Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elon Musk Sides With Trump On Trade With China, Citing 25 Percent Import Duty On American Cars (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the short-end-of-the-stick dept.

Elon Musk believes China isn't playing fair in the car trade with the U.S. since it puts a 25 percent import duty on American cars, while the U.S. only does 2.5 percent for Chinese cars. "I am against import duties in general, but the current rules make things very difficult," Musk tweeted. "It's like competing in an Olympic race wearing lead shoes." CNBC reports: Tesla's Elon Musk is complaining to President Donald Trump about China's car tariffs. "Do you think the US & China should have equal & fair rules for cars? Meaning, same import duties, ownership constraints & other factors," Musk said on Twitter in response to a Trump tweet about trade with China. He added that no American car company is "allowed to own even 50% of their own factory" in the Asian country, but China's auto firms can own their companies in the U.S. Trump responded to Musk's tweets later at his steel and aluminum tariff press conference Thursday. "We are going to be doing a reciprocal tax program at some point, so that if China is going to charge us 25% or if India is going to charge us 75% and we charge them nothing ... We're going to be at those same numbers. It's called reciprocal, a mirror tax," Trump said after reading Musk's earlier tweets out loud.

46 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't have free trade if its free trade in only one direction.

    1. Re:Good by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter and tariffs are a bad idea even if they're unilateral. Yes, it sucks for the individual business that has a disadvantage, but for the economy as a whole, free trade is what is most beneficial. If China wants to subsidize a particular industry, Americans are better off buying the cheaper goods at China's expense. It's essentially the Chinese paying for Americans to have less expensive products. You might complain that China (or rather individual businesses in China) ends up with a lot of American dollars that American businesses no longer have instead, but China does not benefit from hoarding dollars (inflation will render them worthless in due time) so it has to find something to spend them on which means purchases from or investment in American businesses or anyone else who will accept those dollars as payment.

      Free trade is what ensures that consumers are able to get their goods at the lowest cost possible. I recently saw a homeless person with an Android phone. Were it not for inexpensive Chinese manufacturing, I'm not sure this individual would have had that phone. Tariffs on steel and aluminum will just mean that products become more expensive or that fewer are made. Trump is a fool for thinking that this will somehow help Americans. If he's truly concerned with predatory practices (e.g., dumping) the WTO already exists to handle such issues. As much as people want to rag on globalization, it's what is getting more consumer goods into the hands of people all around the world and has drastically reduced the cost of goods to the point where even the most impoverished are starting to have things like smart phones and internet connectivity.

    2. Re:Good by imgod2u · · Score: 5, Informative

      We've had a 25% tariffs on trucks for decades. Trucks also happen to be the most profitable cars people make.

      We've just never bothered with low-margin cars (sub-20k) because it's not useful to have the low-margin stuff done domestically.

      Anyone who tells you America has not been "America First" is either ill-informed, deceiving you or both.

    3. Re:Good by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

      If the trade is only in one direction, than China is giving us all their stuff for free.

      I'm not sure why that should bother me.

    4. Re:Good by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      It's a very very complex web.

      Not just complex, but complicated.

      In response to the threat of steel tariffs, the EU countered with proposed tariffs on "American" products: Levi's Jeans and Jim Beam bourbon.

      Levi's aren't even made in the US anymore . . . so the tariffs will hit teenage Chinese and Bangladeshi sweat shop slaves.

      Jim Beam is a Japanese company, Suntory. Jim Beam offers a "factory tour" in Kentucky, but, who knows. This could just be Las Vegas knock-up like the Venetian Boat Ride. The raw base hooch in could come from from Suntory's mega-cheap sugar cane distillery operations in Brazil. You just need to add some molasses to it, to give it the color and taste of Jim Beam.

      The steel tariffs will affect one of the EU's biggest steel producers, Italy. Oh, guess what, my fellow Americans . . . Chrysler is an Italian company. Ask that proud Dodge Ram driver how he likes his Italian car. But if Chrysler goes tits up again, the Italian government is not going to bail it out. It's not to big to fail there . . . it's only too big to fail in the US.

      So the whole mess is like a big plate of steaming spaghetti . . . you pull on a piece by applying tariffs . . . and you never know where it's connected to . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Good by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is a reason why current free trade is set the way it is. Because US was the party that set it up in Bretton-Woods, and because for US, free trade is not about trade. It's about security. US itself didn't actually invest into the free trade mechanisms it created, and foreign trade as a portion of national GDP in US is very low compared to developed world average. As a point of comparison, even Afghanistan, a land locked, war torn country has a higher portion of foreign trade as national GDP than US. Look it up if you don't believe me.

