Americans continue to buy Chinese goods from Wal-Mart and Amazon, we're just imposing higher taxes on ourselves.  Not to mention strangling our agricultural industry.  Like it or not, as things stand now there can be no victory in a trade war with China.  They've got all the leverage.  The methods by which we slowly wrest control from them as our primary supplier of manufacturing labor have to be a lot more subtle than this, and unfortunately, the current administration is anything but subtle.




Holy shit, Xzi and I are in near total agreement about something!


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 25, 2019)

In a way, China is farming the lower classes in the US by holding US bonds (still number 1 in the world, but much lower than in the past) and the USA are farming cheap laborers in China.
In case of a decoupling of the economies the best outcome would be for the USA to re-establish a solid middle class (unlikely, to be honest - the production would likely move to other low income countries) and for China to avoid the middle income trap (forced to put emphasis on high-end products).


----------



## morvoran (Aug 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> For the most part I agree with this, but ultimately tariffs do nothing to solve the issue. As long as Americans continue to buy Chinese goods from Wal-Mart and Amazon, we're just imposing higher taxes on ourselves. Not to mention strangling our agricultural industry.





Hanafuda said:


> Holy shit, Xzi and I are in near total agreement about something!



I can't believe it either, hanafuda.  It almost sounds like Xzi is waking up and becoming a nationalist and against increasing taxes.  And to think, I thought he was a lost cause.




Xzi said:


> Like it or not, as things stand now there can be no victory in a trade war with China. They've got all the leverage.



Actually, with the US being the world's greatest economy and being self sufficient on most things we as Americans need, we have all the leverage.  China is increasing tariffs on about $75 million of our goods while we are increasing tariffs on over $300 million. You can agree that is a very big difference.  To compensate, the goods we buy may increase pennies on the dollar.  China is devaluing their yuan.  Chinese workers are already paid very little as it is, so if their currency loses value, then they become poorer.  China can only devalue so much before their people start to revolt and protest.  American companies doing business in China are already starting to look at alternatives elsewhere.  Stock holders are pulling out of China based companies (see the latest drop of the DOW this past week).

In the long run, the tariffs will work in our favor if China still wants to have an economy at all.  If you still disagree, then think about the Albert Einstein's definition of insanity, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" which is what the several past presidents had done.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I can't believe it either, hanafuda.  It almost sounds like Xzi is waking up and becoming a nationalist and against increasing taxes.  And to think, I thought he was a lost cause.


I'm not against increasing taxes, it's a matter of what those taxes pay for.  As it stands now they're paying for absolutely nothing except a giant foreign policy blunder.  Not to mention your "nationalist" president is the one who imposed these taxes on us, but I suppose hypocrisy is to be expected from every Republican politician by now.



morvoran said:


> Actually, with the US being the world's greatest economy and being self sufficient on most things we as Americans need, we have all the leverage.  China is increasing tariffs on about $75 million of our goods while we are increasing tariffs on over $300 million. You can agree that is a very big difference.  To compensate, the goods we buy may increase pennies on the dollar.  China is devaluing their yuan.  Chinese workers are already paid very little as it is, so if their currency loses value, then they become poorer.  China can only devalue so much before their people start to revolt and protest.  American companies doing business in China are already starting to look at alternatives elsewhere.  Stock holders are pulling out of China based companies (see the latest drop of the DOW this past week).


China is both more disciplined and more authoritarian, so it's easy for them to stop buying the goods they've put tariffs on.  The same can't be said of the US.  We haven't stopped buying Chinese goods with tariffs on them, or even slowed down our consumption of those goods.  Which means we aren't hurting their economy at all, only our own.  Even despite the unrest in Hong Kong, we're the ones on the cusp of an economic recession, not China.


----------



## matthi321 (Aug 25, 2019)

i dont think anything major will happen


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 25, 2019)

I can't really fault a country for implementing tarrifs on steel TBH. As @Hanafuda mentioned the local steel industry and independence of other country's steel is incredibly important to their military.
As a matter of fact the earliest precursor to the EU the "European Coal and Steel Community" was an initiave to force European countries into a dependance on each other for their military in order to facilitate friendship and peace after WW2, especially between France and Germany.
Sure it can be seen as isolationist and it could be argued that you don't need to protect your local steel industry from imports from NATO allies, on the other hand NATO allies are mostly not spending the agreed upon money on their military but are profiting of the US' steel imports.

What isn't clear to me is the difference in attention when Trump does it as opposed to the EU. I've mentioned in another thread that the EU for example implemented tarrifs of almost 50% on bicycle products from china. In January of this year they also implemented tarrifs on E-Bikes with the default being 83.6%. There's different tarrifs for some manufacturers, notably a subsidiary of Taiwanese company GIANT who is the world's biggest bike manufacturer, their Chinese E-Bike subsidiary is hit with 27.5% import taxes.


----------



## notimp (Aug 25, 2019)

Ehm, I think you've got that reversed.

US is imposing trade barriers on other countries, to slow down their economic growth. In the simplest most abstract explanation. To stop them growing, while the US is not so much, so the USD remains strong and will buy you more.

