Slashdot Mirror
White House Announces Tech Tariffs, Investment Restrictions on China (axios.com)
The White House announced this morning a plan to levy a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese tech goods -- with the exact list to be announced next month -- as well as tech investment limits for Chinese nationals and entities. From a report: It also plans to pursue litigation at the World Trade Organization relating to Chinese intellectual property abuses. The big picture: It's a show of force that has surprised some sources close to the White House who believed Trump would defer any aggression towards China until after the North Korea summit. A source close to the White House who has a keen understanding of the internal dynamics on China told me that this is an "initial move in a long negotiation that shows the Chinese Trump is very serious -- and a move to balance the criticism that he was soft on ZTE."
he probably doesn't know they're separate things. Yellow, very yellow.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He's going to tax you 25%!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yes, he wants to be the exporter--the one threatened in the trade relationship by the capacity of the importer to just go to the next country over and pull the plug on your economy--so he's willing to harm America by reducing the benefit we get from lower-cost goods.
Mostly, he and Bernie Sanders don't understand economics, and they're projecting their failed grasp of macroeconomics onto a nation.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I knew I voted for this guy for a reason! Strange I have to vote Republican to get some good old fashioned protectionism, but there it is.
The big picture: It's a show of force that has surprised some sources close to the White House who believed Trump would defer any aggression towards China until after the North Korea summit.
What kind of idiot thinks that?
"I won't do X because it might upset you" is the negotiating tactic of a complete, errr, pussy. It hands way too much leverage to the other person.
It sure seems like the entire US foreign policy establishment has been believing in the own perfection for way too long and absolutely in need of an outsider like Trump to shake them up.
We didn't "need" China before Clinton gave them MFN status and we don't need China now. We can make our own shit and if that means we have to stop feathering our environmental nest with more anti-industry regulations or you have a pay a bit more to replace your iPhone every 12 months then so be it.
And "with the exact list to be announced next month "
China don't have to worry, next month they will list what and when is going to be effectif hten, China will buy another hotel to Trump and every sanction willbe drop !
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Trump announced steel and aluminum tariffs March 1st. Now it's about 90 days later and they've all been deferred indefinitely. It won him next to nothing the first time around, and is likely to do even worse this time now that people know it's only a negotiating tactic.
I'm no lover of Trump's policies. He's an authoritarian ass and enabler to state violence (i.e. "rough them up a bit").
But I can't bring myself to be upset about this tariff, and think it's a shame that it can't be 100%. Yes. 100%, full cost of the item. People throw too many things out -- I've seen perfectly good electronics on the street due to a damaged power cord or similar minor issue.
We've become a throw-away society where "used" and "repair" are dirty words, and which produces an unsustainable amount of toxic, poorly recyclable e-waste. Trump may not mean to be an environmentalist, but raising the cost of dirt-cheap disposable electronics is ultimately an environmental good.
Remember the 80s and 90s, where people kept their TVs for 10-15 years, then handed them down to their college student children?
Better yet, fix what you have or keep it longer instead of generating more toxic e-waste because shiny and new! No one needs a new phone or TV every year. The difference between 1k and 4k is basically invisible to most people at actual viewing distance.
You need us more than we need you.
Yeah, you just keep thinking that.
That link somewhat works against your point if you read into it-
The Chinese aren't simply shipping us cheap stuff. And at times it seems like they're doing less to lower production costs and invent new stuff than they are simply circumventing licensing costsâ" hence the intellectual property complaints.
If inventing new things is a boon, then creating a disincentive to invent new stuff (through not respecting intellectual property law) is a detriment.
What does or doesn't constitute sane intellectual property law is another subject entirely.
The Dollar started tanking under Nixon, and now America has been playing every trick in the book to keep it afloat. The game of inflating the economy by creating expenditures and loans out of thin air is not working as well, and now theyr'e getting desperate.
yeah, it seems to have worked on you.
The tech community in general is more educated and mere diverse (in some ways) than the general population and hence much less will to support trump. Plus tech CEOs are not psychologically the types to kiss the kings ring so yes, he is about to screw tech for both fun and profit. Probably he will use as leverage to extort more personal gain out of Beijing.
