More tariffs paid by US consumers

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 02:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While I'll admit my responses came off stronger than I had intended I think you're also being a bit overly sensitive.

I think you'd have to try really hard to equate almost everyone of those statements as a direct attack on you.  I can find your point inane without believing that you, yourself, are inane.  If I have offended your sensibilities I will retract the statement as that was not my intention.  Also, my "frog and scorpion" statement is a clear analogy of how trying the same thing multiple time will not get different results.  Again, not a personal insult and I'm not sure why you'd choose to view it as such.

How should I respond to claims--really "impressions" with no supporting specifics--that I am being "intellectually dishonest," or that I am "defending odious regimes" rather than sincerely describing what I take to be an existing international balance of forces?  You think it hard to equate such statements with a "direct attack"? 

My argument can be "simplistic" without me being simplistic, but it cannot be intellectually dishonest without me being intellectually dishonest.  If I am a myopic frog on a scorpion, you might be driving for an analogy rather than an insult, but a claim alone does not establish that analogy.  To prevent my "becoming offended" in future posts, simply substitute impressions of my character with data and arguments about the China-US relations resting upon specific factual support. 
 

(06-11-2019, 02:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't really see anything from you about how best to stop it.  Maybe if you responded point by point instead of becoming offended we could determine where this occurred.  Your point about being a diplomat (which we aren't) or a foreign policy advisor (again) omits the obvious fact that everything you have mentioned has been tried with China before.  It is equally obvious that none of it has  come close to producing the desired result.  So, the answer is to continue as is, and persist in being taken advantage of in a significant manner, or you try something new.

Positing diplomats and foreign policy advisors as role models--as opposed to any angry guy at the end of the bar ranting about how the US always gets the shaft--is a point about perspective and about standards, how foreign policy and international conflict could be productively viewed and discussed.  If I am discussing foreign policy then I would rather my statements are informed, oriented to realistic policy solutions, and responsible, as they must be for diplomats and advisors, not impressions. Whether I am actually a diplomat or FP adviser does not matter.

Did the US join the TPP and lead a coordinated response to China which included the EU and NAFTA?  If not, then everything I have mentioned has not been "tried with China before." 

But Tariffs have. There is in fact a rather checkered history of the US use of tariffs to accomplish domestic and diplomatic goals, ranging from Smoot-Hawley to the US Trade Act of 1974 to the recent Doha Rounds. In no case have they ever worked without coordination with allies and cooperation of international institutions like the UN and World Bank; where they have had limited success (the "Nixon shock" of 1971; Reagan's Plaza Accord of 1985), they have re-ordered international relations in ways that weakened as well as strengthened the US.

However "simplistic," the position advocated in my two posts was a multi-factoral analysis which views international relations in terms of comprehensive power (both US and Chinese) and rejects a bi-lateral approach to China in favor of multi-lateral diplomacy. It offered a partial review of available resources, options and allies (to which I should have added ASEAN and "the Quad").  It's based upon my cognizance of China's embedment in a regional as well as a global balance of economic forces which the US would be foolish to ignore.  It includes recognition of China's viewpoint and available resources and allies as well, and is based upon awareness of internal conflicts in many countries like Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Malaysia and the Philippines, where the predominate political and economic influence upon each is currently teetering between China and the US.  The guy at the end of the bar doesn't care what is happening in the Maldives; foreign policy professionals do, as they understand what falling economic dominoes in SE Asia (not to mention Africa and the ME) mean for a liberal international order.

It also includes recognition that China did not come to the US, pack up our factories and jobs, and move them to China. Our corporations went there to use cheap Chinese labor to increase their profit margins. For the right to make those profits without union interference, they agreed to "forced" technology transfers, Chinese partners, and the like, because the Chinese government is determined not to be exploited by the West and Japan, yet again. Now as Chinese wages rise, these companies flee China for Malaysia, Vietnam, and India--wherever the new cheap labor is--while Americans still focus on "getting back" at China or stealing our jobs. 

Trump rides into this picture ready to "shake things up" and "try something new," in ways that confuse his own advisors and cabinet members, but cheer the guy at the end of the bar. Trump doesn't care about that soft power crap, and thinks our allies are free loaders. He's going to "stand up" to China for once. "We are going to heap tariffs on you until you break, while we also expect your cooperation in managing North Korea and Iran and rebuilding Afghanistan" appears to be the message.

It is fitting here to ask how China could realistically respond. Is it to be imagined that their doubling down, or their hoped for collapse, would accomplish US goals?  Will China say "OK OK stop hurting me. I'm sorry.  Will stop stealing patents, will buy more of your goods and sell you less of ours! We''ll back your NK policy too"?  Will they hurry to get that apology out before the next election?

Or is this more like threatening sanctions on Putin unless he gets out of the Crimea?