China cant do much, because they have engineered themselves a fast growing economy. If that stops too abruptly - they'll have themselves a few revolutions on hand. So what they gonna do? Stop manufacturing iPhones? It will hurt them more.

The whole point of beginning a trade ('tarrifs') war is, when you know that you will win it. And when you don't want to produce 'win/win' outcomes (where for example china currently wins a little more), which is what free trade produces.

China now can retaliate, but what they gonna do? Not buy soy from american farmers? The us can take that...

Escalating that thing currently isn't on anyones to do list (except for the US), because the US beats any other big economy in terms of being 'self sufficient' / not heavily dependent on one single other countries economy.

Outcome for a US citizen: Some chinese goods will become more expensive, because the business usually hand on their trade expenses down to the customer. Which in return will incentivize producing some goods locally again (automation, not a big jobs winner), or more likely find different ways of sourcing them.

The US is literally slowing down chinas growth and china has not very much they can do (they have hundreds of billions initiatives to open up new trade routes and markets to europe and eastern europe (reducing transport cost)) but they arent finished yet.

Militarily they can't do much either. They can publically complain - which they do. Then we can point at Hong Kong, which we do. Thats all.

Stop the panic. If its a war - the US certainly isnt loosing it.



supersonicwaffle said:


> What isn't clear to me is the difference in attention when Trump does it as opposed to the EU. I've mentioned in another thread that the EU for example implemented tarrifs of almost 50% on bicycle products from china. In January of this year they also implemented tarrifs on E-Bikes with the default being 83.6%. There's different tarrifs for some manufacturers, notably a subsidiary of Taiwanese company GIANT who is the world's biggest bike manufacturer, their Chinese E-Bike subsidiary is hit with 27.5% import taxes.


China needs USD more so than it needs EUR.  The leaver here is, that china is a manufacturing giant, that can source much of the stuff they do themselves by now - but still have dependencies in important industries  that are 'probably designed' so they cant get rid of important dependancies (think 'the software every android phone runs', there are others in other fields as well), so part of their dependencies have to be paid in USD. If they sell less to the  US - guess what happens to their USD supply. 

Bicycles, as huge as that industry might be for them - isn't a key economic sector by any means. 

Also - if it doesnt hurt them production wise, or in sourcing goods (so only 'sales' wise), they don't mind so much. They will do empty spending on 'steel goods' they produce - which will then land on a landfill - directly. That they dont care about - as long as they can control it (currency fluctuation (impact)).

In simple, when the US does it, targeting key sectors (cars in germany, electronics manufacturing in china), it hurts more. (dependency wise.)



> Like it or not, as things stand now there can be no victory in a trade war with China.


Here is the deal. 

Trade configurations:

win/win: China will currently win more than the US.
lose/lose: China will currently loose more that the US.

The idea that china is this mega monolith you cant do anything about but to agree to their terms, currently gets challenged by US trade policy. And china has a real issue in terms of demographics.

They have developed a lower middle class - but the country is very diverse, so they have regions that still are very poor. They had an issue with family planning, where the one child policy has produced an aging society, which is fine at the moment, if productivity can be kept high, but also comes with huge social issues.

So if growth for them - stops - societies won't be happy. (Cut off expectations, huge old people problem, wealth distributed very unevenly, ...). China is 'top dog' currently. Now the battle wages over how fast they raise to the top. And if they can get to first, before 'their fuel runs out' so to speak. 

All quite normal, still.. 

This is the notion I'm following - btw:


The lecture is already 9 years old, so not 'current politics' exactly - but it describes in broad strokes, what seems to be relevant today.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Bicycles, as huge as that industry might be for them - isn't a key economic sector by any means.



It’s only one example. The EU has imposed tarrifs of up to 16% on Chinese steel since early 2016, a year before Trump took office. Look at the relevant news articles, if the EU does it it’s protecting the local industry if Trump does it it’s a trade war.

Sure, go ahead and tell me how I got literally the same thing somehow reversed though.


----------



## notimp (Aug 25, 2019)

I think its volume and dependency.

So with Euros chinese would do what? Buy european real estate. Companies. Patents. With USD they would pay license fees for the OSes their products are running, pay for oil which they need, pay off international loans...

So (for the purpose of the argument, steel and bicycles are the same), lets say china produces 850 mio tons of steel a year. You use coal for that - which you have in country (or can import cheaply - you control the import routes), you use steel which you have in country (or ore you can import cheaply - you control the import routes).

So lets say the EU hits you with tariffs, you - as china - let the steel plants still crank full speed, full production, full salaries. Then bury the steal in the dessert. Fuck over suppliers a little - tackle the losses over time.


It becomes an actual issue - when you arent able to 'postpone' paying for those losses in your own currency.

So - you produce a product - that doesnt get to be a full product, before you spend USD. And you tell the supplier - here take Chinese Renminbi-Yuan, and the supplier tells you, no - we only take USD. Then you cant control the impact that will have on your production ecosystem - hence, social instability issues > caused by another country.

If you only ever take losses in your own currency - you dont care. You can inflate that away later - but the USD you dont control.