      And of that foreign trade, overwhelming majority is within NAFTA. I'll talk why in a moment.

      Essentially US bribed together a coalition of the willing to fight Second World states by opening its markets to allies and neutral states. The only market that survived WW2 more or less intact. And it worked great. It won the Cold War. And ever since then, free trade has been coasting on inertia, with US still upholding the security apparatus that enables it to function, while having no security benefit from it any more.

      And in the end of last year, the last primary chain that linked US to global trade markets broke. NAFTA as a region became a net exporter of oil and its derivative products. US is now in a position where it could have an absolutely devastating trade policy, and economically, it would only take a minor hit. The rest of the world on the other hand, having been built on the economic order that requires backing by the US security apparatus would likely collapse. Consider China for example. It is completely dependent on global maritime routes. At the same time it does not have any capability of guaranteeing security of any of the long haul routes. It is completely dependent on US good will in continuing its role as a security guarantor. Same applies to all potential major antagonists in a potential trade war - Russia, Germany, France, Brazil, etc. Name a major state, it depends on safe maritime trade, while having no ability to guarantee security for this trade against hostile state actors.

      In this geopolitical situation, it's clear that renegotiation of free trade in relationship to US and services it provides to enable it will be required to keep US involved in the system. It will have to either be a new kind of a security pact, or it will have to be more of a give and take relationship. So far, Trump's actions indicate that he's interested in give and take. And make no mistake - this would have happened regardless of who got elected. Under Clinton, this would probably have been an eight year process with full powerpoint presentations and long and complex negotiations.

      Trump is more impulsive and rash, so the process is moving much faster. But the push in this direction has been present ever since Soviet Union fell, and with shale severing that last link that kept US dependent on free trade as it is currently operating, current direction is inevitable.

      We live in interesting times.

    6. Re:Good by imgod2u · · Score: 2

      Hehehe. I'm reminded of when Obama tried to put a tariff on tires. That ended up gutting jobs in the chicken industry.

      China will reap the protectionist ramifications of what they sowed soon enough. There's no reason the US should go down the same doomed road.

    7. Re:Good by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      "America First" should be our mind set when negotiating trade, not other people first.

      Well . . . where is the 25% tariff on foreign imported H1-Bs . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Good by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and by not having to comply with the same environmental standards that the US has to comply with.

      I understand this sentiment, but it's really infeasible to try and balance. Plus, they ARE paying for it. One way or another. If a US company has to spend $5 million dealing with pollution, and a Chinese company can dump it out the back door, the Chinese company will have the advantage, no doubt. But there's no way we could expect Kenya to have the same standards that the EPA sets forth. The nation just isn't there yet. And China wasn't NEARLY as advanced in years past when these deals were set up. To an extent, their infrastructure is still pretty rickety, but they have the cash to at least try and fix it now. But even with developed nations, imposing trade deals on the basis of how their EPA equivalents operate isn't likely to work. Trade deals take years and last decades while environmental policy fluctuates each term. It got cut to the bone this time. It sucks. Anyway, I just don't think it's viable.

      And, they're paying for it. China is hella polluted. To the point it's killing people. This is, essentially, the Chinese government abusing it's people to make a buck. It might make the nation more money, but the people are paying for it with their health. As a democracy over here, the people got pissed at that sort of shit and we formed the EPA way back during the hippy era under that notorious greeny weeny Nixon. China's abuse of it's peasantry for the good of the economy goes deeper too, and more directly results in the trade deficit. They suppress their currency. They used to keep it strictly pegged to the USD, but they've let it slip a bit. It artificially REDUCES China's buying power, and makes selling Chinese goods that much easier. Imagine if Trump came around and said "We're devaluing the USD, now it'll cost you twice as much to purchase anything abroad. But hey, if you export, you'll make twice as much." That's what China did. If you're exports, hey, goooood times. If you earn Chinese Renminbi, and want to travel or buy foreign goods.... sucks to be you.

      Both of these are, in short, taxes. Not quite the same as a direct tax of cash out of their wallets, but a tax all the same.

      Now.... when it comes to the US's policy towards this. We could:

      A) Punish China and limit trade in an effort to get them to stop abusing their workers.

