Slashdot Mirror
US' Proposed China Tariffs Would Target Robotics, Satellites (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: The U.S. Trade Representative has published the list of Chinese products that would be subject to its proposed tech tariffs, and there are a few clear themes. The move would hike the costs of about 1,300 products, including industrial robots, communication satellites, spacecraft and a slew of semiconductors.The aim, as before, is to punish China for allegedly goading American companies into transferring their patents and technology to Chinese firms for the sake of claiming economic superiority. The USTR claimed the proposed tariffs would stymie Chinese plans while "minimizing the impact" on the American economy. The tariffs are still subject to a 60-day notice process that would include public comments until May 11th and a public hearing on May 15th.
Even those it's arguably unconstitutional, machine guns have been banned among the US citizenry for a very long time.
Also, last I checked, the US Government is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; so, the people do indeed need guns. The 2nd Amendment makes this very clear: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In those days, "well regulated" meant "armed with equipment of regular and high quality", and "militia" still means "group of patriots".
We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!
When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose!
And this folks, is what leadership has come to mean today.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The US has a trade imbalance with China... that means the US imports more from China than China does from the US. Therefore, quid pro quo... the US can deny China more revenue than China can deny the US.
Sure, the US can hurt ITSELF by denying ITSELF Chinese goods which the US ITSELF makes more expensive in the US through tariffs. However, with really no exceptions there are comparable trade partners that can offer the same good at either the same or very similar price point.
What is more, there really isn't anything China produces that has to come from China. They don't own any IP that anyone cares about. The only reason anyone does anything in China is mostly due to low labor costs which are less relevant now for two reasons. First, Chinese labor costs have been going up such that labor costs are often cheaper somewhere else if that is important. And second, the rise of automation is rendering the relevance of labor costs of that type... less relevant.
Will tariffs help US producers? Maybe. They can and they sometimes don't. It is complicated. There are countries with very high tariffs that have absolutely flat-lined manufacturing... which results in things being more expensive for consumers without any pay off in terms of domestic production. Then there are places where tariffs are hugely helpful to domestic production.
A big part of the controversy so far as I can see if that there is a myth about "free trade"... that it is "the american way" and that "it actually exists anywhere". Historically, the US Federal Government funded itself principally from tariffs. This didn't really stop until the Cold War when very generous trade deals were offered as an inducement for fence sitting nations to join the "first world". For reference, first world during the Cold War referred to any nation allied with the US. Second world referred to any nation allied with the Soviet Union. Third world referred to any nation not allied with either the US or Soviet Union. Regardless, "free trade" was a marketing term the US used to brand its trade deals. The US was branding everything it did as "free" something. Freedom fighters, Free World, Free Trade etc. US Free Trade doctrine was only created to put pressure on the Soviets and has really no purpose in the 21st century unless again applied to serve some kind of geopolitical agenda. Instead, the US is applying the concept mindlessly with no particular purpose. Its cited as "the american way" like its something essential to American values when any fool that looks at history can see when it came around and why. Second, ACTUAL free trade only exists domestically within certain nations and doesn't really exist in any international context and never did. Trade is conditional. The US doesn't have free trade with Mexico and Canada through NAFTA much less with anyone else. And neither does any other country.
China has higher tariffs on US goods into China than the US does on Chinese goods into the US... and that was before Trump or any of this current bullshit.
Restrictions are happening everywhere all the time for various reasons. Some of the restrictions are a matter of law and policy and some are a subtle consequence of process or relationship. The net effect either way is that goods don't flow freely. They're restricted and regulated and taxed and have quotas applied etc.
US goods when they go nearly anywhere are limited in some way. US goods to Japan for example sometimes ROT on the pier because the Japanese want to protect their domestic market by limiting US trade. Countries come up with all sorts of pretexts to do it. Health and safety is a popular one. Differing regulatory standards which are approved at time X and then suddenly are questioned at X+1 at the worst possible time fucking over who ever chanced the market.
As regards China specifically, their fast and loose treatment of trade agreements, business agreements, licensing, intellectual property... etc is well known at this point. We're due a big shift in trade relationships with
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And already losing it.
. . . as in any war . . . the little folks always lose . . . no matter what side they are on . . . none of the little folks win.
. . . maybe some big business folks and politicians win.
The rest, lose.
And we're all little folks.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Taxes are not the problem. The problem is spending. Government spend must be reined in, particularly spending which is not for the common good, i.e. entitlements.
If spending is reduced, the taxes and borrowing will take care of themselves.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Far from it. But he reminds me of the routine of a well known local comedy duo:
A: Are you so dumb or are you just faking it?
B: Why should I fake being dumb?
What is the non-dumb move that fixes the problem then?
Come on, tell us! If the president's move is so obviously dumb, what *should* we be doing to fix the litany of problems?
Your post implies that you're much smarter than him.
Don't hold back, tell us please!