So its only an issue, combined with "built in dependencies", which the chinese economy has, which is why the US can control them in a trade war.

Why are we calling it a tradewar now, and not - when the EU set markups on cheep chinese steel (the us did as well I'm sure), because the chinese are just coming forward now (south chinese morning post, other state owned media)- complaining, that this is purely a tradewar - and fought to hurt their economy, not benefit the USes.

Which is correct. 

I think I got it right, if not - criticise away.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Why are we calling it a tradewar now, and not - when the EU set markups on cheep chinese steel (the us did as well I'm sure), because the chinese are just coming forward now (south chinese morning post, other state owned media)- complaining, that this is purely a tradewar - and fought to hurt their economy, not benefit the USes.



You still need to make a compelling argument why trade defense measures by the EU are considered fair but US measure aren’t. The notion that China hasn’t complained so far is ridiculous, they’re also no strangers to trade defense themselves.

I think it’s far more likely you aren’t aware of the Chinese perspective to EU trade defense because it hasn’t been reported on as much as it is now with the US‘ measures. 

Some might blame trump derangement syndrome.


----------



## notimp (Aug 25, 2019)

There is no fair in international relations. 

(Difference between public moral, and international/trade law.)

I argue in 'effective' in slowing down economic growth in china, or not. Steel tariffs were effective to protect european or us economies, from being flooded with chinese steel, but didn't slow down their 'internal planing' (because they might actually have slowed down growth a little) by much. 

Also - the question in regards to was it economic warware - gets answered by answering 'was it an aggressive, or defensive act'? And thats probably why the chinese gouvernment din't say much in the steel tariffs case, but they did now.

I'm sure - if europe had a way to impose harsher sanctions on china, they would at least think about it as well. Even though their public credo always was 'free trade only produces winners' historically.

We step back from that, when talking about issues, like the chinese buying out patent stock from our business ventures - and then we do something against that. That also can be seen as 'amoral' but moral doesnt count.

This is not a 'moral failure' of the US. It just is.  (Might be registered as an aggressive act in international relations, but eh - its the us (hegemony) they do it all the time ('are allowed to').)
--


Tariffs to protect you local economy - Using the example of steel tariffs.

Why do you use them?

China has little to no environmental standards on heavy industry (still), and they have cheap labor. At the time, when steel tariffs where established, they controlled close to 50% of the world market - and started pushing steel at dumping prices (they took losses), because of an over production caused by the financial crisis (they produced what they forcasted as 'need', then had no buyers, because economic crisis).

If you are faced with that - you pull up trade barriers, because otherwise, your own steel industry will be outcompeted, and faced with having to close shop. If you are germany - thats not a good idea. (Strategic branch, key industry, matter of resource security, matter of national security.)

Thats why tariffs arent always bad.

But yes they can also be used for economic warfare.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> There is no fair in international relations.
> 
> (Difference between public moral, and international/trade law.)
> 
> ...



Your original argument had nothing to do with effectiveness. You told me I was wrong for saying the US and the EU are doing the same thing because the US‘ trade defense is designed to stop Chinese growth which implies the EU‘s isn’t. You’re yet to form a coherent argument regarding your original claim.


----------



## notimp (Aug 25, 2019)

I've extended my answer with an edit.

Ultimately (and this is a cop out), it has to do with 'perception of effectivenes'.

If any state puts steel tariffs on china - they feel that they can do something about it, compensate - keep their economy going.

If the US starts draining the USD income flow into their economies, they feel that another state is basically shaping their political future, because there is really not much they can do.


This (a version of it) also isnt new. Russia complained _heavily_ about price fixing in the (USD based) oil and gas markets, for political reasons. Some (non mainstream, (but not that extreme either) political voices always hinted at that playing a major role in ending the cold war). Hint: Russia lost. 

There the story goes, that the US basically took "military protectorate power" over the middle east from the british after WW2. Which means the following. Lets say you are a member of a monarchy in the middle east, and you have 'a mountain of black gold'. All your neighbors want it. They really, really do. Because it will make you (not so much the population, but thats another discussion..) rich a. f.. So the first thing you need to do with money made from oil, is to buy - nifty weapon technology, that outcompetes your neighbor states by 10 centuries (those are countertrades). Then the acknowledgement of the world police, that it will bomb whoever attacks you - back into the stone ages.

At that point you two are in a coalition. And the party, thats able to say - ok, then we will pull our military support - suddently owns high negotiating power as well.

Long story short. Oil can only be payed for in USD. There never has been another oilprice crisis after 1973, but strangely - modern day russia was kept at bay as well by making sure, that their - purely natural resources based economy (not a great design, btw..  ) always got a little less for their natural resources, than they actually expected.

And thats Opec.  Which is a cartel. But also listens to US interests. Sometimes. 
--

Also - China didnt go into 'capitalism' naively. They knew about this risk. Its not that it would surprise them that that was a possibility.  Its more.. idk. timing...  Its hard to plan a countries economy over 80+ years using central planning.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Aug 25, 2019)

Trading routes and taxes inflating?
Why does this sound like The Phantom Menace?


