Trump signs tariffs

[tucker6]

Whispers are in the air about a conclusion to the US - China trade tiff later this month.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Whispers are in the air about a conclusion to the US - China trade tiff later this month.

Word is Secy. of Commerce Wilbur Ross is the next to go, Trump not happy with his negotiation of trade deals. The Donald will probably step in and personally negotiate a deal with China to show how it is done, and we can all live happily ever after.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...be-his-way-out

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Word is Secy. of Commerce Wilbur Ross is the next to go, Trump not happy with his negotiation of trade deals. The Donald will probably step in and personally negotiate a deal with China to show how it is done, and we can all live happily ever after.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...be-his-way-out

Well, he better get off his ass and do something soon. I couldn't even find the "Great Economy Winning Thread" and this was 4 pages in....gee, I wonder why? Top economist are saying the same sort of things I said. They are already crying about next year. The King Mouthbreather better get off his ass soon...…..its coming...…..Tariffs.....lol......For Christ sakes. What a joke.


Hes trying his best to monkey wrench this economy! Of course hes not happy. China, no budge...surprise, surprise...….

As the market makes the whistling bomb sound...…..

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by burnsy

Tariffs.....lol......For Christ sakes. What a joke.

Hes trying his best to monkey wrench this economy! Of course hes not happy. China, no budge...surprise, surprise...….

The tariffs were supposed to make China see the error of its ways and cave in to Trump's wishes for "free but fair" trade. That didn't happen.

Some top economic advisors, like former Goldman CEO Gary Cohn, opposed the tariffs and ended up leaving the administration. Cohn's replacement, Larry Kudlow, a long-time free trade advocate, has kept a very low profile on tariffs since joining the administration. The big tariff hawk in the administration, especially regarding China, is Peter Navarro.

Trump is meeting with Chinese President Xi in December. Perhaps some changes in the wind.

...futures did jump on a report from SCMP that Trump trade advisor and notorious China hawk, Peter Navarro, has been excluded from the guest list when US President Donald Trump meets his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires on December 1.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...t-session-high

[Clocker]

Looks like the boys in the White House aren't playing well together.

The White House has deliberately curtailed trade advisor Peter Navarro's public profile amid a clash with top economic advisor Larry Kudlow, a person with knowledge of the matter told CNBC on condition of anonymity.

On Tuesday, Kudlow slammed Navarro for his remarks on the White House's ongoing trade negotiations with China. Washington and Beijing have struggled to reach a new trade deal and de-escalate tensions that have led to mounting tariffs. Kudlow told CNBC on Tuesday that Navarro "was not speaking for the president, nor was he speaking for the administration."

"His remarks were way off base. They were not authorized by anybody. I actually think he did the president a great disservice," said Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/whit...ry-kudlow.html

[tucker6]

... oops Clocker.

I guess Trump's 1960's economics degree trumps your "modern" degree (pun intended).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-research-says

President Donald Trump is succeeding in making China pay most of the cost of his trade war.

That’s the conclusion of a new paper from EconPol Europe, a network of researchers in the European Union. U.S. companies and consumers will only pay 4.5 percent more after the nation imposed 25 percent tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods, and the other 20.5 percent toll will fall on Chinese producers, according to authors Benedikt Zoller-Rydzek and Gabriel Felbermayr.

The Trump administration selected products with the highest “price elasticity,” or high availability of substitutes, according to Zoller-Rydzek and Felbermayr. The Chinese products hit by Trump’s tariffs can mostly be replaced by other goods, forcing exporters to cut selling prices to keep buyers.


“Through its strategic choice of Chinese products, the U.S. government was not only able to minimize the negative effects on U.S. consumers and firms, but also to create substantial net welfare gains in the U.S.,” the researchers wrote.


I wish Elysian were still around to tell me how his Euro buddies and Bloomberg are all wet. So let me get this straight. After months of telling us that the US economy would tank under the incredible weight of tariffs against China, it seems Trump out-trumped China by skewing the end result on consumers. China is eating most of the cost of tariffs and we will hardly see the increase in our costs. How about that.