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 01:10 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It is my understanding Trump inacted the tariffs on Chinese imports to combat a trade deficit. We have a trade deficit with China because we import more goods from China than we export. The reason we import more than we export is because corporations have moved the manufacturing jobs overseas. So how are Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports going to create manufacturing jobs in the US to reverse the US' trade deficit with China?

I think that's a good point and a good question, because you are addressing the structural logic underlying the deficit.   We have a trade deficit in part because we have high wages and can buy more; and poorer countries use cheap labor to make goods to sell us, while they often cannot buy what we produce because their consumers don't make enough money. 

Where US corporations are concerned, the difference in labor cost, realized as profit, does come back to the US, but not as an "import" and mostly to the 1%. And part of the profit is reinvested back where the cheap labor is to be found (not in Ohio).

Services make up more and more of our GDP, and services (housekeeping, nursing, teaching) mostly cannot be offshored or exported. We can't really make the Chinese or whomever buy car repairs or personal training from us. And as Chinese wages rise so they can buy from us, US corporations simply move to other countries, like Indonesia, or wherever the lowest wages are. It seems possible the trade deficit with one country, like China, could be reduced, while the total US trade deficit remains the same, or at least very high.  

In my view, easing trade imbalances could be partially addressed by some profit redistribution in the US, and by examining more closely the economies of countries like Germany, which appears to have kept its auto industry and high wage labor force while running trade surpluses.

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2019, 08:46 PM)Dill Wrote: I think that's a good point and a good question, because you are addressing the structural logic underlying the deficit.   We have a trade deficit in part because we have high wages and can buy more; and poorer countries use cheap labor to make goods to sell us, while they often cannot buy what we produce because their consumers don't make enough money. 

Where US corporations are concerned, the difference in labor cost, realized as profit, does come back to the US, but not as an "import" and mostly to the 1%. And part of the profit is reinvested back where the cheap labor is to be found (not in Ohio).

Services make up more and more of our GDP, and services (housekeeping, nursing, teaching) mostly cannot be offshored or exported. We can't really make the Chinese or whomever buy car repairs or personal training from us. And as Chinese wages rise so they can buy from us, US corporations simply move to other countries, like Indonesia, or wherever the lowest wages are. It seems possible the trade deficit with one country, like China, could be reduced, while the total US trade deficit remains the same, or at least very high.  

In my view, easing trade imbalances could be partially addressed by some profit redistribution in the US, and by examining more closely the economies of countries like Germany, which appears to have kept its auto industry and high wage labor force while running trade surpluses.

When we get done looking at Germany on how to run an economy perhaps we could get some human-rights pointers from Bangladesh. Unless you think it's a good idea to be so reliant on Russia

[Benton]

(06-11-2019, 08:46 PM)Dill Wrote: .  

In my view, easing trade imbalances could be partially addressed by some profit redistribution in the US, and by examining more closely the economies of countries like Germany, which appears to have kept its auto industry and high wage labor force while running trade surpluses.

Germanys auto industry has some similarities to our own from decades ago. As I understand it, companies are required to have labor represented. That was part of the issue when one of them wanted to come to Tennessee a few years ago and the gop had a come apart, as their right to work law was in opposition to the German requirement. They eventually worked something out.

But, to me, the issue isn't going to get fixed until there's a big collapse. We got close with The Great Recession, and some reforms were made, but companies invested a lot in the following years to promote 'socialism is bad' while benefiting greatly from socialism. I mean, you cant even mention things like wage control without some folks saying ' well in my day we all loved off a nickle each, nobody deserves that kind of money!!!1!1!!!'

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 09:35 PM)Benton Wrote: Germanys auto industry has some similarities to our own from decades ago. As I understand it, companies are required to have labor represented. That was part of the issue when one of them wanted to come to Tennessee a few years ago and the gop had a come apart, as their right to work law was in opposition to the German requirement. They eventually worked something out.

But, to me, the issue isn't going to get fixed until there's a big collapse. We got close with The Great Recession, and some reforms were made, but companies invested a lot in the following years to promote 'socialism is bad' while benefiting greatly from socialism. I mean, you cant even mention things like wage control without some folks saying ' well in my day we all loved off a nickle each, nobody deserves that kind of money!!!1!1!!!'

The "right to work" is one driver of the current wage gap, I believe.  

How is it that German manufacturers seem to maintain profitability while paying their workers decent union wages, and kept those jobs in country?  Of course, they have offshored a lot of production to the US. Not only Tennessee.  The largest BMW plant in the world is in South Carolina.  Are we China to them? But their unemployment is lower than ours, so they don't seem to be losing jobs. (Hard to compare wages and economies, at least for me, since they pay more taxes but get more from them than we do.) And the country still exports more than it imports. Chinese want their cars.