      B) Buy the highly discounted goods that they're selling at discount at the cost to their citizenry

      And you're advocating for option A. That's uncharacteristically altruistic considering the "America first" and "MAGA" slogans that side's been throwing about. Realize that prices will RISE for everyone and the only people that would benefit from this sort of trade war would be competitors to Chinese manufacturing, pretty much US manufacturing. If you work in manufacturing (or own a car manufacturer), sure, this is voting for the wallet. And I get that. The rest of us essentially have to pay for it though. Also, trade wars are not a zero sum game. Blocking trade (or restricting via tariffs) hurts BOTH sides more than either side was losing prior. A trade-war between giants is a godsend to the little manufacturing nations out there.

    9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's so beneficial, then pray tell, why are so many americans so poor they can't afford retirement or basic housing, or are forgoing retirement to pay for their kids college?

      The reason why we had a minimum wage was to ensure we didn't have companies competing to see how much they could subjugate their employee's; you can compete by selling a better product, compete by being more efficient, or you can compete by reducing the cost of labor. You put enough income in someone's pocket, they can afford to live for tomorrow and all of a sudden they won't destory themselves by being forced to work, for example, rotational schedules that are scientifically designed to disrupt your circadian rythm and force you to quit, thus driving turnover and allowing you to employ a part-time workforce. That was the idea.

      Chinese factory workers literally live at the factories and base their lives around work. The chinese government is an oligarchy, and at some point we have to decide if that's the way we want to live or not. Otherwise, we use capitalism to destroy ourselves. Capitalism is just a tool, you can't forget that.

    10. Re:Good by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Basic housing where? If you want it in San Francisco then it's going to cost as much as everyone else who wants to live there is willing to pay. Turns out the bay area is attractive and has a lot of people who want to live in the limited number of homes available there. Basic housing in the middle of Nebraska can be as low for a year's rent as San Francisco can be for a month's. Similarly, anyone can go to college and the government will guarantee (a bit of a Faustian bargain, but that's an aside) your loans. Just don't go to a university that costs more per year than some state schools charge for a four-year degree. There are a lot of Americans who are poor for no other reason than poor financial decision making or lifestyle choices. For example, a pack a day smoker could be several thousand dollars richer if they were to give up their habit, never mind the added health benefits and reduction in future healthcare costs.

      Minimum wage is just like rent control. It's an idea that some well-meaning individual had that paves a pathway to hell. A minimum wage means that there will always be people who cannot get any job because there is nothing that they can do that is worth paying them the minimum wage. There are entire groups of people for whom you've made it illegal to work, which is why you see illegal immigrants having more social mobility than impoverished Americans. The illegal immigrants will work under the table for below minimum wage, but it allows them to build financial capital and develop some kind of skill as meager as they may seem. Meanwhile the poorest Americans have no ladder to climb and you've trapped them where they are. There are some that just won't ever be able to escape their situation, but you've removed their ability to at least try.

      You seem to believe that money is an entity unto itself and that if everyone just had more that they'd all somehow be better off. It's utterly worthless unless there's an actual economy to back it up. Otherwise Venezuela or Zimbabwe could have continued to run their presses for ever and give people ever more. Money is just a proxy for value created and is itself just a commodity whose value is relative to its scarcity. Money doesn't make you rich if your billions of Zimbabwean dollars can't even buy a loaf of bread because no one can produce one. It's far better to have relatively little money but live in an economy that produce all that you need for almost nothing. You seem to want to strike out at a factory owner while forgetting that they cannot succeed without a willing customer. It is we the consumer that purchases any miserable condition you care to attach to a business.

    11. Re: Good by Type44Q · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This horseshit has been largely disproven.

    12. Re: Good by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Sure - because it was politically expedient to do so. It was her gold standard, but when it was politically unpopular during the election she quickly disavowed her previous position.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  2. My biggest surprise... by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...was learning there are Chinese car manufacturers.

    Ya know why the English don't build computers?

    They haven't figured out how to make them leak oil yet.

    1. Re:My biggest surprise... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      China makes some surprisingly good cars. They also have a lot of electric vehicles and patents on EV technology. European manufacturers that ignored EVs for too long are buying in Chinese tech to catch up.

      The only reason you don't see more of them outside of China is that they can't make them fast enough. Demand in China is huge, and expansion into other markets is expensive so they are saturating the home market first.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Since when did commie capitalists play fair? by cahuenga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are anti-tariff then you should oppose tariffs from your competitors as well and move to incentivise their removal. Retaliatory tariffs are a reasonable option.

