Tarriffs?

[airdvr 210]

Seems like the Chinese are kicking our asses in just about every department. They play games with the valuation of their currency. We're paying them billions in interest. Why not a tarriff on Chinese goods coming to the US? Maybe some of you economic majors could explain the downside.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Seems like the Chinese are kicking our asses in just about every department.

Wrong.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_madeinamerica/all/1

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[airdvr 210]

You know as well as I do that examples can be found in niche markets. Go shopping anywhere and try to find Made in the USA. It's not easy.

Take a look here if you want hard numbers

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

$273 Billion in 2010

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,121]

>Why not a tarriff on Chinese goods coming to the US?

Protectionism generally ends up hurting local economies in the short term, and local businesses in the long term. There's also a pretty strong correlation between wars and protectionism; when a country cannot get what it wants through free trade it will often consider alternatives.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

>Why not a tarriff on Chinese goods coming to the US?

Protectionism generally ends up hurting local economies in the short term, and local businesses in the long term. There's also a pretty strong correlation between wars and protectionism; when a country cannot get what it wants through free trade it will often consider alternatives.

We are clearly getting the big confucious weenie. At 273 billion a year how long before you take action. I'm suggesting it's already later than we think.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,121]

>At 273 billion a year how long before you take action.

We should be taking action right now. I just wonder if protectionism is the way to go. It has a pretty poor history overall.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

>At 273 billion a year how long before you take action.

We should be taking action right now. I just wonder if protectionism is the way to go. It has a pretty poor history overall.

Hey, if we can get them really pissed at us maybe we can welch on paying back our loans

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

>Why not a tarriff on Chinese goods coming to the US?

Protectionism generally ends up hurting local economies in the short term, and local businesses in the long term. There's also a pretty strong correlation between wars and protectionism; when a country cannot get what it wants through free trade it will often consider alternatives.

We are clearly getting the big confucious weenie. At 273 billion a year how long before you take action. I'm suggesting it's already later than we think.

Is there, or has there ever been, a greater trade inequity between two countries in the history of economic relationships? The trade deficit between China and the US has hovered around a quarter of a trillion dollars per year over the last few years in favor of China. If "protectionism" in the form of tariffs could lead, and has led to war, then might also such a grossly imbalanced trade relationship (encouraged and maybe even engineered by the government of China) also lead to conflict. The US government must be showing either great restraint or great incompetence in not trying to force parity in this trading partnership (by using economic tools, of course). More at work here than free trade?

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Why not a tarriff on Chinese goods coming to the US?

Protectionism generally ends up hurting local economies in the short term, and local businesses in the long term. There's also a pretty strong correlation between wars and protectionism; when a country cannot get what it wants through free trade it will often consider alternatives.

We are clearly getting the big confucious weenie. At 273 billion a year how long before you take action. I'm suggesting it's already later than we think.

Is there, or has there ever been, a greater trade inequity between two countries in the history of economic relationships? The trade deficit between China and the US has hovered around a quarter of a trillion dollars per year over the last few years in favor of China. If "protectionism" in the form of tariffs could lead, and has led to war, then might also such a grossly imbalanced trade relationship (encouraged and maybe even engineered by the government of China) also lead to conflict. The US government must be showing either great restraint or great incompetence in not trying to force parity in this trading partnership (by using economic tools, of course). More at work here than free trade?

Yes. I think it's difficult to tell the shylock to get fucked.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,121]

>The US government must be showing either great restraint or great incompetence in
>not trying to force parity in this trading partnership (by using economic tools, of course)

I think that works about as well by forcing parity in our economy by taking from the rich and giving to the poor - by using economic tools, of course.

[airdvr 210]

I think it's a bit shortsighted of us all to wring our hands over the budget and ignore this problem. I'm fairly sure it's the reason our recovery has been such a bust.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SpeedRacer 1]

Tarriffs don't work well, as history has shown.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,121]

>I think it's a bit shortsighted of us all to wring our hands over the budget and ignore
>this problem.

Again, no one is ignoring the problem. Every educated person in the US knows it's a problem.

For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong. Historically protectionism falls into that category. Keep in mind that the biggest tariffs in US history occurred right after the stock market crash in 1929. The result? The biggest depression in US history.

A good article:

=================
The protectionist temptation: Lessons from the Great Depression for today

Barry Eichengreen
17 March 2009

What do we know about the spread of protectionism during the Great Depression and what are the implications for today’s crisis? This column says the lesson is that countries should coordinate their fiscal and monetary measures. If some do and some don’t, the trade policy consequences could once again be most unfortunate.