----------



## notimp (Aug 25, 2019)

ShadowOne333 said:


> Trading routes and taxes inflating?
> Why does this sound like The Phantom Menace?


If you ask the average person on the streets in the US, they always think, they'd side with the rebels.. 

(Despite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
https://www.economist.com/the-world-in/2018/12/28/the-end-of-american-hegemony
https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/what-comes-after-us-hegemony/)

Welcome to Holywood!

I hear the latest Tarantino has turned out great again..


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Aug 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> If you ask the average person on the streets in the US, they always think, they'd side with the rebels..
> 
> (Despite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
> https://www.economist.com/the-world-in/2018/12/28/the-end-of-american-hegemony
> ...


I was just expecting someone to drop a similarity between Trump and Palpatine 
It's like The Trade Federation blockade on Naboo.
Except I'm not sure what part is the Trading Federation and which one's Naboo.

And people think the Prequels are awful.
Take that, critics!


----------



## notimp (Aug 25, 2019)

On the 'china feels there isn't much they can do about it' point:

What they are doing now (Economist article I linked a while back.) is actually, that they start harming their economies (for counter tariffs) on purpose, just so the US (Trump states) notices the impact 'a little bit more'.

So they are playing the game based on american domestic politics, and american public sentiment.

But whatever they do, they are currently hurting more than the US. (But then they also have a nifty surveillance state and many 'monetary resources' they've stocked up on during the past two centuries 'booming'. They are just a little light on USD.  - just as russia was at the end of the cold war. (Same outcome not implied.. ))

Heck, maybe tomorrow they decide to be best friends and buddy up against europe.. Who knows. I'm not indicating, that I would be able to predict the future here.  Just telling likely stories, that I've heard in the past.. 


edit: Oh, and this one has nothing to do with Trump. He didn't invent any of it.  (Thats why I find it so silly - that people always have to put his name next to political positions, as if it matters.

Does anyone know, who the current Zbigniew Brzeziński is? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

From my point of view, Trump is someone that gets briefed at 10am, then goes in front of the press at 1pm, with a helicopter in the background, then goes on a really minor political trip to se his buddy in north korea once in a while - and thats all that it takes to make him happy.) This is one of the things that very likely would have happened in some fashion under democratic leadership of the country as well. The US will not smile all the way, while china overtakes them economically.

edit:

Here, even FOX (administration press statement TV..  ) agrees on this..


----------



## notimp (Aug 26, 2019)

notimp said:


> Ehm, I think you've got that reversed.


Oh, and this wasnt directed at you @supersonicwaffle , it was aimed at the thread starter. Sorry that I dint make that clearer.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 26, 2019)

JaapDaniels said:


>




Some on here are geographically challenged so I'll make this straight to the point; Russia is a country split between two continents, that is, Europe and Asia but its people are Slavic Europeans.

Like the Portuguese and Spanish, the Russian and Ukrainian have their similarities but their language is still different and the Ukrainians tend to hate if you think they're Russian (because of the history behind it).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> becoming a nationalist


Careful with that.



morvoran said:


> US being the world's greatest economy


The U.S. has a debt of trillions.


----------



## notimp (Aug 26, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The U.S. has a debt of trillions.


Yes, but its still the world reserve currency. And the only currency oil can be paid in.

(current US Government Debt to GDP is 106.10 percent)

So if everyone needs USD, you can bulk up dept to a much higher extent, because - everyone still needs USD, and they will still have a similar demand for it weither you inflate it (moneypool) or not.

Thats whats at stake:



notimp said:


> Ups, the US are getting f'cked.
> 
> https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...s-toothless/articleshow/69095599.cms?from=mdr





notimp said:


> And here is how:
> https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ne-marie-slaughter-and-elina-ribakova-2019-07


----------



## notimp (Aug 26, 2019)

Also, on the nuclear war scare. If it ever comes to that, europe is gone within minutes. Lets try everyone having an economy then.  (This is also partly why Europe is so much into trade and less into military prowess, although now we have to pay more to keep our trade routes secure, thanks to the US.)

Current 'danger' of nuclear warfare is on the rise again, because arsenals are currently overdue to be replaced again (and you dont replace them with the same stuff, you replace them with better stuff..  ), and the idea of 'locally restrictable' nuclear warefare (smaller more precise nukes) becomes possible with the newer stuff.

None of this is a direct contingency for trade wars though. All your synapses are doing is going from hearing the word trade war for the first time, directly to 'omg - we are all going to die', and thats your fault. Educate yourself for once. Not stumbling into the youtube BS that you like to post most of the time. Idk. start by not watching youtube.  Get a friend to not primarily watch youtube to understand whats going on in the world. Read.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Here - current world problems:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...y-2-2019-08&a_pa=curated&a_ps=main-article-a2

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ies-by-galip-dalay-2019-08&a_pa=curated&a_ps=

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ini-2019-08&a_pa=curated&a_ps=main-article-a2

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ce-by-erik-berglof-2019-08&a_pa=curated&a_ps=

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...y-daron-acemoglu-2019-08&a_pa=spotlight&a_ps=

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...oseph-e-stiglitz-2019-08&a_pa=spotlight&a_ps=

Damn it - I dont find Trump in any one of those stories. Ok, in the last one - but even there he only pops up for branding. 

