I actually know that CME Group tries not to hire Chinese nationals for this reason- a few years back, they discovered that a Chinese employee was sending their secrets to China.
OT: Tariff Economics Discussion
- Thread starter scott in nashville
- Start date
I actually know that CME Group tries not to hire Chinese nationals for this reason- a few years back, they discovered that a Chinese employee was sending their secrets to China.
The consequence that the pro-tariff crowd totally ignores is what this does to our market. The economy is good right now, but when companies jack prices up when they see blood in the water, don’t get mad at them. The tariffs created the opportunity.
There is little argument that the US has legitimate disagreements China on trade. The problem is finding leverage to negotiate that isn't akin to the cold war strategy of MAD - mutual assured destruction. I'm not sure which side has the better stomach for the present tariff strategy- China is incurring greater costs, but has historically cared little for the hardships imposed on its population which has very little impact on its government compared to the US. The US also changes policy with each change in Administration which changes at least every 8 years- the Chinese government is not subject to frequent changes based on elections. They may well see it easier to simply wait out the present administration and allow the US citizenry to tire of the increased costs- remember Walmart isn't successful because the US consumer is willing to pay more for a quality product, it is successful because lower prices 'trump' everything else.
1. This is a tariff, not an embargo. Coffers only fill when the Chinese goods are still purchased by US citizens== China still gets its revenue to build its military.
2. Historically, the only thing that happens is existing/competing manufacturers of similar goods raise their prices to capture a portion of the tariff (as pure profit) resulting in consumers paying a higher price for all similar goods tariff not just those subject to the tariff- increased revenues are not passed along to employees. Current or prospective less competitive manufacturers may enter the market, but are not likely to enter if initial capital outlays are high as they cannot count on tariffs continuing for a sufficient period to pay for capital. Any new jobs created by less competitive new entrants generally come at very high cost per job and are only available during the period a tariff is in force. Once the tariff is lifted, the jobs evaporate as they are not economically competitive.
3. In many ways Trump and the US are the biggest bully (see our efforts to advance our embargo of Iranian oil, etc), we don't back down so I would be interested in understanding the rationale for why a closed economy like China that is less responsive to its citizens (see: Cultural Revolution, Tienanmen Square) and world opinion would be more susceptible to simple economic pressure.
Essentially this is one of the largest tax increases ever imposed on the US citizenry at the hope, and hope is all it is or ever will be, that China will negotiate to terms that we like. I believe that they were always will to negotiate some, just not to our liking. Based on some experience in Asia, I now think it is less likely that they negotiate to terms of our liking (at least during this administration) to avoid looking weak to a bully. They will play the negotiating game, signing small agreements that mean little until we move on to another issue. They know that these tariffs are specifically hurting a segment of Trump's base more than other areas- Chinese textiles, TVs, etc. can be sold anywhere in the world, US soybeans don't have many markets comparable to China.
I deal with numerous Chinese companies about their use of our IP. Despite what you hear on the news, my interactions with Chinese companies is that they are very deferential to US owned IP. In fact, they are much more respectful of IP than most US companies, who would rather tell you to “f*** off and sue me.”
My experience is that Chinese companies want to be respected as legitimate companies on the world market. They want access to the US market, and they feel that in order to be taken seriously as a business entity, that they need to respect others IP rights. I am not saying that there are not bad actors, but as a whole, my dealings with Chinese companies is more positive than with US-based entities.
My experience is that Chinese companies want to be respected as legitimate companies on the world market. They want access to the US market, and they feel that in order to be taken seriously as a business entity, that they need to respect others IP rights. I am not saying that there are not bad actors, but as a whole, my dealings with Chinese companies is more positive than with US-based entities.
Your point about the Chinese waiting it out makes way too much sense
Well for small minded people like myself what I see is the US invented it and then moved to building it over seas. The suppressed people over seas were so happy to earn enough money to buy food and have 12 people living in a 2 room make shift house. The American dream on the other hand is at least a middle class life style with a house, 2 cars, a nice vacation, and money to invest for a respectable retirement. Our corporations and investors are not happy with 6% growth and executives making $500k a year. They want 8-12% and executives want $10 million per year. We can’t have these worthless unappreciative Americans wanting $18 per hour with health care for their family and 2-3 weeks off work paid. NAFTA allowed them to move overseas and the dadgum government are now paying the people who would have to work to sit home and make babies. Free food,housing, schooling, healthcare. It’s a broken system beyond comprehension. What other country rewards it’s citizens to not work! We need to produce what we use here and pay our people to manufacture it. If you want it from overseas it should cost a lot more not the other way around. Greed from all sides is not good and greed is why we’re in this position. That’s my 2 cents. It will never be fixed but our government should do whatever at all cost to make it better for us the citizens.
