China increases tariffs in tit-for-tat response to Trump

[Brotherly Spirit]

where husband works, there was a time when most of their products were made in U.S. but to stay competitive, more of their products had to be made in China

wonder if they'll begin to manufacture more in U.S. again vs having products made in China

Probably some manufacturing jobs will return, but I think most will be automated or outsourced elsewhere. It's a global economy and corporations will pursue the cheapest and most competitive business policies.

 

[Desk trauma]

where husband works, there was a time when most of their products were made in U.S. but to stay competitive, more of their products had to be made in China

wonder if they'll begin to manufacture more in U.S. again vs having products made in China

The vast majority of US manufacturing jobs, 85%, that have been lost in recent years have been lost to automation not cheaper foreign labor. Unless there is some luddite anti-automation laws coming with the tariffs the jobs are simply not going to be done by humans.

 

[Kentonio]

Obvious examples would be simpler taxation have less and flatter taxes making it easier and cheaper to comply, plus having more money in people's wallet including businesses

I think everyone wants simpler taxes, but the process of flattening them is likely to wildly change a huge number of people’s incomes overnight. Great if you benefit, but not so great if you suddenly find yourself tens of thousands of dollars worse off a year.

 

[High Fidelity]

I think everyone wants simpler taxes, but the process of flattening them is likely to wildly change a huge number of people’s incomes overnight. Great if you benefit, but not so great if you suddenly find yourself tens of thousands of dollars worse off a year.

I don't see what's so difficult about it.

Surely it's a set percentage of your taxable income, no?

Here in the UK, unless you're self-employed, your tax gets taken out before your wages even hit your bank. It's nice, easy and hassle free. Why can't it be the same? I appreciate there's state and federal taxes probably, but set percentages for each and just take it automatically? No real reason not to.

 

[Kentonio]

I don't see what's so difficult about it.

Surely it's a set percentage of your taxable income, no?

Here in the UK, unless you're self-employed, your tax gets taken out before your wages even hit your bank. It's nice, easy and hassle free. Why can't it be the same? I appreciate there's state and federal taxes probably, but set percentages for each and just take it automatically? No real reason not to.

Any sudden change to tax exceptions and rules is going to be painful for a lot of people. It’s not necessarily a bad thing long term, but even in the U.K. we have a large and complex set of tax rules and exemptions, even though it’s taken out automatically under PAYE.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hard to say. If Walmart were to put up signs at all its stores telling customers that if they notice higher prices on some products, it's because of Trump's trade policies, that might turn quite a few surprising districts blue.

I don't know if WalMart is part of it, but "More than 80 industry and agricultural groups this month backed a multimillion-dollar campaign, “Tariffs Hurt the Heartland,” to oppose the White House effort. The groups are holding town-hall events and running advertising arguing that the tariffs are causing job loss and higher prices for consumers."

Separately, China took out a 4 page 'advertorial' in the Des Moines Register.

 

[Yekcidmij]

By fair I meant nations agreeing to the same rules of trade. If a nation has a lower tariff and another nation has a higher tariff, or one more than the other exploits businesses entries into the market and steals technology/patents; then it's not actual free trade. Lack of fairness doesn't mean it's not preferable or profitable compared to the alternative of having any access to foreign markets.

I would disagree. Fairness is dependent on the parties freely engaging in the transaction. If the terms of trade are unfair, the parties deeming it unfair don't engage in the transaction unless the trade isn't free.

In the case of China-US trade, an assumption is that if China places a larger tariff on mports than does the US then the trade isn't fair. But why and fair to who? If it's unfair, why do so many people do the trade? Is everyone just crazy? No, because the price paid on import taxes is paid by domestic consumers of those imports. The country with lower tariffs benefits their consumers and producers who use imports in their production in that they don't pay artificially higher prices due to govt interference.

This better price means that they can take that captial that would have gone to government coffers andedo something else with it instead.

The US ought to just drop tariifs to 0 regardless of what everyone else does and reap the benefits of lower taxes and capital inflows. Instead Republicans are all the sudden for higher taxes and capital deficits.


Also I'm not saying the United States is an innocent trade partner who's always fair. Only that by comparison as a nation we're more open to trade. So other nations have better access into our markets than we do theirs. The question I asked about fair trade was meant how do we get freer trade with a nation like China that's less one-sided.

Above T.P.P. was mentioned, I remember the opposition believed it favored international corporations at the expense of the people. It infringed on the sovereignties of nations and their people would have less say about trade and business. The decisions would be decided separately from governments by agreed upon institutions which each nation was to accept and enforce. Having thought more about it, not ideal politically, it was practical for freer trade. Not only among nations who agreed, but it pressured China as it was excluded. This meant it's competitors had greater access in each other's markets but China didn't putting it at a disadvantage.[/QUOTE]

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think everyone wants simpler taxes, but the process of flattening them is likely to wildly change a huge number of people’s incomes overnight. Great if you benefit, but not so great if you suddenly find yourself tens of thousands of dollars worse off a year.

Progressive taxation doesn't make taxes complicated. Computing the taxation on 5 (or 10) brackets vs 1 is trivial - either one can be accomplished with a single line of computer code.

What makes taxes complicated is the documentation, reporting and classification of different kinds of income and deductions that are all treated differently. Even then, for most people, it's not very complicated - you get deductions for kids, a mortgage, a retirement account, and maybe a couple other things. It's really only once you start running a business or getting into advanced forms of investing that things start to get hairy.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

I would disagree. Fairness is dependent on the parties freely engaging in the transaction. If the terms of trade are unfair, the parties deeming it unfair don't engage in the transaction unless the trade isn't free.