Well though in practice that depends on how the country with the deficit is paying for the excess of imports. If you're using debt, then that is indeed a problem.
Also deficits with some countries can be offset by surpluses with others. But if worldwide the USA has a net deficit that we're paying for with debt, then that is an even bigger problem.
True, although we prohibit the sale of pirate IP here, so they can't export their stolen IP to America (and other countries operating under certain international treaties). Strengthening these international IP agreements was one of the big things for which people attacked the TPP: we don't like the Berne Convention (I'd rather limit copyright to 14 years, or some such).
My point is importing cheap stuff from China actually makes our economy more-powerful and raises our standards of living. People think it just means jobs go away and we get poorer somehow.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Really, there is no doubt that there would be a large adjustment to make shutting out China, but I don't think we need them in a society ending kind of way. Things will be more expensive, but there will be more jobs and we will move on. Also, I'm not really clear on why we are so gung-ho to remove our dependence on foreign oil by pressing EVs and the like, but yet a reliance on a foreign manufacturing is a good thing that we need? Doesn't make sense.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
We havent seen a president represent the people in such a long time, hereâ(TM)s to four more years!
It's a hoarding/bunker mentality versus a focus on quality of life.
On one side, there's the folks who want to keep economic and physical resources on hand and maintain and develop manufacturing capability to ensure self sufficiency.
On the other, you've got the folks who want to enjoy as many of the available ancient vises and modern conveniences as possible.
Both sides have good arguments supporting them. On one side, what happens if international trade goes to hell? And on the other, why live like a Great Depression survivor when that crisis may never come?
As with most things, the most successful strategy is probably a middle ground between the two extremes.
I'm sure they will negotiate a solution where her business gets a concession and this goes away. The good thing about corruption is that it's predictable and it's much easier to run a business in a predictable environment.
That's what the "you got cheap consumer electronics" crowd doesn't understand. Our wages haven't kept up with housing costs (we are becoming a society of renters), medical costs and education costs. The important things. Decent food has gone up fast, too.
Being able able to get a cheap TV doesn't help me with my student loans or my medical bills.
Free trade is supposed to help everyone but as we are seeing, the benefits are going mostly to the top.
When xyz company send their manufacturing to China or Mexico, its workers are then scrambling for the limited part-time jobs at Walmart that pays less than half of what they were making - and without benefits.
But (as a human, not as a country), what's wrong with living cheaply, not keeping up with the Joneses (they're dumb anyway) and just keeping old stuff or buying used? The tradeoff from living cheaply won't be hoarding of money or stuff, it will be the ability to have a one-parent, 40 hour a week working family. Trading free time for stuff that doesn't enrich your life anyway.
Bluefox doesn't know anything about macroeconomics.
The problem is that the population does not remain static. And with more mouths to feed (and house and clothe and educate so that they aren't a drag on the economy) year over year, you *need* that productivity increase just to keep things the same.
And don't forget, to have anything to buy used, someone at some point had to have bought it new.
Nothing at all.
The only *real* trouble with that is that's not what mainstream culture values. It's a marketing machine, and as soon as you opt out of the lifestyle of constantly buying shiny new crap you're worthless to advertisers and therefore irrelevant.
There are some good resources for those who think in those terms. One of my favorites is the Mr. Money Moustache blog.
Mainstream "kultshah" is essentially a bread and circus for the stupid and terminally ignorant.
Simple, enact policies to keep population static domestically. Invest heavily in economic development programs abroad that encourage and provide birth control as well. Earth is overloaded as it is. Perpetual growth is an illness, not the solution.
Low-cost imports make the importing nation wealthier.
Yeah, instead of investing my money on making things to sell, I blow all my money on cheap plastic shit from China! Just like Warren Buffet. That's why I'm so rich!
Dumbest negotiator ever. His abject stupidity and blatant criminality is why he keeps getting owned in trade negotiations.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Oh man, think about the cheap 3D printers!
leading the pack, I see.
"initial move in a long negotiation that shows the Chinese Trump is very serious -- and a move to balance the criticism that he was soft on ZTE."
I sounds like Trump is played like a fiddle.