This is a case where I don't think that Trump is wrong (gasp!). I don't have the economics background to fully understand the implications, but China has been taking us to the cleaners for years on multiple fronts. To change that, you pick a spot where you have the advantage and start pressuring them. China needs us as a trading partner more than we need them. If Americans can put up with increased prices for a while, China won't be able to feed itself.
I can assure you I'm well aware of how business works in this country. You are conflating two completely separate issues anyway.
Our economy is the largest economic engine on the planet. Why should we continue to give the Chinese such unfettered access to it when they have consistently cheated and flouted the rules in terms of trading norms? Additionally, they send spies over to engage in corporate espionage in the form of intellectual property theft.
The issue is that we've become so entangled with the Chinese economy it's hard to disengage.My hope is that U.S. companies are starting to understand what they're getting into when they decide to open a plant in China. While there may be some short term gains in terms of lower labor and manufacturing costs, in the long run it doesn't make sense due to the Chinese government's rules for the mandatory transfer of technology when you do business over there.
Not only does the Chinese government engage in all of the above, but they're also manipulating the yuan to the extreme detriment of our economy in terms of the trade imbalance that currently exists.
With all of this said, believe it or not, I am a free marketeer. China just needs to quit acting in such a mercantalist and predatory manner when it comes to trade.
Interlocked economies are problematic for simple fixes. It becomes a giant game of chicken in which no one knows who if anyone will flinch.
If China starts to have serious financial issues, we will have worse issues. China holds a lot of the US debt. If they start cashing it out, our treasury interest rates will rise to offset the surplus supply of debt/bonds in the market. Rising treasury rates will cause the US deficit to become more expensive, requiring greater borrowing at ever increasing rates. A nation can recover from a food shortage in short order. History has shown that once a nation enters a debt spiral that it is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to recover within a generation.
Can this issue work itself out without disaster? Yes. It could also easily spiral out of control. I would feel better if I really believed the folks on our side understood the problem and possible outcomes better than can be communicated in a 280 character tweet or a 2 minute segment on Fox and Friends.
Hoping for the best, fearing the worst.
Point taken but it lets American manufactures compete so maybe we buy American instead of Chinese crap. They pay nothing to the workers in their sweat shops. They buy China because it’s cheap in my opinion has put millions of small businesses out of business. I know several personally. So not supporting tariffs to even things up is supporting China over your own country. Enjoy that cheap TV.
Do you shop at Walmart? Walmart=China in undermining local small businesses and profiting from sweat shop labor.
Several points worth noting here:
1) The incidence of the tariffs is mostly being paid by US consumers. For example, the tariffs on aluminum and steel have allowed these industries to expand and increase employment. However, the cost of steel has risen dramatically. For each job saved in the steel and aluminum industry consumers and businesses have paid an additional $900,000 through higher prices -- more than 13 times the wage of a steelworker. (Peterson Institute)
2) The net effect on jobs in the US economy from higher tariffs is zero. Tariffs can save jobs in the steel or aluminum industry but it drives up prices in steel-using industries. The higher costs imply higher prices for these goods and less demand. If the demand for products falls and then so does employment. A dispassionate look at the data shows no (positive) correlation between tariffs and aggregate employment nor a (negative) correlation imports and employment.
3) A 25% tariffs on autos and auto parts would be a nightmare for the US auto producers and US consumers. Global supply chains would be seriously disrupted and the impact on costs would likely exceed the implied tariff costs. In fact, the uncertainty about tariff policies and a trade war seems to be having a negative impact in several markets.
4) Using tariffs as a mechanism to get concessions from trading partners has not been very successful. At best, tariffs and tariff threats have resulted in concessions about 50% of the time and the concessions have been meaningful in terms of achieving the objective at about a 40% hit rate. However, these attempts have been pretty small scale attempts. The Administration's experiment is on a much grander scale. It could work or it could result in another Smoot-Hawley episode.
5) Finally, the focus on bilateral trade deficits is misplaced. I run persistent bilateral trade deficits with Publix. I buy a lot from them and they buy nothing from me, but what matters is my overall spending behavior. Similarly, it is not a surprise that the US would run persistent bilateral trade deficits with a country as trade is driven primarily by comparative advantage. What matters is the overall trade deficit and that is driven primarily by macroeconomic factors. If we want to reduce our trade deficits then the US needs to increase private savings, reduce government deficits and the trade deficit will begin to fall. There are other things could do like impose capital controls or manipulate the exchange rate, but meddling in markets is unlikely to have unintended consequences.
These are some of the points that are included in a presentation that I am working on today for a talk later this month.
