|
|
04-21-2019, 05:31 PM
|
#46
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,446
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
From that article:
American consumers either paid those tariffs, or they avoided the tariffs by buying from other, generally more expensive, sources than China. The American consumer always gets it in the end.
|
When the sharp pencil is used, it is usually a No. 2 Pencil!
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 01:04 AM
|
#47
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
When the sharp pencil is used, it is usually a No. 2 Pencil!
|
The pencil pushers in Washington really stick it to the working folks.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 09:58 AM
|
#48
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
From that article:
American consumers either paid those tariffs, or they avoided the tariffs by buying from other, generally more expensive, sources than China. The American consumer always gets it in the end.
|
The flip side is that if they bought American, it stimulated the earnings and hiring at those US firms that got the increased business.
There is no perfect solution.
We can't have both cheaper goods and higher paying jobs.
The free trade deal has been: The US gets cheaper goods and foreign countries get the jobs and profits.
That's a great deal for some people in the US and a horrible deal for others.
Trump was elected partially to swing the deal more in the other direction towards balance because we lost too many jobs, too much standard of living etc.. He's using tariffs not to balance trade, but to eventually get a better deal. If he's successful, the rest of us are probably going to have to pay a little more for some things, but Americans will be making them.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
Last edited by classhandicapper; 04-22-2019 at 10:01 AM.
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 11:50 AM
|
#49
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Trump was elected partially to swing the deal more in the other direction towards balance because we lost too many jobs, too much standard of living etc.. He's using tariffs not to balance trade, but to eventually get a better deal. If he's successful, the rest of us are probably going to have to pay a little more for some things, but Americans will be making them.
|
Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should decide what Americans should or shouldn't be making? Where does it say that he should decide what I am or am not able to buy, or how much I should pay for things? Where does it say that he should decide what is or isn't a "better deal" for American companies engaged in international trade?
As I remember, we got rid of a king that was trying to make those kinds of decisions for us.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 12:49 PM
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should decide what Americans should or shouldn't be making? Where does it say that he should decide what I am or am not able to buy, or how much I should pay for things? Where does it say that he should decide what is or isn't a "better deal" for American companies engaged in international trade?
As I remember, we got rid of a king that was trying to make those kinds of decisions for us.
|
Trade agreements have always been negotiated between countries because they have different environmental laws, different regulations, different levels of government involvement in business, different salary/benefit structures, different tax structures, and there are opportunities to take advantage without rules.
I certainly don't want a global government ensuring we all have the same laws.
If deals aren't negotiated with trade agreements, one side could dump products in the short term to win market share and put you out of business before raising prices again, one could manipulate its currency to win market share and jobs, one could close it's own markets to you etc...
The idea behind free trade is that it be mutually beneficial. That means the trade is at least roughly balanced with both side benefiting from the specialties of the other.
When one side is kicking ass (as in having a huge and growing trade surplus) there's something wrong with the arrangement. You are losing jobs, market share, and wealth in exchange for cheap depreciating goods.
You can either go back to the drawing board to try to balance things out better or you can allow the other country to suck wealth and jobs out of your country as we have for the last decades.
I'll take the former.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 04:48 PM
|
#51
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Trade agreements have always been negotiated between countries because they have different environmental laws, different regulations, different levels of government involvement in business, different salary/benefit structures, different tax structures, and there are opportunities to take advantage without rules.
|
So we are at a disadvantage in international trade because of our "different environmental laws, different regulations, different levels of government involvement in business, different salary/benefit structures, different tax structures", and you think that the government can fix things? The government is the cause of those issues, not the solution.
If we can't make widgets better and cheaper here than a foreign competitor, why should we not import widgets and use our resources in areas where we do have an advantage?
P.S. Over 80% of the manufacturing jobs eliminated in this country in recent years were lost to automation, not to foreign competition. How is Trump's negotiating brilliance going to bring those jobs back?
In a previous post, you said
Quote:
The free trade deal has been: The US gets cheaper goods and foreign countries get the jobs and profits.
That's a great deal for some people in the US and a horrible deal for others.
|
Why do you think the government can or should determine who gets the "great deal" and who doesn't?
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 05:40 PM
|
#52
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
So we are at a disadvantage in international trade because of our "different environmental laws, different regulations, different levels of government involvement in business, different salary/benefit structures, different tax structures", and you think that the government can fix things? The government is the cause of those issues, not the solution.
If we can't make widgets better and cheaper here than a foreign competitor, why should we not import widgets and use our resources in areas where we do have an advantage?