You don't need any productivity increase just because you have more people, because productivity is defined as output per something, and absent indication to the contrary that something is an hour of labour.
tl;dr every mouth that needs feeding comes with two hands to work.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
it seems the only negotiation you have ever been in is the car/thing buying kind. There are *A LOT* more sort of negotiations and it seems you don't have the experience of them. I would say your life inexperience is really showing.
If they werenâ(TM)t spying on those traitors, they werenâ(TM)t doing their jobs.
You need Canada's clean air and water, and Mexico's cheap labour and drugs.
TransMountain Pipeline in Canada was just nationalized, meaning 3x the capacity from the oilsands will be sold to CHINA instead of the USA. But yeah, everyone needs you guy! You're so important buddy, that's why you have no environmental or worker protection laws worth shit and no healthcare. Keep on smoking that rich guy's cock tho buddy, I'm sure that meaty taste will pay for your kid's braces.
That wasn't a typo, it's covfefe's brother.
Seriously, though, T is confusing and confounding other nations because of his flip-flops, surprise "temporarily exemptions", vagueness, etc. Today's proclamations maybe be irrelevant tomorrow via a new Tweet. Most world leaders are relatively careful, systematic planners and don't know what to make of his style.
I'm not going to even say T's unpredictable style "doesn't work"; for it's too early to judge. I'm merely saying that it's baffling the h$ll out of world leaders and negotiators.
Maybe there is a method to his madness. I wouldn't bet on it personally because it resembles trolling to me, but can't rule it out yet. It's an interesting experiment; I just hope us lab-rats survive it all.
Table-ized A.I.
I don't know if your descriptions are accurate, but the people you describe make up a majority of the public. We need an economic system that accounts for that and seeks better outcomes instead of maximum profit.
Paying a "I bit more" is an understatement. We might be able to make our 'own shit' but it would mean major automation of manufacturing to keep the same price point otherwise the standard of living in the US will drop. Not against automation, but it would take time.
You don't know what the word "authoritarian" really means (in a political context). Trump is gentleman compared to a real authoritarian.
:).
If you keep calling everyone a "nazi" or "authoritarian" then everybody will get the idea that nazis and authoritarians were not that bad really.
Btw you will know what authoritarian means when the state starts confiscating succesfull businesses and politicians/journalists get some exotic poison or just plain old get killed in their elevator.
And also, quite true about Trump being accidental environmentalist
there's the folks who want to keep economic and physical resources on hand and maintain and develop manufacturing capability to ensure self sufficiency.
That's not quality-of-life; that's your local economics market. Back before manufacturing was big, America had this huge dialogue about how evil manufacturing was encroaching on the good American way of life where 90% of the workforce was in agriculture.
Quality-of-life is how people live, not how your nation's means of production are composed. It's about the people. It's about being able to eat, about being secure and not becoming homeless, and about having access to hygiene and medical care and social mobility.
On one side, what happens if international trade goes to hell?
Your nation has already fallen.
If we lose stable electricity for a day or two, our entire logistics system falls apart. We rely so much on communications and on shipping from town to town--much less across the states or to other nations--that we can't even keep stores stocked without trucks showing up every single day. After five days of high-speed communications being down across the nation, this nation isn't recovering; it's already over, the Constitution is no longer and shall never again be in force, and there is no capacity to maintain order and domestic tranquility.
Trade with other nations is a mechanism of stability. It gives us allies who are vested in helping us stay in one piece, and severely reduces the likelihood of war because neither side could sustain it.
why live like a Great Depression survivor when that crisis may never come?
In which case your isolationist nation is getting invaded by someone with the military prowess of Canada.
As with most things, the most successful strategy is probably a middle ground between the two extremes.
That assumes either side is an extreme, rather than that we're simply not leveraging mechanisms we should use. Holding your breath every 60 seconds could be said to be a middle-ground between breathing and not breathing when faced with, for example, air pollution.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
No you don't. Productivity is the amount produced per person (or per working-hour, depending on context). Population growth to carry capacity is unchanging productivity; population growth stops at carry capacity because productivity decreases when you exceed your maximum technological production rate and start pulling excess labor per unit produced.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The tradeoff from living cheaply won't be hoarding of money or stuff, it will be the ability to have a one-parent, 40 hour a week working family. Trading free time for stuff that doesn't enrich your life anyway.
