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?