#winning

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

So let me get this straight. After months of telling us that the US economy would tank under the incredible weight of tariffs against China, it seems Trump out-trumped China by skewing the end result on consumers. China is eating most of the cost of tariffs and we will hardly see the increase in our costs. How about that.

#winning

Nobody ever said that the US economy would tank under tariffs. Trump's own people said that the cost of living for American consumers would increase by 10-15%.

That article indicates that the burden of tariffs will be somewhat less than it might be. The good news is that as a command economy, China can force Chinese manufacturers to eat part of the tariffs, at least in the short run. They can't do that forever. That doesn't change the major impact of tariffs on goods America exports to China, such as soy beans. Farmers are still hurting.

And it doesn't change the impact on American consumers of the tariffs on imports from other countries, like lumber from Canada or appliances from South Korea or steel from many different countries or aluminum ore from Canada.

[delayjf]

The tariffs were supposed to make China see the error of its ways and cave in to Trump's wishes for "free but fair" trade. That didn't happen.

What are the alternatives regarding how to deal with China?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by delayjf

What are the alternatives regarding how to deal with China?

There are a number of legitimate issues regarding trade with China, most of which cannot be addressed by tariffs. The real issues are not about how much a Chinese manufacturer charges for the pots and pans it sells to WalMart. And tariffs cannot address those issues.



A big issue is intellectual property. The problem is that many western companies are willing to give intellectual property to China in exchange for market entry. And there are accusations that China just plain steals intellectual property. Our government doesn't like that, but doesn't know how to deal with it. But the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and it's easier to enact tariffs than to deal with tougher questions.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/b...-us-trade.html

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

... oops Clocker.

I guess Trump's 1960's economics degree trumps your "modern" degree (pun intended).

Macroeconomic theory taught in the 1960s was based on the assumption that the federal government can and should influence the private sector through its policies and its intervention in markets.

The belief was that recessions and unemployment were caused by insufficient demand by the private sector. The "cure" was manipulation of interest rates to encourage business investment spending and federal deficit spending to put more money into the economy and stimulate consumer spending. The result was touted as the end of recessions forever, and we would all live happily ever after. How did that work out?

Tariffs were not a big issue at the time, as foreign trade was a much smaller part of the economy. But clearly, Trump formed a strong belief that the federal government can and should play a big role in controlling the private sector. And he has apparently learned nothing from the real world results since then of what happens when the federal government tries to micromanage the economy.

A lot of people thought that Trump ran for president opposing big government. He didn't. He ran for president opposing big government run by Obama and Hillary, but in favor of big government run by The Donald. He believes that the government should determine winners and losers in the market, as long as he runs the government.

[fast4522]

Millions of good Americans were crushed by Obama policys, today some are also being crushed by Trump policys. This is the price for not having a third term of Obama. The whole China thing will just have to play out like a bad cold, one thing that is certain is that China is going to have to cave and emerging markets will suffer for years.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by fast4522

today some are also being crushed by Trump policys.

You have no problem with Trump deciding who gets "crushed"? No problem with Trump picking winners and losers, rather than leaving it to the free market?

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by Clocker

You have no problem with Trump deciding who gets "crushed"? No problem with Trump picking winners and losers, rather than leaving it to the free market?

I have no problem with someone telling everyone exactly what he will do if he becomes President, then checks off things that he said he would do. If you bet against that in the markets you will find NO one feeling bad for you. The winners and losers thing has naturally occured since before you were born, so your real weak there. China has it coming to them, the more they get smoked the better.

[chadk66]

Trump will win this battle in the end and America will be better off because of it. No pain no gain.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

China is eating most of the cost of tariffs and we will hardly see the increase in our costs. How about that.

How about that? That means that the Trump tariffs are ineffective, and that Chinese imports will continue to be highly competitive against American products. I'd guess that it is highly likely that the Chinese government is subsidizing the price cuts by their firms. I'm sure Trump will tweet about how unfair this is.

But the US isn't going to subsidize any US company faced with retaliatory tariffs for exports to China or any other country. So the net result is that Chinese imports into the US remain competitive, but US exports into China are now at a much bigger disadvantage.