I don't think that even the economic ability to have a single-parent, 40-hour work-week family means it is a good idea. If you look at the statistics, children coming from single parent homes are over-represented in just about every category for negative life outcomes whether it's crime, suicide, teen pregnancy, drug use, etc. The economic growth that we've seen has allowed us to support this without collapsing in on ourselves, but it's not a good thing. All of the labor being devoted to dealing with those issues could be redirected to enriching our lives in other ways.
I didn't say anything about single parents.
I was talking about two parent families with one working parent and one stay-at-home parent. Or two parents working short enough hours to be able to spend time with their children.
Things will be more expensive, but there will be more jobs
No. There will not be "more jobs". Look, protectionism isn't a "new" idea. It has been tried over and over throughout history. In fact, it has been more the norm than the exception. It hurts the economies of both importers and exporters, and leads to job losses and lower living standards.
Per NPR, the Trump Administration is blocking appointment of judges at the WTO. The WTO's 7-judge panel is down to 4 members, 2 more are leaving, and the panel can't meet its minimum to hear appeals of WTO decisions.
Transcript:
GONZALEZ: OK, but there's one thing I want to get in here. Yes, the U.S. is making things difficult for the WTO. They're screaming at the referees on the soccer field. But the U.S. is still on the field. They are still playing against other countries.
AZEVEDO: The United States itself is bringing disputes to the system even under this administration. So why bring a dispute to the system if you don't want to observe the system or if you don't want the system at all?
GONZALEZ: So you're saying under the Trump administration the United States is coming to the WTO and making claims against other countries?
AZEVEDO: I'm not saying that. That is a fact.
SMITH: I feel like the United States is saying, WTO, can't live with it, can't crush your trade opponents without it.
Outside of military equipment, big-ticket specialty/precision items, airplanes and cars, the US doesn't manufacture many consumer goods anymore, especially tech goods. Unless his next announcement is a nationalization of what little manufacturing infrastructure we have left and a shift to something like war production to force the electronics industry to come back, I don't think the President is thinking this through.
Even if factory work came down to minimum wage, it would still be too expensive to compete with China and other countries. Companies would rather go out of business than open factories domestically. It's a nice idea, and I would love to see factory work as an alternative to shoveling everyone into higher education. But, it would have to be way more than a 25% tariff to get anything to change.
If we actually could accomplish this I would like to see it. Factory workers of a previous generation were able to have good careers and provide for their families. Now, unless you're in the technology sector you're going to end up automated out of a job, and most of the tech jobs are headed that way too.
Quick quiz - Who was the president that put in wage and price controls?
https://www.cato.org/publicati...
That's right, Another fine honest Republican, the honorable Richard Nixon.
On Aug. 15, 1971, in a nationally televised address, Nixon announced, “I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States.”
Wow...... Wage and price freezes. Hey - how'd that work out? Probably as good as what will hapen with the tarriffs on Chinese tech, and then the US working to make certain that the jobs of the Cell phone mfgr we kicked out are saved.
Funny how the Demoncrats are called the party of socialism, when the Republicans actually implement it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You make some very good points there. Good food for thought.
Can you phrase some of your ideas as positives (do X, Y, and Z) instead of negatives (this means you've failed, it's already over, X isn't Y).
What mechanisms should we leverage that we're ignoring or underutilizing?
It's negotiating leverage with North Korea, which is controlled by China as a proxy. He talked about this during the campaign, but everyone "forgot" I guess.
I think this was more about having the ability to have one parent work and the other stay home.
This is a problem because if gets wrapped up in so much religious conservatism/nostalgia for the 50s where a woman's place is in the home. Why couldn't it be both parents having to work less overall so they had more time to actually raise their kids?
Kids from two-parent homes do end up doing better, but they do way better when both parents actually have time to spend with them. If both parents could work a flexible 25 hour work week instead of the old-school "Your butt must be in the seat from 8:30 to 5 every weekday" then things would be better.
I live in a reasonably affluent area and we have a mix of families -- ours and many others are 2-income FTE families, in some cases one parent is a doctor or lawyer and just has the spouse do all the childcare, and in others you have two total workaholic parents with high-pressure jobs. That third group has similar problems to the single-parent kids because even though they have tons of money, the parents don't have time to spend raising the kids or are too exhausted to do anything when they get home.