Once you've understood all those stories (their political impact) - you've come a little closer to understanding global relations.


----------



## notimp (Aug 26, 2019)

@supersonicwaffle

Here, this is another potential explanation for why there is a difference between steel tariffs and the current US/China trade war. I got lucky. 


> Finally, there is an important difference between the 2008 global financial crisis and the negative supply shocks that could hit the global economy today. Because the former was mostly a large negative aggregate demand shock that depressed growth and inflation, it was appropriately met with monetary and fiscal stimulus. But this time, the world would be confronting sustained negative supply shocks [meaning, brexit for the brits, or permanent trade disputes US/china] that would require a very different kind of policy response over the medium term. Trying to undo the damage through never-ending monetary and fiscal stimulus will not be a sensible option.


https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ini-2019-08&a_pa=curated&a_ps=main-article-a2

One is deemed 'rather permanent'. Thats also a way to look at it. My explanation in parts is better though.  The 'cant be met by inflating your own currency' explaination we've got in common.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not against increasing taxes, it's a matter of what those taxes pay for. As it stands now they're paying for absolutely nothing except a giant foreign policy blunder.


 I'm surprised you're saying that welfare programs are "absolutely nothing" figuring that over half of our taxes go towards them.  Sounds kinda heartless, wow.



Xzi said:


> Not to mention your "nationalist" president is the one who imposed these taxes on us, but I suppose hypocrisy is to be expected from every Republican politician by now.


 Thanks to those "increased taxes", workers earnings growth is improving at a faster rate than corporations growth even with their tax cuts.



Xzi said:


> China is both more disciplined and more authoritarian, so it's easy for them to stop buying the goods they've put tariffs on. The same can't be said of the US. We haven't stopped buying Chinese goods with tariffs on them, or even slowed down our consumption of those goods. Which means we aren't hurting their economy at all, only our own. Even despite the unrest in Hong Kong, we're the ones on the cusp of an economic recession, not China.


 Well, just wait a couple months, and we'll regroup about this.  I think you'll be surprised.  Edit: I just heard this morning that China is ready to "give up" because their economy is suffering so bad.  So give it a couple of days instead of months.  You'll still be surprised.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Careful with that.


. Huh?  Why's that?  I didn't say "white" in front of it.  Loving your country is not a bad thing.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The U.S. has a debt of trillions.


. Notimp covered this well enough, but I'll add to it.  What you must assume by saying that is similar to wondering how a person with credit card debt has an excellent credit score even though they own the credit card company.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 26, 2019)

notimp said:


> @supersonicwaffle
> 
> Here, this is another potential explanation for why there is a difference between steel tariffs and the current US/China trade war. I got lucky.
> 
> ...



I don't know how you read anything about the EU's steel tarrifs into the article that doesn't mention it at all, like AT ALL.

I also can't tell whether the author is just trying to revive the 90s meme of connected toasters or is in fact so blinded by the hype about 5G that he doesn't realize what's actually going on.

Lower Saxony has decided to stop funding for digital radio recently, one of the explanations given would be that the money would be better spent in 5G for radio while a 5G broadcasting mode isn't close to being standardized and is still dependant on a lot of moving parts. That's just some of the ludicrousness surrounding 5G right now.
Experts so far are clear that 5G will not be more than an iterative improvement on 4G for the forseeable time, as a matter of fact, most of the improvements it will bring short term could be done in 4G. 5G does open up new possibilities down the line though.


----------



## notimp (Aug 26, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I'm surprised you're saying that welfare programs are "absolutely nothing" figuring that over half of our taxes go towards them. Sounds kinda heartless, wow.


Boy, you are just not smart - are you?





src: https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/how-does-social-security-work

The rest are disabled workers, and spouses.

The welfare programs are nothing, because they are basic level income guarantees for people that cant work - mostly - anymore. If you don't spend that money, you have the entire old population begging in the streets. Kind of ruining public moral and productivity.

This is not something you can argue as being an act of great social conscience, or high aspirational, modern, better society building.

Unbelievable..

More information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

edit: It also encompasses unemployment benefits.

What, do you want applause for not letting your old people starve? A medal? How about a nobel peace price?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Here is total spending:





Here is discretionary spending:







> Discretionary spending is the portion of the federal budget that Congress determines annually in the appropriations process and accounts for 28 percent of all spending in the president’s proposed 2016 budget. It does not include earned benefits programs that people pay into like Social Security and Medicare. This chart shows how the president would allocate that spending.



Both under Obama.
src: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/presidents-2016-budget-in-pictures/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



supersonicwaffle said:


> I don't know how you read anything about the EU's steel tarrifs into the article that doesn't mention it at all, like AT ALL.


Yes.

Because:


> the former [the former being the 2018 financial crisis, that caused the overproduction of steel, an subsequently the steel tariffs] was mostly a large negative aggregate demand shock that depressed growth and inflation, it was appropriately met with monetary and fiscal stimulus.