1) The incidence of the tariffs is mostly being paid by US consumers. For example, the tariffs on aluminum and steel have allowed these industries to expand and increase employment. However, the cost of steel has risen dramatically. For each job saved in the steel and aluminum industry consumers and businesses have paid an additional $900,000 through higher prices -- more than 13 times the wage of a steelworker. (Peterson Institute)
2) The net effect on jobs in the US economy from higher tariffs is zero. Tariffs can save jobs in the steel or aluminum industry but it drives up prices in steel-using industries. The higher costs imply higher prices for these goods and less demand. If the demand for products falls and then so does employment. A dispassionate look at the data shows no (positive) correlation between tariffs and aggregate employment nor a (negative) correlation imports and employment.
3) A 25% tariffs on autos and auto parts would be a nightmare for the US auto producers and US consumers. Global supply chains would be seriously disrupted and the impact on costs would likely exceed the implied tariff costs. In fact, the uncertainty about tariff policies and a trade war seems to be having a negative impact in several markets.
4) Using tariffs as a mechanism to get concessions from trading partners has not been very successful. At best, tariffs and tariff threats have resulted in concessions about 50% of the time and the concessions have been meaningful in terms of achieving the objective at about a 40% hit rate. However, these attempts have been pretty small scale attempts. The Administration's experiment is on a much grander scale. It could work or it could result in another Smoot-Hawley episode.
5) Finally, the focus on bilateral trade deficits is misplaced. I run persistent bilateral trade deficits with Publix. I buy a lot from them and they buy nothing from me, but what matters is my overall spending behavior. Similarly, it is not a surprise that the US would run persistent bilateral trade deficits with a country as trade is driven primarily by comparative advantage. What matters is the overall trade deficit and that is driven primarily by macroeconomic factors. If we want to reduce our trade deficits then the US needs to increase private savings, reduce government deficits and the trade deficit will begin to fall. There are other things could do like impose capital controls or manipulate the exchange rate, but meddling in markets is unlikely to have unintended consequences.
These are some of the points that are included in a presentation that I am working on today for a talk later this month.
It is a known fact the Chinese take our IP. They act respectful and take what they want. If you setup a company in China you have to give them your IP,
Well, no to the first question. The Trump administration actually backed away from a demand that China not require US technology companies to provide all the intellectual information about the technology if they wanted to do business in China. That is a huge mistake.
Short term adjustments in the tariff are only hurting cash flows , inventory levels and input pricing.
Most large companies have some inventories in a Free Trade Zone warehouse in the US. They will move that inventory to a paid location over the next week where possible and pay the app 10% tariff on the inventory valve. Avoiding the 25 precent.
Steel purchase and orders are typically 10 to 16 weeks in the future with an additional 5 weeks of transit. Orders are typically placed 4 to 6 months in the future. With no definite resolution to the dispute it adds risk to move the country of origin on a product unless you have a multi country sourcing already. The market may correct before you new plan could be implemented.
Tooling to make products cost as much as the impact of the tariff for the first year.
In a lot of case the work will not return to the US.
Company will either shift to another BBC country and import into the US . Or alternatively just make products with different H- codes to avoid the tariff.
Longer term stability is needed to balance out the trade talks.
Most large companies have some inventories in a Free Trade Zone warehouse in the US. They will move that inventory to a paid location over the next week where possible and pay the app 10% tariff on the inventory valve. Avoiding the 25 precent.
Steel purchase and orders are typically 10 to 16 weeks in the future with an additional 5 weeks of transit. Orders are typically placed 4 to 6 months in the future. With no definite resolution to the dispute it adds risk to move the country of origin on a product unless you have a multi country sourcing already. The market may correct before you new plan could be implemented.
Tooling to make products cost as much as the impact of the tariff for the first year.
In a lot of case the work will not return to the US.
Company will either shift to another BBC country and import into the US . Or alternatively just make products with different H- codes to avoid the tariff.
Longer term stability is needed to balance out the trade talks.
We have facilities around the world, including some manufacturing and engineering in China, and we have never “given our IP” to China - whatever that means. In fact, we successfully enforce our IP in China and have been doing so for more than a decade.
These are facts based on my on the ground experience.
Also the deficit quoted never includes services only hard goods and the US exports billions of dollars in services.
This in top of it being in large part unimportant in respect to China.
Trade deficit with countries like Germany is more concern although not that concerning because they do higher value manufacturing where US could be competitive in some industries.
China mainly exports crap to US that the US has no interest and no labor force to make anyway.
I'm still waiting for the pro tariff supporters to produce some facts and figures to support their argument. Currently they are being decimated.
1) A tariff is ALWAYS paid for by the consumer, not "mostly being paid". Think of a tariff as a form of direct taxation, i.e. even if a corporation has to pay higher prices from vendors, the prices are directly transferred to the consumer.
2) There is no precedent in history that demonstrates where higher taxation (tariffs) results in higher employment (long term) in the PRIVATE (not public) sector.
3) Again, a dramatic (25%) tax increase would logically disrupt any consumer good, auto or anything else for that matter.