You probably also think economic brinkmanship is useless.
Look, protectionism isn't a "new" idea. It has been tried over and over throughout history. In fact, it has been more the norm than the exception. It hurts the economies of both importers and exporters, and leads to job losses and lower living standards.
Tell that to the Chinese as they've been using protectionist policies against the US for decades and engaging in tactics like flooding Western markets with super-cheap goods by "dumping" products at artificially-low prices subsidized by the Chinese government at a loss with the sole purpose of destroying US industrial and commercial sectors.
The Chinese have in effect been waging a trade and economic war against the US for decades. This response is long overdue and relatively mild in comparison.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I'd rather join Planned Parenthood and help your daughter get her tubes tied ;)
Why are you confused? He pretty much explained how all this works in Art of the Deal. And regarding NK specifically, he laid out his strategy during the campaign. Now he's executing that strategy and the media is confused. Well, some of the media probably knows, but this is a convenient time to attack him and he's using that against them. They either give up attacking, which they refuse to do, or they talk up all the confusion and end up helping him. He is pretty good at defining people's choices for them.
Trump tends to flip the table and then come out ahead in the scramble while everyone else is confused. People think he's an idiot, then they lose to him. This freaks a lot of people out and sometimes he can play it as 3D chess or whatever while other people think he was "lucky" for the 100th time.
Trump didn't insult Xi Jinping's mother. What he said is that he's not going to let us be screwed over by unfair trade practices. I don't think the car dealer salesman is necessary, but if one insists in that analogy it would be more like letting the salesman know that unlike the last guy, you don't intend to lay sticker price.
What the timing does is it frames the negotiation, allowing US negotiators to "give" something to China during the negotiations, to relent on something, by easing the tariffs and restrictions. We can give them something they want, and get something in return, simply by going back to the same policy we had last month! :)
Now the *starting point* of the negotiations is that China wants something from us - easing that policy. Otherwise, the starting point was we wanted something from China - their help pressuring North Korea. In a negotiation, it's always better to be on the side being asked for something, rather than be the one asking for something.
When your opening move is aggressive, it encourages aggression in return. If your first words to me are "I'm not gonna let you rip me off like the last guy" I'm immediately thinking, "Oh yeah, we'll see about that."
Sorry, but he was vague on details. I agree the US has been screwed on trade, but fixing it without triggering trade wars is not easy. T never laid out specific strategies, scenarios, and examples of how to do that. Or anything for that matter. Those who worked with him in business say he has an ad-hoc shoot-from-the-hip style. Perhaps it works, perhaps it doesn't, or works in some circumstances but others. Regardless, he's never written or described anything that can be turned into a relatively clear deal-making algorithm. Yes, he can be tenacious, but often to his own detriment, according to some real-estate analysts. His successes can often be traced to his self-promotion abilities and sometimes charisma, rather than shrewd decisions themselves.
And his Art-of-the-Deal ghost writer admitted much of the book is fluff.
By the way, "temporarily exemptions" should have been "temporary exemptions" in my message.
Table-ized A.I.
Simple, enact policies to keep population static domestically. Invest heavily in economic development programs abroad that encourage and provide birth control as well. Earth is overloaded as it is. Perpetual growth is an illness, not the solution.
Investing in a wall would do the most to keep the population static domestically. Without immigration the US population is slightly dropping over time. Mass immigration is the ultimate example of socializing the losses as our schools, infrastructure, and cost of housing all work against the 99%.
Sometimes, I really just like to point out that a question was in similar vein to "what if your stomach ruptured? You still need a way to get nutrition into your body." A nutrient IV might do that; however, if your stomach ruptured, you'd be dead.
In Nordic nations, they use collective risk sharing--generally social insurances like unemployment and disability insurance--to handle structural change.
Basically, you get wealthier by improving technology or trade, which means you expend fewer resources (ultimately, labor) in total to achieve the same ends (that's basically what economics is: people economize, which means they try to expend the least means for the most ends). This brings structural change: you need fewer workers somewhere, so you shift around the position of your employments (a factory town might collapse here or there; people lose their jobs, other people gain jobs, and you end up net-even on jobs before population growth).