And steel tarrifs were:


> mostly a large negative aggregate demand shock that depressed growth and inflation, it was appropriately met [by the chinese] with monetary and fiscal stimulus.




While the impact from the current trade wars would be:


> the world would be confronting sustained negative supply shocks [meaning, Brexit for the Brits - less products for the Brits, or permanent trade disputes US/China - less products for the US/China] that would require a very different kind of policy response over the medium term [meaning lower living standards]. Trying to undo the damage through never-ending monetary and fiscal stimulus [= free money (as the chinese gave their steel workers)] will not be a sensible option. [= the Chinese think, that they can't do much about it, other than making their societies unhappy.]



I'm almost done speaking to people who cant extract meaning out of written texts.

Go to your fast food chains, watch NFL, drink beer, bye.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 26, 2019)

notimp said:


> Boy, you are just not smart - are you?


  I'm smart enough to know that social security is a welfare program.  I'm not just talking about food stamps.  Taking care of the disabled and elderly is a part of welfare.

Source: thebalance.com
* Federal Spending Breakdown *
Almost two-thirds of federal spending goes toward paying the benefits required by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are part of mandatory spending. Those are programs established by prior Acts of Congress.

The interest payments on the national debt consume 10% of the budget. These are also required to maintain faith in the U.S. government.

The remaining 30% of spending goes toward discretionary spending. This pays for all federal government agencies. The largest is the military.

Source: thenationalreview.com
That leaves us with the welfare category, the only area of federal spending that has grown significantly relative to the size of the U.S. economy. In 1957, it was 3.9 percent of GDP—not insignificant, to be sure; that’s a slightly larger figure than our present-day military spending. But welfare entitlement spending in 2015 is 15.2 percent of GDP. Which is to say, broadly defined *welfare spending alone is equal to 86 percent of all the federal taxes that are going to be collected this year.* Most of that is Social Security, health-care spending, traditional welfare, and federal education spending, which has grown substantially despite the fact that most education spending happens at the state and local level.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 26, 2019)

morvoran said:


> . Huh? Why's that? I didn't say "white" in front of it. Loving your country is not a bad thing.


I think the word you are looking for is patriot, not nationalist.



> Patriotism: "love for or devotion to one's country.
> //'Although poles apart ideologically, they are both unashamed of their patriotism.— Christopher Hemphill'"
> 
> 
> ...



Nationalism - think Nazis.


From the Merriam-Webster page on Nationalism.


> *The Difference Between Nationalism, Patriotism, Sectionalism, and Jingoism*
> _Nationalism_ has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. _Patriotism_ is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority. _Sectionalism_ resembles _nationalism_ in its suggestion of a geopolitical group pursuing its self-interest, but the group in question is usually smaller than an entire nation. _Jingoism_ closely resembles _nationalism_ in suggesting feelings of cultural superiority, but unlike _nationalism_, it always implies military aggressiveness.
> 
> 
> ...



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism


----------



## notimp (Aug 26, 2019)

morvoran said:


> That leaves us with the welfare category, the only area of federal spending that has grown significantly relative to the size of the U.S. economy.


Aha, you have more old people (demographic shift), and?

Ping me once you get it. 
-

Here is the extra slow explaination. Old people. Cant work. Need money to survive. Part of that is private ensurance programs. Larger part of that is state 'support'. But people still work - having that idea, that they get retirement benefits, right? That they 'earned them'. So once you substract - the "fixed spending" there, which btw also comes from not having the spouses and children from men you let being shot to death in other countries - starve to death -

you are left with the disgressionary spending budget.

On disgressionary spending (= the more than the bare minimum to keep the system running), you spend 3% on social security and unemployment. Thats nothing.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the California problem of having homeless people die on streets - and having Kanye freaking West build shelter for them. Thats your social consciousness. (Where the 'more than the fixed spending' comes from in reality.)
-


Here was my path to 'solving this logically'.

"Weird - half of every countries spendings usually are retirement benefits, by now."
"I wonder where the US gets their third half of potential spending, knowing that they spend half of their budget on military anyhow."
"Oh weird, they call retirement spending (other than private ensurance funds) 'social security'"
"Oh, and now some people think, that thats just pro bono (think Bono  ) spending."
"Lol"


----------



## morvoran (Aug 26, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I think the word you are looking for is patriot, not nationalist.


  No, I know what I said.  Nationalist, not nationalism.  Just like JLP (my avatar pic), I'm not into "ism"s.  Patriot also works.



IncredulousP said:


> Nationalism - think Nazis.


  Um, I'd rather not.  I do think the US is the greatest country in the world, but I'm not into killing our own people.  Sorry if you feel the opposite way. I heard Canada is still excepting illegal immigrants and giving them free checks right after they cross.  Just saying.



notimp said:


> Aha, you have more old people (demographic shift), and?
> 
> Ping me once you get it.