4)When tariffs become a mechanism (a from of financial war) for "trade", the currency used for trading has begun its fight for its very existence. Hence, massive debt, massive "printing" or currency creation, massive government "funding", i.e. housing, food, energy, etc.. In other words, when the government of a country literally becomes the "pillar" of economic "stability" and the private sector has been supplanted, the game over moves are right around the corner, hence, tariffs are just the beginning.
5)Your analogy is misplaced. Bilateral trade deficits are usually meant to describe an exchange of goods (possibly some services as well). What you are missing is, the US doesn't produce ANYTHING in our arrangement with China. We exchange currency (no goods whatsoever) for products! Theoretically, Americans could all sit on their collective asses, not work, the government create currency, and all of these countries we run "deficits" with will ship us everything we need. This is dramatically different from what you are attempting to describe. The US can never stop this arrangement or even decrease it in the slightest. If we attempt to decrease it, the export of currency MUST shift to another holder of debt or its game over, the tsunami of currency will come flooding back.
I suggest you focus your presentation on currency creation, the unintended consequences of its creation and the result of its creation. Tariffs are a mute point vs currency in the grand financial scheme of things.
Incorrect. If someone tariffs your countries businesses they are placing a tariff in your citizens jobs, and whole industries can be ruined by state sponsored industries. Some are vital to our survival in war time if said country cuts you off and you have NO STEEL industry. Really common sense. The Chinese only own about 4.7% of our debt and if things went to hell in a hand basket we don't pay the bonds. Bonds that are held by them are not callable on demand by them if they want to sell before maturity they have to sell on open markets which would crush the open market value for their bonds if they wanted to sell all at once. I agree that no body likes tariffs but if one side is unfairly trading it is a necessary tactic. Donald Trump knows more about leverage and economics in one fingernail then you will ever know. If you don't use leverage on someone not playing nicely you are a damn fool and will continue to be played. That is a fact. Cheers and enjoy your Holiday Inn Express stay.
I don't have an opinion on this either way, but I always laugh at the total confidence by some that Donald Trump is a financial genius.
Never said that my friend but anyone that does not realize he is putting pressure on a massive country that wants to dominate the world and is screwing us over is just politically motivated or naive in financial matters and or negotiating. He is a master at identifying ways to put leverage on negotiations. He, as all Presidents do, rely on others for financial support. If you want the Chinese to actually think that you mean business you HAVE TO mean business.
Trump is dealing with a lot more than just trade imbalances with the Chicoms. The msm has blown so much smoke re: Russia the last couple of years, but somehow ignores how massive a threat China actually poses.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._port_of_long_beach.html#.XNGs2vkryFA.twitter
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._port_of_long_beach.html#.XNGs2vkryFA.twitter
Without going into a lot of detail. Being fat is the biggest issue. In the 1920s the government decided to control agriculture and everything else. Now we get engineered corn and other foods to replace normal foods that humans have typically ate.
Processed food is cheap and easy to control the price. The government decided feeding a lot of people poison was better than food shortages.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e002308982d0
You have to ask yourself why did this happen?
Americans choices are let China abuse their employees and provide low cost products or let Americans make them and the price be significantly higher. People want cheap. China has a lot more leverage than America.
For starters one country can vote out their politicians. I’m not saying we have a good deal with China. I just don’t trust Donald Trump is the man to fix it. He’s no different than the other fiscally liberal presidents Obama and Bush. Government is expanding and people are at the mercy of the federal government. Trump fans don’t care because they have their guy.
I think that part of the initial tariff issue was offset by the currency change.
We saw a 9% improvement of currency and about 10% tariff on list 3 items. 1 precent net change.
Here is today update :
The administration did implement the increase this morning however, CBP has issued a policy notice directing that the increased duties will be imposed on goods entered on or after June 1, 2019. As the U.S. and China continue to negotiate, there is a chance that progress is made and that the administration once again stays the increase in the Section 301 duties on the List 3 products prior to their June 1 imposition.
The change everyone is advertising is items leaving China port. They still have a few weeks of talks before actually affect arriving inventory.
We saw a 9% improvement of currency and about 10% tariff on list 3 items. 1 precent net change.
Here is today update :
The administration did implement the increase this morning however, CBP has issued a policy notice directing that the increased duties will be imposed on goods entered on or after June 1, 2019. As the U.S. and China continue to negotiate, there is a chance that progress is made and that the administration once again stays the increase in the Section 301 duties on the List 3 products prior to their June 1 imposition.
The change everyone is advertising is items leaving China port. They still have a few weeks of talks before actually affect arriving inventory.
Engineered foods have not the nutritional value of food. Most of this type food is used for live stock feed. You are off base on engineering of food.
Nope. High fructose corn Syrup was made in a lab with scientist. Processed foods take a whole team of scientist to make.
Similar threads