Structural change has winners and losers; typically, you're looking at less than 0.1% of your workforce being the losers--if you lose 50,000 jobs in a particular exchange, that's 0.03% in America, and the secondary impacts might bring it up to 0.1%. So 99.9% of your consumer base is better off, and they're better off by so much that the winners can compensate the losers and still be way ahead. That's collective risk sharing.
In Norway, they've taken this so far as to have a fund preparing for the eventual global decline of oil demand. Norway is a big oil exporter, and renewable energy is the future. It makes sense, then, for workers and corporations to pay into a sort of fund that will then allow the government to manipulate the structural change and rebuild Norway's economy so as to restore order and protect the losers in this exchange when it comes. In theory, you'd want to diversify your holdings in some manner immune to national collapse, such as by holding a debt portfolio spread between various nations and thus being protected against a global recession that more-heavily impacts some than others (see: Greece, Italy, Spain).
I've suggested a sort of Universal Dividend in the United States, largely because you can build one under 2016 tax laws without creating new deficits, cutting services, or increasing tax burdens. It's a strange and complex shuffle: I restructured Social Security on top of the Dividend (retirement and disability bridge the gap between the Dividend and their payments as would otherwise be obligated under current rules), and the taxes are offset by the Dividend in theory as a rolling tax refund (pays twice-monthly, so a slightly-higher tax rate as you go through the middle classes turns into a slightly-lower tax rate when you count the Dividend as a tax refund).
The funding structure for this Dividend is a separate FICA tax on all personal and corporate income. It's 1/8 (12.5%), and in 2016 would have paid every adult in the United States a total of $6,700 in twice-monthly payments of $280. That has the largest proportional impact on the poorest, and has a large localized impact in areas of concentrated poverty: an increase in consumer spending creates a need for labor to keep up, or else your stores simply can't stock and sell goods fast enough. That's essentially similar to Keynesian Stimulus, like the one Barack Obama used to stop the 2008 Great Recession (remember getting a $300 check in the mail?), but always on.
This type of direct-cash risk share is similar to both a social insurance and a universal basic income. Every time productivity increases, the Dividend increases in the same proportion--it's profit sharing (= dividend) of the whole of wealth creation. Because of the localized-poverty concentration effect above, it provides interesting protection--more as more is needed--against things like automation (technology), outsourcing (trade), and immigrant labor (also trade, but they spend their income here). It does this, of course, by sharing the benefits of those things.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
My grandparents were in the second world war (like within range of a He111) and my parents were born just after. Even though rationing ended before I was born, I was brought up as if "make do and mend" was the eleventh commandment. Eleventh and twelfth, maybe.
I'll come in again.
Try telling that to kids[1] today, the vacuous, whiny, materialistic little shits.
[1] Which is anyone under 30.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's confounding only because most business negotiations are done in secret. When it leaks out it makes a lot of sense.
Trump has done a few things differently than most presidents. First, he's refused to divest himself of his businesses - usually a president puts their business in a trust so any decisions they may won't have potential conflict of interest.
It's why Russia is a big deal - it's one of the few countries where his businesses have done really, really, really well.
Or why ZTE suddenly deserves a lot of support (China dumps a half billion into a Trump hotel).
Next thing you know, Mexico will build a Trump hotel and it'll be "wall? what wall?" or if Mexico wants to build stuff using American equipment, "NAFTA GOOD!"
The problem is, these negotiations are done in private and under the privy of no one, so what looks erratic really turns out to be negotiation tactics to get a better deal.
Trump bends the way the dollars flow.
Don't mess with the Chinduinos Trump-O
Some argue stagnation may be a good thing. Some highly religious groups battle "the modern world" because they think we are diving face first into chaos and (perceived) moral decadence.
There is no absolute "law" of the science or the universe that says technical progress is a "good thing". Science can only make predictions at best, not give value judgments. It has no feelings.
Sure, we have more medicines, but also more people to feed, perhaps stretching our farms to a risky no-margin-for-error limit. Doomsday scenarios are endless. I'm not giving a preference here, only saying a case can be made.
Table-ized A.I.