The Great Depression of the 1930s was marked by a severe outbreak of protectionism. Many fear that, unless policymakers are on guard, protectionist pressures could once again spin out of control. What do we know about the spread of protectionism then, and what are the implications for today?

While many aspects of the Great Depression continue to be debated, there is all-but-universal agreement that the adoption of restrictive trade policies was destructive and counterproductive and that similarly succumbing to protectionism in our current slump should be avoided at all cost. Lacking other instruments with which to support economic activity, governments erected tariff and nontariff barriers to trade in a desperate effort to direct spending to merchandise produced at home rather than abroad. But with other governments responding in kind, the distribution of demand across countries remained unchanged at the end of this round of global tariff hikes. The main effect was to destroy trade which, despite the economic recovery in most countries after 1933, failed to reach its 1929 peak, as measured by volume, by the end of the decade. The benefits of comparative advantage were lost. Recrimination over self-serving trade policies made it more difficult to agree on other measures to halt the slump.
====================

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Tarriffs don't work well, as history has shown.

Maybe. Looks as though there's alot of it going on right now according the the World Trade Organization. I'm not schooled enough to understand the report.

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles09_e.pdf

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

maybe we can welch on paying back our loans

We will anyway.

[billvon 3,121]

>Hey, if we can get them really pissed at us maybe we can welch on paying back our loans . . .

If we get them pissed enough they may not ask any more; they may just take, say, Alaska as payment.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

>Hey, if we can get them really pissed at us maybe we can welch on paying back our loans . . .

If we get them pissed enough they may not ask any more; they may just take, say, Alaska as payment.

I guess we might want to hang on to a few of those ICBM's just in case.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[muff528 3]

Quote

>The US government must be showing either great restraint or great incompetence in
>not trying to force parity in this trading partnership (by using economic tools, of course)

I think that works about as well by forcing parity in our economy by taking from the rich and giving to the poor - by using economic tools, of course.

I think we agree on that. But I don't think I made my point. Begin with the premise that tariffs can cause wars:

(a) Protectionism through tariffs can and has created conditions that could lead to war ...presumably because the tariffs created a trade inequity which caused economic damage to one of the partners. The "damaged" country has cause to go to war. (But keep in mind that the years between WW1 and WW2 were really only a long ceasefire. Some of the agreements that spilled out of WW1 were also part of what contributed to war and to the economic conditions that drove the protectionism. War really was inevitable since the problems that caused the 1st World War were not resolved by that war.)

(b) Here we begin with a trade deficit which is the largest between two trading partners in history. Any added tariffs would serve to equalize the existing deficit ...not the opposite.

(c) If imposing tariffs on a country (causing economic damage) gives that country a reason to go to war, then why would resistance to a tariff that would give balance to a trading partnership not also cause that economically damaged country to go to war over it? (Because the economically damaged country is US and we are showing restraint by not forcing parity.) Or?

I still don't think I'm communicating my point. Simply ... A large imbalance can cause war no matter what the cause (tariffs or refusal to participate on an equal basis or by failing to accept an equalizing tariff) And this is the largest imbalance ever, so if no war over this one then no war over lesser imbalances between two other countries.

BTW - Brazil is increasing tariffs on imports from the USA and China, claiming trade inequities. I hope they don't get attacked before I can visit there.

[muff528 3]

Quote

>Hey, if we can get them really pissed at us maybe we can welch on paying back our loans . . .

If we get them pissed enough they may not ask any more; they may just take, say, Alaska as payment.

Maybe we can offer to save them and their country from a ruthless, invading aggressor. (Oh, wait! ...we already did that for free. Not even an unfulfilled promise of oil in return.)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Whether or not we impose tarriffs, a war between the USA & China would make no sense whatsoever.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[muff528 3]

Quote

Whether or not we impose tarriffs, a war between the USA & China would make no sense whatsoever.

Of course not. But that doesn't have anything to do with the point I was (ineffectually) trying to make.

[pirana 0]

Why do the citizens of the US need the government to step in? Why not just do the right thing? Stop buying the cheap low quality shit they produce.

Low priced low quality goods are to US consumers what Kool-Aid was to Jonestown. I'm sure it was yummy and sweet on the way down.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[muff528 3]

Quote

Why do the citizens of the US need the government to step in? Why not just do the right thing? Stop buying the cheap low quality shit they produce.

Low priced low quality goods are to US consumers what Kool-Aid was to Jonestown. I'm sure it was yummy and sweet on the way down.

Bingo! But one article I read shows that the iPhone adds almost 2 billion to our trade deficit with China. Can we really live without the iPhone and it's ability to keep track of our comings and goings?