In the case of China-US trade, an assumption is that if China places a larger tariff on mports than does the US then the trade isn't fair. But why and fair to who? If it's unfair, why do so many people do the trade? Is everyone just crazy? No, because the price paid on import taxes is paid by domestic consumers of those imports. The country with lower tariffs benefits their consumers and producers who use imports in their production in that they don't pay artificially higher prices due to govt interference.

This better price means that they can take that captial that would have gone to government coffers andedo something else with it instead.

The US ought to just drop tariifs to 0 regardless of what everyone else does and reap the benefits of lower taxes and capital inflows. Instead Republicans are all the sudden for higher taxes and capital deficits.


Also I'm not saying the United States is an innocent trade partner who's always fair. Only that by comparison as a nation we're more open to trade. So other nations have better access into our markets than we do theirs. The question I asked about fair trade was meant how do we get freer trade with a nation like China that's less one-sided.

Above T.P.P. was mentioned, I remember the opposition believed it favored international corporations at the expense of the people. It infringed on the sovereignties of nations and their people would have less say about trade and business. The decisions would be decided separately from governments by agreed upon institutions which each nation was to accept and enforce. Having thought more about it, not ideal politically, it was practical for freer trade. Not only among nations who agreed, but it pressured China as it was excluded. This meant it's competitors had greater access in each other's markets but China didn't putting it at a disadvantage.

Fairness
1. impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination.

It's a question of having the same rules for all participants. Similar to the lesser of two evils when voting for either major party. Most people don't believe the Republican or Democratic party honestly and truly represents them. But they continue to vote for them not having a better alternative, our political system favors two-party control and both are controlled by special interests (ex: ideologues and corporations etc.)

The fact is if China equally opened it's markets, the United States could do more business to and in China. This would be fair for our businesses as American owners, workers, and investors given that their Chinese counterparts have the same to and in our markets, providing the same potential for job creation, ownership, and innovation.

All that said I agree it's ultimately better to have open markets and free trade. Especially for the United States as a developed nation with a high standard of living. We need new markets and cheaper products to continue our growth being more efficient and competitive.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Back to Walmart again.

They are one of 150 companies sponsoring the Time to Vote campaign:

The Time to Vote campaign also aims to increase awareness about the steps employers can take to allow time for their employees to vote. The companies joining this campaign are committed to increasing voter participation through programs such as paid time off, a day without meetings and resources for mail-in ballots and early voting.

Although the group is explicitly nonpartisan, increasing voter turnout tends to favor Democrats.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I wonder how things have turned out for those soy farmers.

‘Never seen things this bad’: Soy farmers fume as their crops rot in storage thanks to Trump’s trade wars

Oh my.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Stock markets in China and Europe have been hit after US President Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on China, putting a trade deal in doubt.

He said on Twitter the US would more than double tariffs on $200bn (£152bn) of Chinese goods on Friday and would introduce fresh tariffs.

Recent comments had suggested both sides were nearing a trade deal.

A Chinese delegation is preparing to travel to Washington for negotiations aimed at ending the trade war.

Earlier, US media reported that Beijing was considering cancelling the talks. Reports said the Chinese were due to send a 100-person delegation to the negotiations.

Hard to read between the lines, but it seems like both sides think we're not close to a deal. Trump's tariff rattling is probably a hamfisted last-minute move to pressure the Chinese to show up and make a deal fast.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I couldn't help but notice that yesterday Trump tweeted this:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

And then today tweeted this:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

It is a concern that the President is waging this "good easy to win" trade war, without really understanding how trade and tariffs work.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Stock Market don't like it. Ow.

 

[USincognito]

But but but black unemplyment! 4% GDP growth! Winning!

 

[rambot]

What's their history of solving them? If all we had to do was file complaints to an international body, we wouldn't have a trade war brewing up. I rather have free trade than protectionism, but we can't ignore the fact unfair trade practices have been the norm for years. Only alternative to a trade war is try to invest more in areas we have a competitive advantage, this includes automating more jobs and getting people willing and educated for new jobs (which seems we have difficulty doing).

Simply put though, I don't think things ARE unfair. If your country creates trade agreements and those agreements are followed, it's fair. If you are helping to create the definition of fair, well then it's fair.
I have that problem with the new NAFTA. All this talk about it being unfair; it was not unfair. There were benefits and sacrifices to every country in that agreement. That's what agreements do; they create compromises. Personally, I just think that Trump does not think compromise is important (which speaks to the character of a narcicist).

 

[iluvatar5150]

I couldn't help but notice that yesterday Trump tweeted this:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

And then today tweeted this:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

It is a concern that the President is waging this "good easy to win" trade war, without really understanding how trade and tariffs work.

You know it's bad when Janet Yellen calls you out in public:
Trump 'doesn't understand economics'

 

[wing2000]

The vast majority of US manufacturing jobs, 85%, that have been lost in recent years have not been lost to automation not cheaper foreign labor. Unless there is some luddite anti-automation laws coming with the tariffs the jobs are simply not going to be done by humans.

Yes, but blaming robots just doesn't have the same political punch.

 

[essentialsaltes]

President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods has further inflamed the relationship between him and Senate Republicans over trade, as the GOP lawmakers fight an increasingly losing battle to push Trump away from his protectionist instincts.

The China threat also stunned senators who were convinced that the trade negotiations between two of the world’s largest economies were on track, particularly as Vice Premier Liu He was slated to lead a 100-person delegation to Washington this week to finalize a deal.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Stock Market don't like it. Ow.

Stock market still don't like it. Ow-Ow.