    1. Re:Since when did commie capitalists play fair? by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you are anti-tariff

      The indifference to foreign tariffs and other unfair trade policies that our own leaders have shown for decades belies their real motivations. Just as illegal immigration has tacit support from both ends (the R's have powerful constituents that want to drive down working class wages while the D's want to displace white Americans with dependent and loyal immigrants,) our highly biased trade regime also has bilateral support; the R's want to leverage cheap foreign labor while avoiding the domestic regulatory regime and the D's are happy to a.) dismantle the economic means of the white working class and b.) facilitate the evacuation of heavy industry from (most of) North America.

      It has been a nearly frictionless win-win for about 50 years now. Then Trump happened.

      Actual change — the thing we've been told we need so much — has arrived. Funny how the people that purported to want "change" so damn much seem so unhappy about it.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Since when did commie capitalists play fair? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      You don't need "leverage," the party with lower tariffs can unilaterally increase their tariffs to match the other party, and now the relative harm of the one-sided tariff is mitigated. Plus, you can build into that increase that it will go down automatically after the other party is found to have lowered theirs in practice. So you can build a reasonable and fair negotiating position into the rules even absent any extant negotiation.

      Also, consider, do we mean just "cars" or do we mean "cars and car parts." Because my car was built in Japan and the US, but almost all my replacement parts are being made in China. It is reasonable to assume then that many cars assembled in the US have lots of their parts made in China, too.

      Also, don't leave out the other part of the discussion; cars are heavy and expensive to transport so they're often made close to the buyer. Chinese companies can own car factories in the US, and they do. So parity here isn't just the tariff, they're also talking about ownership rules. It may be that if the Chinese won't allow US companies to own factories in China, then they could pay an extra tariff to own factories in the US. Perhaps, equal to whatever extra it ends up costing US companies in China to contract a factory compared to if they could own one.

    3. Re:Since when did commie capitalists play fair? by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actual change — the thing we've been told we need so much — has arrived

      How patient are you willing to be with this "change"? People at the Carrier plant Trump promised to save were laid off.

      Many people who didn't vote for your Trump believe in many of the underlying causes you state -- but believe in Trump fixing the problem about as much as Microsoft releasing a good operating system.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    4. Re:Since when did commie capitalists play fair? by deadwill69 · · Score: 2

      Them I'm sure you saw that they follow right in line with BLS. They even add a chart:

      https://www.adpemploymentrepor...

  4. If China charges us 25% by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Then let's charge them 24.9% in order to show some leadership toward reducing tariffs. Then if they lower theirs to match, we'll lower ours again. Let's race to the bottom, because reciprocal tariffs ("an eye for an eye") won't get us to that goal.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:If China charges us 25% by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Just build it in that if they lower theirs, we lower ours. Easy. No need to imagine that we could instead appease them into fairness by simply offering them an advantage. You don't lead yourself to fairness by offering to receive less.

  5. About fucking time by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China agreed to play fair, but went from 90 tariffs to over 500, and most are killer. It is long past time for president to call china gov on this BS.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:About fucking time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it should be called, but why are your tariffs for China being applied to Brazil? Brazil is one of your biggest steel suppliers and much bigger than China!!

      On the other hand, Brazil is also the US' biggest coal buyer. And the coal is used exactly to... wait for it... make steel. So It seems Trump is killing coal after all!!

  6. Misleading Headline by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Despite the CNBC (and Slashdot) headlines Elon Musk didn't actually side with Trump.
    He just tweeted at Trump that China was charging duties on US cars, and restricting US ownership of car factories in China, but the US wasn't doing the same in return.

    And since Trump was in a mood to make tariffs Musk's reasonable sounding tweet is now well on its way to becoming policy.

    Is anyone here really famous and has a 140 (280?) character argument about why a certain tariff should be enacted?

    This is your opportunity to write US policy!

    --
    I stole this Sig
  7. Define reciprocal by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In the 1980s, Korea had a ridiculously high tax on cars to try to keep traffic under control. Hyundai was selling their base model for $9,995 in the U.S. But the same car in Korea was taxed to about $30,000. One of the 1988 Presidential candidates made an issue of it, complaining that Hyundai could sell their cars in the U.S. for $10k, but a similar Ford Escort was taxed to cost $30k in Korea (he conveniently left out that the Hyundai also cost $30k in Korea).

