Trump's trade agenda on the verge of imploding

[Root of Jesse]

Tariffs are a tax. They disproportionately tax lower and middle income folks.

So do sales taxes and gas taxes.

When Walmart brings in items from China to sell, they pay the tariff - not China. Walmart then passes on the cost of the tariffs to the consumer - us.

That is one way the tariffs hurt.

The point of tariffs is to make the balance of trade different. In an example I used before, Japan encourages us to send us their lumber to mill, so has no tax on the lumber, but the US might put a tariff on all processed lumber and make it unprofitable for consumers to buy it, so they might buy from someone else.

 

[Root of Jesse]

They don't create the security jobs. Also, there's a case to be made that without the oversight provided by the FAA, the airlines would be creating far fewer jobs because air travel would be a lot more risky.

Well, on that note, air travel is risky here because we still use ground-based flight tracking because the bureaucracy can't seem to figure a way to use satellite based. If an airport doesn't have a lot of passengers moving through it, they don't need many security agents.

That's also nonsense. The government is, if you will, in the business of providing services rather than goods. Services can be very productive. Doctors, lawyers, researchers, managers and administrators, businesses analysts, and a host of other professions provide services. Government mostly covers administration, regulation, and security, along with some health care. Those are all valuable and productive. If you don't think so, take a look at the economies of countries that don't have strong government institutions and strong legal systems - they're typically poor and very corrupt. The stability that enables us to be wealthy is a service that's provided directly and primarily by the government.

The government does not hire most doctors, and lawyers. They do provide services which could easily been done by private sector, too.

We also pay for the cashier, unless you think Walmart installs them there as a courtesy.

I use self-service, typically. But your point is taken, but we pay for goods which have overhead built into them.

Who funded the basic research needed to develop the materials and components in the product you just bought? Who built the highways on which the truck drove to deliver that product to the store? Who built the roads on which the cashier drove to get to that job? Who built the water line that feeds the plumbing in that store? Who developed the data communication systems that allow that store to communicate with the outside world? Who enforces the laws that lower the risk (and therefore the cost) of operating a store?

Al Gore?

Not Walmart.



Just like business.



Just like business.



Depends. No, it's not designed to turn a profit, but it even manages to do that on occasion. Regardless, the fact that it's not designed to turn a profit for itself doesn't mean that it doesn't create value. It just means that it doesn't retain the value for itself.

 

[FreeinChrist]

So do sales taxes and gas taxes.The point of tariffs is to make the balance of trade different. In an example I used before, Japan encourages us to send us their lumber to mill, so has no tax on the lumber, but the US might put a tariff on all processed lumber and make it unprofitable for consumers to buy it, so they might buy from someone else.

Yes. But the end result is to raise the cost of the goods for us.

China stopped buying soybeans from the US. Instead, they made a deal with Australia. American farmers are the ones suffering.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The government does not hire most doctors, and lawyers.

I was drawing a comparison. IME, most people who espouse this view only place a value on goods, not on services. When you devalue services, you devalue a significant portion of our economy.

 

[Philip_B]

The point of tariffs is to make the balance of trade different. In an example I used before, Japan encourages us to send us their lumber to mill, so has no tax on the lumber, but the US might put a tariff on all processed lumber and make it unprofitable for consumers to buy it, so they might buy from someone else.

I am not sure I entirely agree with this. Many Tariffs are raised in order to protect a domestic industry and jobs. The goal may be considered sufficient grounds however there is no doubt that many governments have become addicted to revenue, note we no longer have a public service we have a public sector!

In the case of the trade war between the US and China tariffs are being used as a political tool and the balance of trade is being used as an argument by the US (and maybe also by China) as part of the rationale. The difficulty is that two very large economies are discussing numbers which most of us have trouble imagining, and playing with them. The results of this go right round the world, and at the moment I don't see a lot of people being helped by it.

