Trump signs tariffs

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Clocker

All true, but we have also moved beyond partisan politics as usual lately, and into the realm of personality cults. Both Obama and Trump gained a lot of their support from voters who didn't know about or didn't care about the issues, and were not part of the traditional party base.

They based their support solely on a faith that their candidate would make things better, period. Obama was going to put an end to racism and Trump was going to put an end to globalism. They didn't question or care how.

I think that this also accounts for part of why Hillary lost the nomination in 2008, despite being the presumptive winner, and why she lost the general election that she was also "supposed" to win. She was facing a new political force she could not match. You can't have a personality cult if you don't have a personality.

Was this the case...or was it simply that their candidate's opposition was simply too suspect to warrant any serious consideration? After all...whom did Obama and Trump really beat, on their way to the White House? With Obama's and Trump's "political experience"...where was the faith that they would "make things better, period" really hinging on? IMO...both Obama and Trump benefited by facing the weakest electoral opposition that we've seen in many years.

[elysiantraveller]

Trump Administration enforces tariffs on $34 Billion in Chinese goods. China immediately retaliates with $34 Billion in United States agricultural products.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Trump Administration enforces tariffs on $34 Billion in Chinese goods.

Edited for accuracy:

Trump Administration enforces taxes on US consumers for $34 Billion in Chinese goods.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Edited for accuracy:

Trump Administration enforces taxes on US consumers for $34 Billion in Chinese goods.

Nobody wins a trade war...

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Nobody wins a trade war...

China says that it will respond with tariffs on an equal $34 billion of US exports, including soybeans and pork. Trump said that he would counter with progressive increases on up to $450 billion of Chinese imports to this country.

Trump says that we will "win" the trade war because Americans can bear the pain and suffering better than the Chinese can. If I had Trump's money, I could bear a lot of pain too.

But in a fresh sign of industry's unease, a business survey on Thursday again showed the US services sector already has experienced supply chain interruptions and rising costs due both to the looming tariffs and those already in place.

"We're starting to see signs of inflation, not sharp inflation, but definitely inflation," Anthony Nieves, head of a services industry survey committee for the Institute for Supply Management, told reporters.

White House trade officials say the current strength of the US economy means the US can withstand more pain than its rivals if the battle escalates further.

But economists also say the trade war comes as the expansion of the world's largest economies -- which is bolstering demand for US goods and services -- may be starting to run out of steam, raising the risks that tariffs could harm growth.

But the Trump team has paid little heed to such warnings, with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross this week slamming them as "premature and probably quite inaccurate."

This is the same team that said that there would be no price increases in response to US steel tariffs.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trade-war...165021914.html

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

China says that it will respond with tariffs on an equal $34 billion of US exports, including soybeans and pork. Trump said that he would counter with progressive increases on up to $450 billion of Chinese imports to this country.

Trump says that we will "win" the trade war because Americans can bear the pain and suffering better than the Chinese can. If I had Trump's money, I could bear a lot of pain too.

This is the same team that said that there would be no price increases in response to US steel tariffs.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trade-war...165021914.html

Its not smart both politically and economically,

Politically especially during an election cycle. Chinese are much better equipped to bear the pain because they do what their leaders tell them to do... they don't pick them.

Economically its not smart... ever.

[FantasticDan]

Twitter

[FantasticDan]

Twitter

[FantasticDan]

Twitter

Twitter

Twitter

[FantasticDan]

Twitter

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Trump is a big improvement over Obama and much preferable to Hillary. That does not give him a pass when he does stupid things.

Why does it have to be all or nothing about Trump? Why, in the eyes of many here, can no one criticize anything Trump does without being attacked as a flaming left-winger opposed to everything that Trump does?

There would be plenty of criticisms of Trump here from his supporters if they didn't have to spend all their time responding to the non-stop, 24/7 criticisms and outrageousness from the Trump-haters on here.

When I've had a chance to catch my breath, I've criticized Trump. For instance, I think he caves way too much (I've written this before). I don't think he should have signed the EO ending family separation. If you want the law changed, let Congress do it...that's their job.

I also agree with elysian that he shouldn't have declared that joint exercises with S. Korea were going to be suspended (indefinitely?)

He didn't seem to get anything for that in return, unless that was just a reward for the North for just showing up at the table...still a mistake.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Paul Krugman: Chinese surplus smaller relative to GDP, and the U.S. is no longer at the zero lower bound with high unemployment, so demand drag from foreign surpluses less of an issue. Still, some case for shift in Chinese macro policy

Krugman needs to stick to his area of expertise, whatever that is. Foreign trade isn't it.

A US trade deficit is not an issue. We are doing just fine on trade because the trade deficit is offset by a capital surplus. Trump doesn't understand this either. Dollars that go out of the country for imports flow back in as investment.

As just one example, Volvo Cars just opened its new assembly plant in South Carolina, and already announced plans for expansion. For those not familiar with "foreign" car production here, like Trump, Volvo Cars is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, a Chinese conglomerate.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Was this the case...or was it simply that their candidate's opposition was simply too suspect to warrant any serious consideration? After all...whom did Obama and Trump really beat, on their way to the White House? With Obama's and Trump's "political experience"...where was the faith that they would "make things better, period" really hinging on? IMO...both Obama and Trump benefited by facing the weakest electoral opposition that we've seen in many years.

Not sure how you can say this, when it was obvious (at least to me), that Trump was the only Republican candidate with a chance in hell of beating Hillary Clinton.

Clinton would have thrashed every other Republican candidate...it wouldn't have even been a question. Her victory would have been like what her supporters THOUGHT it was going to be against Trump, only way easier.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Krugman needs to stick to his area of expertise, whatever that is. Foreign trade isn't it.

A US trade deficit is not an issue. We are doing just fine on trade because the trade deficit is offset by a capital surplus. Trump doesn't understand this either. Dollars that go out of the country for imports flow back in as investment.

As just one example, Volvo Cars just opened its new assembly plant in South Carolina, and already announced plans for expansion. For those not familiar with "foreign" car production here, like Trump, Volvo Cars is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, a Chinese conglomerate.

His points make a bit of sense but he should tread carefully since he would have fit in perfectly with 30's era protectionist policy.

"Team Keynes" loves to flip on this issue.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Not sure how you can say this, when it was obvious (at least to me), that Trump was the only Republican candidate with a chance in hell of beating Hillary Clinton.

Clinton would have thrashed every other Republican candidate...it wouldn't have even been a question. Her victory would have been like what her supporters THOUGHT it was going to be against Trump, only way easier.

You thought Hillary and the "Clinton Machine" would crush Obama, and you thought Hillary would crush Trump.

So spare us.