Trump Will Aim For 60% Tariffs On China If Reelected

Sounds xenophobic.

 

No more xenophobic than someone not buying from a US company they don’t agree with. Happens every day, all of us make those choices.

 

If somebody has to constantly remind others they are "the expert in the room", then they're probably not an expert. Let alone your insinuation that some of us here think the U.S. doesn't manipulate its currency or your assertion that it's cool if China is stealing IP from us, because after all, we do it too and this sufficiently addresses the issue better than any tariff or trade restriction could ever do.

 

Americans boycotting American companies is xenophobic? Interesting.

 

No, that was kinda my point.

 

You kinda missed mine.

 

That didn't happen. Quit being dismissive.

 

I mean he/she may have a degree. They may be a professor. But I think it's been pretty well established by now there are lots of professors out there who are professors because they can't pull their weight in the private sector and there are a lot of professors who are very book smart, but cannot translate it to real-time world events or jobs. Now if you have to remind people you're a professor, yikes.

 

That didn't happen. Quit being dismissive. But it's fun to sit by and watch you get owned by people who actually know econ.

 

I am not the 1 just making declarative statements. I’ve actually provided some evidence. By that measure it seems like comparatively I am not the 1 trying to coast on expertise.

 

Link? Or mere feelings yet again

 

“Yikes” describes your posts. I can’t say I’m surprised. Based on your posting history you’d argue the technical nuances of virology with infectious disease specialists, of music with professional musician, of economics with an economist, of the law with an attorney. You’re pretty damn cocksure without the requisite expertise.

 

As if there aren’t individuals who have ten times the credentials he/she has that disagree with he/she’s stated position that we shouldn’t be concerned with IP theft in China. After all we do it way more than they do and he/she knows this because, well, actually he/she doesn’t have any evidence to support this assertion. You should just take his/her word for it, because hearsay is an acceptable form of proof for professors apparently.

 

And several of you need psychiatrist

 

China stripping itself of its resources trying to produce commodities with back breaking work for the US dollar isnt a risk for us. We can always shift production around the world, which is happening right now. Look at their growth rates slowing. India, Vietnam, South Korea are taking share. China has a lot of economic problems that time cannot cover. Our best strategy is to use them for cheap labor until someone else is cheaper and move on.

China has a shrinking population that is aging rapidly with a huge imbalance to men and women and a vastly overvalued real estate market with minimal innovation in their economy and a remedial art industry.

 

Paying $1,000 for a $600 tv to own da libz.

Trump rectocranial inversion.

 

Here's what the WSJ had to say about Trump's dumb idea to impose 10% tariffs.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tariffs-and-the-common-man-protectionism-09b30582

With Donald Trump leading the 2024 polls while calling for a 10% universal tariff, the new GOP protectionists are trying to sell this idea as a boon for the working class. The evidence exposes this folly: Trade wars invite painful retaliation, prop up politically favored industries at the expense of others, and raise prices on consumers like an invisible tax. They hurt the average worker.

Or consider steel jobs. Employment in iron and steel mills and ferroalloy manufacturing, compared with when Mr. Trump announced his metal tariffs in March 2018, is up 800 souls, or 1%. Yet in the same period, employment in steel-product manufacturing from purchased steel fell by 1,600 workers, or 2.8%.

This reveals what tariffs often do in real life, which is to rob some anonymous Peter to pay some politically powerful Paul. In their earnings calls after nearly a year of Mr. Trump’s metal tariffs, steel makers bragged about record profits, while Whirlpool
,
Caterpillar
and others lamented new costs. Ford pegged its annual hit at $750 million, and the profit-sharing checks sent to its factory workers “would be 10 percent higher were it not for tariffs,” the Detroit Free Press reported.


The public also foots the bill. “U.S. tariffs continue to be almost entirely borne by U.S. firms and consumers,” said a 2020 analysis by economists at the New York Fed, Princeton and Columbia. A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that each job created or saved by Mr. Trump’s steel tariffs cost $900,000. His tax of up to 50% on imported washing machines fared little better, according to a 2019 estimate, supporting 1,800 jobs at a cost of more than $800,000 each. That last paper is worth a read in particular because it shows how tariffs distort a market. After Mr. Trump’s import tax was imposed, prices on washers went up 11.5%, or about $86, and “all major brands increased prices,” with “no clear distinction between domestic and foreign brands.”

 

First, can I get a CATO LOL from the CINOs? Here's what they think of the 10% tariff idea.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/tru...iously-terrible-biden-helped-make-it-possible

Anyway, as you can probably imagine, I view the Trump tariff plan as economically ignorant, geopolitically dangerous, and politically misguided. And, per those same reports, plenty of other economists, diplomats, lawyers, and trade wonks tend to agree. So, apparently, does the Biden White House. But underdiscussed—if discussed at all—is how the last several years have paved the way for precisely the type of unilateral tariff mayhem that Trump just proposed, and how the Biden administration itself has greatly contributed to the problem.

Also contrary to what Trump said last week, the tariffs would have nothing to do with “dumping” (which has a precise meaning and process under U.S. law). Instead, this is just a flat tax on fairly traded imports—mainly from countries other than China. (Indeed, these tariffs could actually make China more competitive vis‐à‐vis competitor countries, as higher tariffs recently did for certain developing country products that lost preferential access to the U.S. market.)

Second, and contrary to what Newt Gingrich might tell you, the United States’ use of tariffs during the 19th and early 20th century is hardly some sort of ringing endorsement for its use today. As I briefly noted a few weeks ago, research shows that the “American system” of protective tariffs didn’t fuel rapid U.S. growth and industrialization during the 1800s (that was mainly from population growth), but it did fuel rampant political corruption and cronyism in the federal government. (For more on that last point, see this relatively new paper on how lobbying—not economics—determined tariff levels in the infamous Smoot‐Hawley era.)