Oh, I get it, alright.  You just can't admit that I'm smarter than you and that you were *WRONG!!!*


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 26, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No, I know what I said.  Nationalist, not nationalism.  Just like JLP (my avatar pic), I'm not into "ism"s.  Patriot also works.
> 
> Um, I rather not.  I do think the US is the greatest country in the world, but I'm not into killing our own people.  Sorry if you feel the opposite way. I heard Canada is still excepting illegal immigrants and giving them free checks right after they cross.  Just saying.
> 
> ...


 Ok dude, you're right. You're a genius, we're all wrong and evil and you are the saving grace that the world needs most. Godspeed, @morvoran !


----------



## morvoran (Aug 26, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Ok dude, you're right. You're a genius, we're all wrong and evil and you are the saving grace that the world needs most. Godspeed, @morvoran !



Finally, somebody cracked the code.  Thanks for coming to your senses.

@notimp You need to pay attention to this guy.  He gets it.

But seriously, you can love your country, think it's the best country in the world, *AND* not be a nazi.  When you start wanting to commit violence against others and try to silence them because you don't agree with them, then you are a nazi fascist (or fascist nazi, whichever).

As long as you can agree to not use identity politics in your decisions and not attack free speech, I guess you can stay.

Back to topic - 
UPDATE ON TRADE WAR between US and China: It was reported this morning, Monday Aug 26th, that China is ready to negotiate with the US to end the trade war due to the major decline of their economy.  

Looks like Trump has done it again.  Another win for his book.  
I have to admit that he is winning so much that I'm getting tired of winning!  /jk


----------



## Xzi (Aug 26, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I'm surprised you're saying that welfare programs are "absolutely nothing" figuring that over half of our taxes go towards them.  Sounds kinda heartless, wow.


The thread topic isn't taxes in general, nor was that what I was referencing.  Don't be intentionally dense.



morvoran said:


> Thanks to those "increased taxes", workers earnings growth is improving at a faster rate than corporations growth even with their tax cuts.


Wages have been entirely stagnant under the Trump administration, and tariffs can only affect them negatively.



morvoran said:


> Well, just wait a couple months, and we'll regroup about this.  I think you'll be surprised.  Edit: I just heard this morning that China is ready to "give up" because their economy is suffering so bad.  So give it a couple of days instead of months.  You'll still be surprised.


No, I don't think I will be.  The best-case result is that the entire world goes into economic recession rather than only the US.  Not a positive thing regardless.


----------



## RandomUser (Aug 26, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Taking care of the disabled and *elderly* is a part of welfare.


How is it a welfare if they paid into the system? It seems fair to expect at least some of that money back from Social Security, as that is a mean for income that they paid into it. Often times they pay more into the system then the receive back. After all that is what Social Security is a form of retirement income for the elderly.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 26, 2019)

RandomUser said:


> How is it a welfare if they paid into the system? It seems fair to expect at least some of that money back from Social Security, as that is a mean for income that they paid into it. Often times they pay more into the system then the receive back. After all that is what Social Security is a form of retirement income for the elderly.


 You pay into it through a payroll tax.  The money the boomers paid in that they should be getting now was gone a long time ago.



Xzi said:


> The thread topic isn't taxes in general, nor was that what I was referencing. Don't be intentionally dense.


 I know what the thread topic is. You were talking about how we were paying higher taxes buying Chinese goods from retail stores.



Xzi said:


> Wages have been entirely stagnant under the Trump administration, and tariffs can only affect them negatively.


 In Trump's voice, "Wrong".  Try checking a non leftist source for the right answer.



Xzi said:


> The best-case result is that the entire world goes into economic recession rather than only the US. Not a positive thing regardless.


 "Wrong". The stock market started going back up today and when Trump does negotiate with China, the economy will be better than before.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> In Trump's voice, "Wrong". Try checking a non leftist source for the right answer.


"Try checking a more biased source for the answer I prefer."



morvoran said:


> "Wrong". The stock market started going back up today and when Trump does negotiate with China, the economy will be better than before.


Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag.  He'll get us a worse deal than we had before and call it a win.  People like you won't question it.  

The money we've already paid in to extra taxes on goods/appeasement for industrial farming companies is not coming back regardless.


----------



## RandomUser (Aug 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You pay into it through a payroll tax.  The money the boomers paid in that they should be getting now was gone a long time ago.


You're maybe correct, I had to research this and you could be right. In that case I stand corrected then.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag. He'll get us a worse deal than we had before and call it a win. People like you won't question it.


I never question when somebody wins so much for the American people, including for you, too.  China is getting desperate, so Trump's administration will be able to negotiate a deal to prevent our economy from being taken advantage of like with all prior presidents, including Republicans.  Just give him a week or two. You'll see.



Xzi said:


> "Try checking a more biased source for the answer I prefer."



Of course, so far your feelings (that CNN tells you to feel) have not been a reliable source. 
Since Trump has been president, worker's earnings have grown around an estimated $1trillion where corporations' earning have only grown about $220 million.  You could say this is because there are a lot more workers than corporations, but you can't say corporations as a whole have benefited more than all workers.
Source: actual news sites, not my feelings


----------



## Xzi (Aug 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I never question when somebody wins so much for the American people, including for you, too.  China is getting desperate, so Trump's administration will be able to negotiate a deal to prevent our economy from being taken advantage of like with all prior presidents, including Republicans.  Just give him a week or two. You'll see.