I think you might be right about the big collapse. It took a depression to get Americans comfortable with "big government" solutions. Maybe we have to go there again. The recession, strangely, intensified the anti-government movement, crippling attempts to get the economy back on track.

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When we get done looking at Germany on how to run an economy perhaps we could get some human-rights pointers from Bangladesh. Unless you think it's a good idea to be so reliant on Russia

?? Germany has a poorly run economy?

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2019, 10:26 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? Germany has a poorly run economy?

Pales in comparison to ours. Last year Germany was 149 out of 193 countries in growth rate. Given the US was only 109 but considering we are BY FAR the world's largest economy that quite an accomplishment. 

We don't need to look at Germany for anything except how to make schnitzel and how to field a National Football Team. 

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 10:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pales in comparison to ours. Last year Germany was 149 out of 193 countries in growth rate. Given the US was only 109 but considering we are BY FAR the world's largest economy that quite an accomplishment. 

We don't need to look at Germany for anything except how to make schnitzel and how to field a National Football Team. 

Ours pales in comparison to Libya and Rwanda.  Ready to pack your bags and head for Africa--or is growth rate a metric to be balanced by many other factors, including per capita income and quality of life?

Germany has nothing to teach us about health care?  Balance of trade?  Public education? Automaking? Keeping jobs in country?

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2019, 10:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Ours pales in comparison to Libya and Rwanda.  Ready to pack your bags and head for Africa--or is growth rate a metric to be balanced by many other factors, including per capita income and quality of life?

Germany has nothing to teach us about health care?  Balance of trade?  Public education? Automaking?

Kind of a swing and a miss. That's why I pointed out we were only 109 in growth but 1 in scope. If you have a nickle and then have a dime you're growth is 100%. If I have $1,000,000 dollars and earn another $500,000 my growth is at 50%.

Germany's economy is smaller than ours and growing at a slower rate than ours, but we should take note because............ 

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Kind of a swing and a miss. That's why I pointed out we were only 109 in growth but 1 in scope. If you have a nickle and then have a dime you're growth is 100%. If I have $1,000,000 dollars and earn another $500,000 my growth is at 50%.

Germany's economy is smaller than ours and growing at a slower rate than ours, but we should take note because............ 

. . . they seem to be managing some problems we can't.  And because I would never privilege growth or "scope" over quality of life.

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2019, 10:57 PM)Dill Wrote: . . . they seem to be managing some problems we can't.  And because I would never privilege growth or "scope" over quality of life.

What economic problems are they managing that we cannot? 

Keep your subjective "Quality of Life" out of the economic discussion unless you what to discuss GDP per capita. 

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What economic problems are they managing that we cannot? 

Keep your subjective "Quality of Life" out of the economic discussion unless you what to discuss GDP per capita. 

If you have been following the thread, balance of trade would be one. Unemployment another, related to their ability to retain manufacturing, even with extensive use of robots. Have you heard Trump complain of the US loss of manufacturing jobs?

The metrics of quality of life--access to food, housing, health care, security, and education, absence of pollution and crime--are not wholly "subjective," are they?

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2019, 11:35 PM)Dill Wrote: If you have been following the thread, balance of trade would be one. Unemployment another, related to their ability to retain manufacturing, even with extensive use of robots. Have you heard Trump complain of the US loss of manufacturing jobs?

The metrics of quality of life--access to food, housing, health care, security, and education, absence of pollution and crime--are not wholly "subjective," are they?

Pointing to our unemployment rate shows you're pretty much grasping at straws at this point. Why the request to follow the thread? Our economy is better than Germany's. Is someone earlier in the thread going to dispute fact with ideology such as you are now doing? I get the spoiled American taking their situation for granted, but let's not make up "we should look at.....economy" and then start talking about their society. 

I get you ideology favors the more Socialistic approach of societies such as Germany's; hell, you're probably in the majority around here. But none of that makes Germany's economy better than ours or why we should look to them for tips.  

[Benton]

(06-11-2019, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What economic problems are they managing that we cannot? 

Keep your subjective "Quality of Life" out of the economic discussion unless you what to discuss GDP per capita. 

Wage stagnation, affordable access to basics (healthcare, rent, etc), infrastructure. Although, I wouldn't say we can't manage those things, we just opt not to under the guise of a "free market" that's heavily subsidized and regulated in favor of profits. The idea was that corporate welfarewould create jobs and trickle down, but that never really happened. So we ended up with a system of high costs, low controls and flat wages. Or, also known as 'the opposite of Germany.'

[Dill]

(06-11-2019, 11:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pointing to our unemployment rate shows you're pretty much grasping at straws at this point. Why the request to follow the thread? Our economy is better than Germany's. Is someone earlier in the thread going to dispute fact with ideology such as you are now doing? I get the spoiled American taking their situation for granted, but let's not make up "we should look at.....economy" and then start talking about their society. 