 

[Pommer]

There is a big difference between a government job and a private sector job. Government jobs are largely non-productive. That doesn't mean you don't do anything, just like non-profit doesn't mean you don't earn money. I've been on both sides. In a private sector job, if I'm not contributing to the growth of the company, I can lose my job. In a public sector job, it's practically impossible to lose your job.

Again, it's hilarious when people take something you said specifically, and try to apply it generally, or something you said generally, and try to apply it specifically.

There is no doubt that public sector employees provide services and take home a paycheck. And, having been one, I am grateful for that. But there's a difference between being an employer and being a bureaucrat.

This is a subtle variation of “run government like a business”.

But a government isn’t a business, expecting one to run like a business ignores that government’s job is to make sure that all other parts of our society, function, (more or less as the Constitution, Laws, Acts, and Treaties, demand), notwithstanding what the hoi polloi might desire.

 

[Fantine]

Hopefully it may lead his accomplices and enablers in Congress to open their eyes and abandon their slavish support of his impulsive proposals.

I am sure if the real estate market went down as much as the stock market has in the past few days, Trump would be on a jet to President Xi, coming back with a story like, "We fell in love."

 

[wing2000]

And yet the biggest user of the 737 MAX is still in the US. And if China wants to go that way, they would know that Airbus is second class to Boeing.

Chinese airlines currently have 231 Boeing commercial aircraft on order, including 192 737 Max planes, Herbert said. In addition, China has placed orders for at least two 777 aircraft and several 787s, he said.

However, the article notes China is stuck with Boeing as the competing Airbus model has no availability in the short term. As for 2nd class, not hardly. Boeing screwed up bigtime with the 737 MAX design.
China threatens to reduce Boeing orders, but analyst says options are limited

 

[TLK Valentine]

The point of tariffs is to make the balance of trade different. In an example I used before, Japan encourages us to send us their lumber to mill, so has no tax on the lumber, but the US might put a tariff on all processed lumber and make it unprofitable for consumers to buy it, so they might buy from someone else.

Or they might just bite the bullet and pay more money for the same lumber.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This is a subtle variation of “run government like a business”.

Never a good idea, especially when the government is in the hands of someone who runs businesses into the ground while lining his own pockets...

 

[USincognito]

I was drawing a comparison. IME, most people who espouse this view only place a value on goods, not on services. When you devalue services, you devalue a significant portion of our economy.

About 2/3 of it these days.

 

[Belk]

There is a big difference between a government job and a private sector job. Government jobs are largely non-productive. That doesn't mean you don't do anything, just like non-profit doesn't mean you don't earn money. I've been on both sides. In a private sector job, if I'm not contributing to the growth of the company, I can lose my job. In a public sector job, it's practically impossible to lose your job.

Again, it's hilarious when people take something you said specifically, and try to apply it generally, or something you said generally, and try to apply it specifically.

There is no doubt that public sector employees provide services and take home a paycheck. And, having been one, I am grateful for that. But there's a difference between being an employer and being a bureaucrat.

Yes, it is almost like you specifically said politicians do not create jobs without any of the later qualifications you added.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There is a big difference between a government job and a private sector job. Government jobs are largely non-productive. That doesn't mean you don't do anything, just like non-profit doesn't mean you don't earn money. I've been on both sides. In a private sector job, if I'm not contributing to the growth of the company, I can lose my job. In a public sector job, it's practically impossible to lose your job.

I missed this the first time around, but you're still wrong. There may be a different set of economic pressures on public sector jobs vs private sector jobs, but that doesn't mean those jobs aren't productive. It also doesn't mean, unlike what you said, that government workers can't lose their jobs.

Again, it's hilarious when people take something you said specifically, and try to apply it generally, or something you said generally, and try to apply it specifically.

It's hilarious when somebody repeatedly articulates a blatantly false idea then tries to blame others for it.

There is no doubt that public sector employees provide services and take home a paycheck. And, having been one, I am grateful for that. But there's a difference between being an employer and being a bureaucrat.

There may very well be a difference, but it's not one that you've yet articulated in this thread.