    So which reciprocal is the right way to do it?
    • Taxing imports at the same rate the originating country taxes your exports sounds like it would be fairer. But it destroys the ability to use tax policies to modify behavior unique to each country. Korea was forced to repeat their vehicle tax. Suddenly half the population was able to afford cars, and the streets immediately became gridlocked.
    • If you consider it fair if a country applies taxes evenly regardless of the product's origin, then a country could tax an industry with little domestic presence up the wazoo and still claim it's being fair. The U.S. imports a lot of lumber from Canada, while almost no U.S. lumber is exported to Canada. So the U.S. could impose a tax on lumber sales which would disproportionately affect Canadian imports while doing little economic harm to itself.

    tl;dr - There is no right answer. A policy which is fair in one dimension is unfair in an orthogonal dimension. And vice versa. Everyone wants there to be one best, right solution. But in a lot of cases, no such solution exists.

    1. Re:Define reciprocal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I lived in Korea until 2000. Cheapest Hyundai back in 1980 was Hyundai Pony and it costed about $3000, not $30K. And oh yea, we did have ridiculously high tariff to protect our auto industry. Up until 2000, we never thought of owning a foreign car. I had never heard of BMW until high school. And we had one Audi-VW dealer around my area and I though the car brand was "AUDI VOLKSWAGEN' because that was the title of the dealership. No one I knew ever owned any foreign car because it was ridiculously expensive. But most family had one or two cars either from Hyundai, Kia, Daewoo, SsangYong.

  8. Thanks to the NHTSA, that shouldn't be problem by apenzott · · Score: 2

    The United States already has a De-facto import duty against importing Chinese cars in that none so far are able to get https://www.nhtsa.gov/ approval for importing them into the United States.

    --
    The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
    1. Re:Thanks to the NHTSA, that shouldn't be problem by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? How odd. I see Volvo S60s driving all over the place here. Where do you think they are made, and who do you think owns the company? You guys are so cute!

  9. Elon for President! by tomxor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously though... it's a shame the unavoidable negative connotations of "siding with trump" are going to be far more visible than agreeing on one of the most objective and uncontroversial arguments regarding US import duties on China, the title isn't helping.

  10. Protectionism Doesn't Work That Way by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    India charging a 75% import duty on American cars would be to protect domestic production. They don't care if we won't buy their cars... because they're not trying to sell us any, anyways. What they WOULD BE trying to do is make sure American auto manufacturers can't outcompete the domestic producers, in the domestic market, thus driving the domestic producers out of business. Having the independent ability to manufacture cars is useful if, say, India were to go to war with the USA, or if India were blockaded by China.

    I'd expect Musk to care more about Chinese solar panels than Chinese cars.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Protectionism Doesn't Work That Way by ghoul · · Score: 2

      And the US does the same with Wheat and Corn . In a fair world no way can a high cost of living country like the US afford to export cheap agricultural produce but thats where farm subsidies come in. I was really hoping the govt shutdown had gone on longer like 6 months or so. Then the red states would realize that how much they suck at the federal teat.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  11. We are Free Traders but by oldgraybeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    others are not!! If their markets are not open to us why should we have a completely open market to them.

    So lets do this, our tariffs will be the exact same as yours!

    You free trade with us, we free trade with you!

    I have no problems with these tariffs

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:We are Free Traders but by imgod2u · · Score: 2, Informative

      That statistic is misleading as fuck:

      https://www.statista.com/stati...
      http://www.worldstopexports.co...

      China's car industry is *for the most part* a domestic industry. They don't export much period ($5B in auto exports in 2016 compared $151B for Germany and $55B for the US).

      Of that tiny amount of exporting, the US is 9% of China's exports of automobiles. China mainly and mostly exports to the EU (20%). We're ranked just above Egypt for imports from China (WOOOOO!!?).

      "4th largest" does not imply 1 - 3 were proportional. Nor does it imply China will give two shits about how much they export (if they mainly consume domestically).

      Take your (trolling) or (lack of understanding) elsewhere.

  12. Meanwhile in Brazil.... by hneiva10 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Meanwhile in Brazil import taxes on cars are roughly 115% Breakdown: http://thebrazilbusiness.com/a...

  13. Re:Trump needs to create a red line! by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

    Define "making things generally better."

  14. Japan only allows so many American cars to be sold by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Informative

    Japan exported more than 1.6 million vehicles to America in 2015, while the U.S. sold less than 19,000 vehicles to Japan, accounted for about .03% of the five million cars and light trucks sold in Japan.