This remains a joke. Trump restored ZTE because China gave Ivanka a trademark that she wanted. There has NEVER been such a corrupt president in office as trump. If he wants to be fair, he will put the same tariffs/vats on CHinese goods that they put on western goods. Likewise, he would require that all factories with chinese owners to have 50.1% American ownership. In addition, no more deals will be allowed in china for moving manufacturing over there. IOW, when we develop a product here, it will not be allowed to be manufactured in CHina, or for that matter, for ownership to be transfered to any chinese company.
Not sure how to deal with their subsidies, dumping, and manipulation, but even this would be a good start.
Then allow China to deal with it as they see fit. If CHina removes an items, so do we.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Tumors are also a form of growth.
What's wrong with having 4 kids by 5 baby daddy's. Some people want no kids some want 37. It's their choice to have the kids. I see nothing wrong with that so long as they can support them on their own.
Certainly China has taken effort to build their industry, but it's actually the opposite of protectionism, they've been rigorously seeking outside investment and development to fund their "growth" but it's a bit more hollow a victory than you might imagine.
In reality, the Chinese have been victimized by their own efforts to sell-out to American (and other interests), by becoming dependent on having somebody to buy their factory products and even injuring themselves by all the pollution that developed.
Are we cooperating with China this week, or fighting them? How about North Korea? Is there anybody in the administration with a plan?
Have you read my blog lately?
Simple, enact policies to keep population static domestically.
It's anything but simple. If you curb births, you end up with a population tilted toward aged non-working citizens. These people are expensive because of their healthcare, generally don't buy a lot of things because they are on fixed incomes, do not contribute to the work force, and pay little taxes because of it. If you don't have a healthy population of younger taxpayers the system falls apart.
We'll just switch to the Russian-made routers.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'm a pirate, you insensitive clod
Spoken like a true Goldman Sachs bankster.
They will not sto p until their Host Nation is dead and stuffed.
The older Elite fucks worship money. Thats even more nasty.
If I were in Maryland I'd vote for you.
You are lying. To sell cars in China you are forced to set up local factories. And have a Chinese partner controlling the factory.
But they can dump their wares into Europe and the US unchallenged.
I bet they bribe Goldman Sachs to keep this running.
Meh, your Saudi friends and paymasters are much more evil than the chicoms.
Rotten Anglo pseudo morals.
Here's an example of T's "negotiation" style. When he formed Trump Airlines, a dispute arose with a competitor airline. When T didn't like their proposed compromise, he started bad-mouthing their safety record, using arguably questionable statistics.
Normally the airlines don't advertise based on safety records because it hurts the entire industry by spooking customers. It's like reminding grocery shoppers what's in hot-dogs. Sales of all brands would take a hit.
So the other airline looked at T's real-estate record, and realized he picks nasty fights that appear to have dragged both parties down. If you don't share your soup on his terms, he'll piss in the pot and nobody gets any. Therefore, the competitor airline acquiesced to some degree. (Their actual reasoning was not made public, but it appears that's what happened based on the terms.)
Whether that technique scales to international deals is another matter. You may win a "battle" or two, but lose lots of longer-term goodwill such that it may not be a net beneficial strategy. Then again, long-term benefits may not be his goal.
Table-ized A.I.
If I were a better fundraiser, I'd probably be sitting on an easy win. ;) People seem to know who I am wherever I go, though, which is uh. Interesting. Now the question is do voters know who I am?
I might start a lobbying organization and publish a policy handbook whether I win or lose. It may contain some radical ideas.
If you like reading economics lit, I'm pulling in data from the Nordic model among other places. There's another book on the same topic. I don't always agree with their conclusions, and sometimes they don't make conclusions (e.g. they point out that indefinite unemployment insurance is easy to game and that people stay on it not-as-long when it's limited to 2 years, and also point out that this doesn't necessarily mean more employment because these people may be trading into jobs other people were getting and so the unemployment rate can stay the same either way--a deficiency I've commented on in our 6-month system here: it relies on people floating in and out, not on reducing actual unemployment).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Hear hear
You are lying. To sell cars in China you are forced to set up local factories. And have a Chinese partner controlling the factory.
Lying about what? You just gave a textbook example of how China rigorously sought outside partners to fund their development.