 

[wing2000]

....impact on US exports from last year's trade spat with China

Over a six-month period ending in March, exports from the United States to China dropped by $18.4 billion, or 26 percent, compared to a year earlier. Some of the decline was offset by other markets, with exports increasing to the European Union and Mexico. Imports from China declined as well.

The decline reflected lost sales by a host of producers, from farmers and fishers to carmakers and oil companies, and in many cases marked an end to years of growing sales. These patterns reflected how China targeted its first round of higher tariffs at producers in manufacturing and farm states that were key supporters of Trump’s 2016 election, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and Texas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...dy-stifled-us-exports/?utm_term=.6678d8592e82

 

[wing2000]

China’s leader Xi Jinping seems to have badly miscalculated how the Trump administration would respond.....

"....it is clear that Mr. Xi misjudged Mr. Trump’s eagerness for a deal and how far he could push the American negotiators, according to more than a dozen people, including current and former officials, researchers, lawyers, and trade experts familiar with the deal and how it fell apart.

Now Mr. Xi risks being backed into a corner, unable to compromise between his own positions and Mr. Trump’s."

How Xi’s Last-Minute Switch on U.S.-China Trade Deal Upended It

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump's trade agenda on the verge of imploding

President Donald Trump is heading toward his 2020 reelection campaign with virtually nothing to show for his big trade promises — except for angry farmers and a jittery stock market.​

Here we are 2 months later, and it's much the same.

President Trump on Tuesday said a new trade deal with China might not come until after the 2020 Election, a significant departure after more than a year of trying to exert pressure on one of the world’s largest economies.

In a series of tweets, Trump accused China of delaying negotiations, which began in earnest last December. Even as Trump’s chief trade advisers resumed talks in Shanghai, the president’s tweets suggested a deal may be much more out of reach than it had seemed in recent months.

The Dow Jones industrial average futures fell 100 points after Trump’s tweets, suggesting a loss of more than 90 points at open. The Standard & Poor’s 500 and Nasdaq futures also fell.

​

 

[mark46]

When Trump needs the help in the campaign, he'll announce an agreement and a victory, whether or not there is any serious substance. He will then reduce or eliminate the Trump tariffs on China, with the attendant improvements in the stock market and economy.

Here we are 2 months later, and it's much the same.

President Trump on Tuesday said a new trade deal with China might not come until after the 2020 Election, a significant departure after more than a year of trying to exert pressure on one of the world’s largest economies.

In a series of tweets, Trump accused China of delaying negotiations, which began in earnest last December. Even as Trump’s chief trade advisers resumed talks in Shanghai, the president’s tweets suggested a deal may be much more out of reach than it had seemed in recent months.

The Dow Jones industrial average futures fell 100 points after Trump’s tweets, suggesting a loss of more than 90 points at open. The Standard & Poor’s 500 and Nasdaq futures also fell.

​

 

[Root of Jesse]

Here we are 2 months later, and it's much the same.

President Trump on Tuesday said a new trade deal with China might not come until after the 2020 Election, a significant departure after more than a year of trying to exert pressure on one of the world’s largest economies.

In a series of tweets, Trump accused China of delaying negotiations, which began in earnest last December. Even as Trump’s chief trade advisers resumed talks in Shanghai, the president’s tweets suggested a deal may be much more out of reach than it had seemed in recent months.

The Dow Jones industrial average futures fell 100 points after Trump’s tweets, suggesting a loss of more than 90 points at open. The Standard & Poor’s 500 and Nasdaq futures also fell.

​

And yet, as of now, the DJIA is less than half of that. The tariffs are working against China.

 

[Root of Jesse]

When Trump needs the help in the campaign, he'll announce an agreement and a victory, whether or not there is any serious substance. He will then reduce or eliminate the Trump tariffs on China, with the attendant improvements in the stock market and economy.

The tariffs are working. No need to reduce or eliminate. It strengthens US business. I'm sorry you can't buy cheaper clothes at Walmart now.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The tariffs are working against China.

Is that why China isn't making a deal with us?