    Japan taxes engine size and emissions. The annual tax on a vehicle with a 4-liter engine, an American pickup, is ¥76,500. Japan is the only developed country in the world with such a tax, so over a 10-year period, it would add up to the equivalent of a 12 percent import tariff.

    I couldn't find the import limits, but remember seeing a limit on how many cars per maker was allowed. Not sure if thats still a trade issue.

    Of course, the new theory is Americans gave up importing cars, because Japan has high tastes and want quality customer service and its too hard to serve them.

    Obama even tried to fight for American imports into Japan.
    https://www.detroitnews.com/st...

  15. hummmm by jmccue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets see, someone who makes overly expensive electric cars wants to slap a tariff on cars made in China. Call me Capt. Obvious.

    If I remember correctly China is pouring a lot into electric vehicles.

  16. FWIW.... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...my take on "Free Trade" is that it should really be "Fair Trade" - i.e. a "level playing field". To that, I submit, are 3 aspects: 1) Democracy. A Democratic country should have a built-in bias of preferential treatment as opposed to, say, Communist dictatorships. 2) Wage equivalence. If you can offer workers at $10/day - and who have left those pesky kids who need time and so are left behind in villages - vs $10/hour, that is hardly a level playing field. 3) Environmental and Labor standards. Sure as God made little green apples, companies who can avoid the cost of dumping their effluent enjoy lower costs vs those civilized places that kinda place an importance on clean water enjoy a competitive advantage that we - as consumers - ignore because it's happening "over there". When Japan was flooding America with Toyotas in the 80s and 90s, I - as a proud American - bought them because 1) Japan is a democracy. 2) Their auto workers were (and still are!) making equivalent or better wages than American workers at their plants. 3) They have maintained very strict standards at all of their plants in Japan. China? Just the opposite.

  17. Re:Oh boy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Elon can do no wrong.

    He is wrong about this. Steel tariffs in retaliation for China's car tariffs make no sense. Less than 3% of steel imported into America comes from China. So 97% of the "punishment" is collateral damage against our neighbors and allies. The biggest exporter of steel to America is Canada, followed by Brazil and South Korea. China is #10.

    Top steel exporters to the US

  18. The thing to remember by MikeMo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While listening to all of the other countries and world-spanning corporations complain about tariffs, keep in mind that each and every one of those entities have their OWN best interests in mind. Not the world’s, and definitely not the US’s.

  19. Brains by ghoul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You forgot the US is still severely dependent on one import even after Shale. Brains. The US does not domestically produce enough smart people to keep running the high technology economy and is severely dependent on importing brains. If the US plays hardball with the home countries the US will lose its image of a nice country to emigrate to and will suffer from a brain shortage. It could then downgrade its economy to a less technological one or reverse its trade policies.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Brains by ghoul · · Score: 2

      Raising barriers doesnt make you the only stable state. Countries like Germany and Japan would attract more Elon Musks and Sergey Brins if USA creates an image of itself being in it only for its own interests.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  20. Re:Oh boy by manu144x · · Score: 2

    That show is sponsored exclusively by automotive OEM suppliers, and I am following their youtube channel since the beginning, they were anti-tesla since the beginning. I don't think Tesla is the second coming or other crap like that, but you gotta admit those guys may be very biased in their teardown. Also I didn't see a teardown on the same channel of other cars., but they go through the tesla with a steamroller, absolutely nothing is good enough.

  21. Re:Oh boy by Megol · · Score: 2

    While you are of course welcome to come up with a counter-argument what you just produced is something completely different - misdirection.

    It's possible to be praising something while still arguing something negative for the same thing. Your post would only be relevant if the engineer retracted the earlier statement in praising the driving experience.

    One of the charms of a Harley-Davidson is that it is primitive mechanically (or was: have not seen one or read about them in 20 years) but being a joy to ride and work with. Fun - primitive: not mutually exclusive.

  22. Re:Trump needs to create a red line! by Memnos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do know that "since he took office" doesn't necessarily imply that he's "making things better", right? My income has increased also, quite a bit in nominal terms for this and near-term years. But I still think the guy's a disgrace. I can still live quite comfortably netting somewhat less, and I'd prefer to do so if it meant not living in a ruthless shithole of a society that had the respect of very few, and respected back in similar amounts.

    --
    I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.