We've had these tariffs in place for what now?  Over a year?  Two?  You're delusional if you think two more weeks is gonna make the difference, but it's obvious you're just delusional in general when it comes Trump's overall effectiveness as president.  His approval rating is down to 36% after so many _senior moments_ these last couple weeks, but in your mind I'm sure it's closer to 90%.  There's simply no productive discussion to be had with Trump trolls like yourself, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's simply no productive discussion to be had with *Leftist* trolls like *myself*, so I'll leave it at that.


You made a couple of factual errors in your last post.  I fixed them for you.

On any given day, check several polls in regards to Trump's approval rating, and you'll see why I don't trust polls and neither should you.  
Also, what's so "senior moment" about asking if we can nuke hurricanes to stop them?  Sounds reasonable. /s

The trade war has been going on since March 2018.  Just because it's been going on for a year and a half doesn't mean it can't end soon, especially with China stating publicly that they are ready to negotiate to end it.  I'm not psychic, so my two week statement is an educated guess.


----------



## Fugelmir (Aug 27, 2019)

China is much more dependent on the US than vice-versa. Especially in food and energy security.  China as we know it is facing collapse.  Ironically, the Chinese are huge Trump fans for him being a catalyst for the destruction of the PRC.  It's very weird.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 28, 2019)

Lots of interesting replies. Sorry that I don't mingle much in the topic, but as I stated in the OP: I'm not knowledgeable enough on the field to know the outcome, let alone argue why that outcome would be the most likely (that hasn't changed much in half a year  ).





notimp said:


> _(directed at said OP)_
> 
> Ehm, I think you've got that reversed.
> 
> ...


Interesting view. I indeed thought it was aimed to protect the own market (or own goods...see also the mention on EU's tariffs on bikes). Tariffs with the main aim to hurt other countries (rather than a side effect) is a different perspective, but could be as good a reason, I guess.

_The whole point of beginning a trade ('tarrifs') war is, when you know that you will win it. And when you don't want to produce 'win/win' outcomes (where for example china currently wins a little more), which is what free trade produces._

Of course Trump wouldn't begun this debacle if he didn't (then) expected to win it. But how exactly is "winning" defined? From what I've read, the international community criticized China for not upholding some standards (IP protection law is one that comes to mind). It would be understandable and even agreeable that this whole thing got started to get them in line with the rest of the world. But rather than set out with clear goals, Trump just proclaimed "it's unfair" over and over, leaving the rest of the world to fill in the blanks. The result is that the EU doesn't ally with the US on this ("how do we know that this guy has the same end goal in mind as we have?"), and that China is hindered by Trump's impulsiveness ("what's the point of signing an agreement with him if he can just break his own agreement the very next day?").

_China now can retaliate, but what they gonna do? Not buy soy from american farmers? The us can take that..._

China mirroring US good tariffs to the point that there's hardly a profit to be made is an obvious step, but hardly an unexpected one. As mentioned: the US buys much more, so tariffs hit them much more. China devaluating their currency is something I didn't expect, but that's why economists exist to point this out. I mean: a weaker currency apparently means that the extra import costs in the US are mostly/entirely negated. Can't say what effect it has on the ones actually USING said currency, so it can certainly be a step toward an internal revolution.

The real danger for the US, I would say, is in the international debt. China basically owns the US on this field. If they start selling this - and they have since this thing begun - then I've read that would undermine the dollar's position on the international market.
...but I admit that this has slided out of view of news reports. So either this was debunked, the effect wasn't that great or it was never an issue in the first place. 


_Stop the panic. If its a war - the US certainly isnt loosing it._

Again: at this point there's little evidence that it isn't a trade war. The only difference between now and a year ago is that the global economic prospects aren't as great as they were (back then even democrats had to begrudgingly admit that economy was - indeed - booming(1). Right now Trump is the only one shouting that the economy is still great).



(1): a probably important note: the economy is measured in factors that are said to be increasing a country's worth, while ignoring others (like income inequality). That's why people like Bernie Sanders criticize the economy despite it being seemingly great in accepted terms


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> Yes.
> 
> Because:
> 
> And steel tarrifs were:



Look, you saying it is so is not even close to forming an actual argument.
I'm open to your idea but maybe demonstrate HOW it is diferrent or HOW the EU tarrifs are a demand shock while US tarrifs are a supply shock.



notimp said:


> I'm almost done speaking to people who cant extract meaning out of written texts.



Pretty ironic to demand this as you've so far been unable or refused to form a coherent argument that tries to present some evidence that support your hypothesis or conclusion.


----------



## notimp (Aug 28, 2019)

Pent up anger, from answering the question before.



> Brussels has imposed tariffs on a type of steel from China to try to defend Europe’s manufacturers from a flood of cheap imports.


https://www.ft.com/content/20aa2ae4-d9f6-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09 (2016)

Not a supply issue for china.  If you believe the ft.

Also china sources everything they use for steel production from outside european territories. Afaik.  (Noch checked, based on a probability assessment - that I came up with.. )


----------