P.S. Over 80% of the manufacturing jobs eliminated in this country in recent years were lost to automation, not to foreign competition. How is Trump's negotiating brilliance going to bring those jobs back?
In a previous post, you said
Why do you think the government can or should determine who gets the "great deal" and who doesn't?
|
I think we are at a disadvantage in trade because:
1. We choose to regulate our environment and businesses for health, safety, criminal, and other reasons more than some other countries. We gain in ways other than trade. There's balancing act and trade-off, much of which makes sense for us, but some of which is probably overdone.
2. We have crony capitalism, but not to the same extent that China and other countries have where their businesses are subsidized to win market share.
3. Our markets are generally wide open and theirs are often closed or impossible to gain an traction in because of politics and corruption.
4. Other countries steal our intellectual property.
5. Other countries impose more trade restrictions and tariffs even when the market is open.
6. We have higher standards of living. Very poor people in 3rd world countries with a massive supply of excess labor are often willing to work for less salary and benefits even when their productivity warrants higher wages and benefits.
7. We manipulate our currency, but not to the same extent at some other countries
Some of those things can and should be addressed and some of them we can't or shouldn't try to do much about.
It's not about bringing all the jobs back. It's about leveling the playing field so we are competing on more reasonable terms. Any jobs that return to us (and some already have) because we are manufacturing more in the US is net plus and any that don't leave means we've slowed the hemorrhage. Both are great news.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 05:43 PM
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 14,397
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I think we are at a disadvantage in trade because:
1. We choose to regulate our environment and businesses for health, safety, criminal, and other reasons more than some other countries. We gain in ways other than trade. There's balancing act and trade-off, much of which makes sense for us, but some of which is probably overdone.
2. We have crony capitalism, but not to the same extent that China and other countries have where their businesses are subsidized to win market share.
3. Our markets are generally wide open and theirs are often closed or impossible to gain an traction in because of politics and corruption.
4. Other countries steal our intellectual property.
5. Other countries impose more trade restrictions and tariffs even when the market is open.
6. We have higher standards of living. Very poor people in 3rd world countries with a massive supply of excess labor are often willing to work for less salary and benefits even when their productivity warrants higher wages and benefits.
7. We manipulate our currency, but not to the same extent at some other countries
Some of those things can and should be addressed and some of them we can't or shouldn't try to do much about.
It's not about bringing all the jobs back. It's about leveling the playing field so we are competing on more reasonable terms. Any jobs that return to us (and some already have) because we are manufacturing more in the US is net plus and any that don't leave means we've slowed the hemorrhage. Both are great news.
|
Super post.
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 06:55 PM
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I think we are at a disadvantage in trade because:
1. ....
7. ....
|
How many of those things would be changed by Trump's tariffs, which is to say, taxes on US consumers?
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 08:19 PM
|
#55
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
How many of those things would be changed by Trump's tariffs, which is to say, taxes on US consumers?
|
Nothing good will come from tariffs UNLESS the damage to China from them is greater than the damage to the US (and it will be because they are the creditor nation) and also large enough to get them to the table to give us a better deal.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 08:45 PM
|
#56
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Nothing good will come from tariffs UNLESS the damage to China from them is greater than the damage to the US (and it will be because they are the creditor nation) and also large enough to get them to the table to give us a better deal.
|
Tariffs aren't going to hurt China as much as they will hurt American consumers. Chinese companies have already shown an ability to avoid tariffs by outsourcing final production to places like Vietnam. No tariffs, and the profits still flow into China.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 08:56 PM
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,527
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
Tariffs aren't going to hurt China as much as they will hurt American consumers. Chinese companies have already shown an ability to avoid tariffs by outsourcing final production to places like Vietnam. No tariffs, and the profits still flow into China.
|
If they are outsourcing it's hurting them or they wouldn't be going through the incremental cost of outsourcing. It may be mitigating the pain, but it's a cost or they would have done it before the tariffs.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 09:18 PM
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,036
|
Listening to Bernie articulate his trade policy (same as Trump just more coherent) is like...
__________________
Dumbest timeline confirmed...
|
|
|
04-22-2019, 09:20 PM
|
#59
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
but it's a cost or they would have done it before the tariffs.
|
Not so. Assume that with no tariffs, domestic production is cheaper than outsourcing. In the new environment of tariffs, you have to decide which is cheaper, domestic production plus tariffs, or outsourcing without tariffs.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
04-25-2019, 08:18 AM
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: central fla.
Posts: 4,874
|
__________________
got handed a lemon...make lemonade....add sugar or brown sugar or stevia or my personal favorite....miracle fruit....google it...thank me later...
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|