I get you ideology favors the more Socialistic approach of societies such as Germany's; hell, you're probably in the majority around here. But none of that makes Germany's economy better than ours or why we should look to them for tips.  

No one requested that you follow the thread. 

You asked "What economic problems are they managing that we cannot?"

You got a very direct answer--balance of trade, unemployment, ability to retain manufacturing and manufacturing jobs (already discussed on the thread).

Your response was not to demonstrate that the US manages its balance of trade better, or that US unemployment was lower, or that the US had better retained manufacturing and manufacturing jobs.

Rather you merely  ASSERTED the US economy is "better" without a shred of counter evidence or clearly stated metric--unless you are assuming your "scope" and "growth" metrics from your previous post. Even Trump wouldn't agree those alone make the US economy better.  (Nevermind that even if the US economy were "better," that wouldn't mean Americans couldn't learn something from Germans.) 

Further, you call reference to measurable economic factors "ideology," which in turn "favors the more Socialistic approach," which implies your mere, unsupported assertion is somehow not ideology--just plain truth.  One has to wonder how you are deploying the term "ideology" here, or if you understand the term at all, in any of its usual senses. Does this come from reading authors who take their own views as "plain truths" in no need of demonstration while calling others' views "ideology," especially when those others build arguments around economic data? 

This from the poster whose signature move is to claim others dodge his questions?
You also haven't explained why the above-mentioned metrics for quality of life, including those added by Benton, are merely subjective.

[jj22]

Reading through this you'd think Germany was our enemy and Russia our Ally.

Welcome to America post 2016.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2019, 03:39 PM)jj22 Wrote: Reading through this you'd think Germany was our enemy and Russia our Ally.

Welcome to America post 2016.

Nah, Germany's much more reliant on Russia than us, so they are the most likely allies.

But what we do have is folks arguing the a smaller economy growing at a slower rate is somehow better.

Welcome to PnR in Jungle Noise. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2019, 09:05 AM)Dill Wrote: No one requested that you follow the thread. 

You asked "What economic problems are they managing that we cannot?"

You got a very direct answer--balance of trade, unemployment, ability to retain manufacturing and manufacturing jobs (already discussed on the thread).

Your response was not to demonstrate that the US manages its balance of trade better, or that US unemployment was lower, or that the US had better retained manufacturing and manufacturing jobs.

Rather you merely  ASSERTED the US economy is "better" without a shred of counter evidence or clearly stated metric--unless you are assuming your "scope" and "growth" metrics from your previous post. Even Trump wouldn't agree those alone make the US economy better.  (Nevermind that even if the US economy were "better," that wouldn't mean Americans couldn't learn something from Germans.) 

Further, you call reference to measurable economic factors "ideology," which in turn "favors the more Socialistic approach," which implies your mere, unsupported assertion is somehow not ideology--just plain truth.  One has to wonder how you are deploying the term "ideology" here, or if you understand the term at all, in any of its usual senses. Does this come from reading authors who take their own views as "plain truths" in no need of demonstration while calling  others' views "ideology," especially when those others build arguments around economic data? 

This from the poster whose signature move is to claim others dodge his questions?
You also haven't explained why the above-mentioned metrics for quality of life, including those added by Benton, are merely subjective.

Saying that the larger economy growing at a higher rate is not a "shred" of counter evidence? 

As to the unemployment: What are talking fractions of a percentage? Our employment numbers are fine and as I've said when you start pointing to those; you're just grasping at straws. Have you ever heard of the term Frictional Unemployment? It's used to combat that wage stagnation that someone else is pointing to. 

I'll admit you guys come up with some whoppers sometimes, but this one may take the cake.  

[Benton]

(06-12-2019, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, Germany's much more reliant on Russia than us, so they are the most likely allies.

But what we do have is folks arguing the a smaller economy growing at a slower rate is somehow better.

Welcome to PnR in Jungle Noise. 

The us has four times the population (six times if you believe the alt right count of illegals) of Germany. That's going to ipact the size of the economy some in favor of the us.

But the end of the day, Germany is still Europe's largest and strongest economy, has less unemployment than the us, less wage disparity and more services.

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2019, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, Germany's much more reliant on Russia than us, so they are the most likely allies.

But what we do have is folks arguing the a smaller economy growing at a slower rate is somehow better.

Welcome to PnR in Jungle Noise. 

I would rather have a smaller economy growing at a slower rate if it meant improved infrastructure, lower debt, higher wages, better housing security, guaranteed healthcare, etc., etc. We have a tendency to argue for growth for the sake of growth, forgetting the people that are trampled on in order for that growth to occur. We have a government ignoring that role of providing for the general welfare, all for the sake of larger corporate profits and larger stock market gains.

I'd gladly pump the brakes on our economy if the tradeoff were stronger social programs for the citizenry, which is what countries like Germany and the Nordic states have done.