But they can dump their wares into Europe and the US unchallenged.
You mean "The goods are eagerly sought by marketing staff because they're cheaper" don't you?
I bet they bribe Goldman Sachs to keep this running.
They already have. It's part of the game.
I have a trade deficit with my mortgage company. And my power/water companies, and the grocery store down the block.
I give them money and I never get any from them.
But wait! What's this? I have a house to live in, power/water I used, and groceries that I've consumed.
So a big trade imbalance isn't the terrible problem Trump makes it out to be (because it makes his supporters feel like their problems are caused by China).
I'm not saying China plays fair, or that any other country including the USA plays fair in trade, I'm just pointing out that the money isn't actually gone, we have the stuff we bought from China.
The focus needs to be on the jobs imbalance, something Trump cannot solve because it would be scary old socialism
Yeah and companies that did partner, are making huge amounts of profit. GM would have already gone out of business by now, if not for its partnership in China.
hmmmm, I think he's an ass, but I think he's right about this one. China has been subsiding solar cells and steel. Much the same way that America's "farm bill" subsidized corn and various crops. It makes those products cheaper and more competitive abroad. We can buy food CHEAP. We do that to protect our breadbasket as it's not the sort of thing a nation wants to do without. Likewise, people in China can build things out of steel girders for cheap.
The.... targeted dumping and presumed intentions may or may not be true... Someone in some meeting probably had that intent, so sure. But it really is protectionism.
But where's the money coming from? We protect our farmers. China protects their steel industry. Who pays for that? America, it's the tax payers. In China, I'd argue it is (or at least was) more due to the suppressed currency. The Chinese people have artificially low wages (relative to the rest of the world) because they pegged their currency to the US dollar. And that's on top of that whole "crazy bad" levels of pollution. That tactic made China competitive and they kinda took a majority market share of global manufacturing. So China has experienced explosive growth, and all in all it's worked out. But I think the next generation isn't all giddy from being elevated from starving paddy-farming peasants and expects to be middle class. They're becoming consumers.
With a (more) centralized state-run economy, China has had a much more focused strategy than the US. Like I said it's worked well. And while they're dependent on having global customers... we're also dependent on them buying US bonds to fund our government... And hell, if all those freighters shut down this year, we'd be FUCKED trying to spin up a manufacturing sector. It's like a decade-long process.
It was her turn !
Trumps base is people just like you, who think tariffs will solve all your problems.
In the past 30 years, US companies got most of the trade profit, Chinese workers could only work hard in bloody and sweaty factory. Now China is blamed for purpose of destroying US industrial and commercial sectors, will US workers work in those bloody factory 12 hours a day to produce cheap unprofitable goods?
Are you making shit up again Windy? Show us why you think this is true.
US gov always changes its words, no surprise.
So you think only China makes cheap electronics / disposable crap you buy? And you think a tax aimed at just China won't have Americans just buy their cheap junk from the next country on the list? You're even less bright than before.
Things being more expensive may mean more expensive exports and fewer jobs. Or more automation and no more jobs. It's a complex web of feedbacks and simplistic will not do.
On one hand China hates women, so they must be good. On the other hand, "muh trade war". Aagh, why do things have to be so complicated!?!
/sarcasm
obligatory
The danger is it looks like an internal power struggle.
You are a French surrender monkey working for Goldman Sucks, eh?
You stupid cynics will do your crazy thing until something really bad happens to you. Then you will lament that nobody knew why should bad things could happen.
Patriots meanwhile analyze and fix real problems, before they get out of control. Irrespective if some bankster-furnished ideology.
Uhh GM did go out of business
This model has broken down due to emancipation. Since women stated working you can no longer support whole family from just one parent's income, the wages are half if what they used to be so both parents need to work
Freetrade only works if it is actually free.
Or tank the economy so people won't have anything to come for. Or have a sane immigration policy where you can tax them and not provide all the benefits. A carrot works better than a stick.
Automation is happening equally everywhere no matter what happens. It's still better to have a factory here with 10 non-automatable jobs then to have it in China with any number of jobs, provided cities don't give up so much to have a company there they fail to reap any net benefits for it *cough*Amazon*cough*.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The payroll taxes and economic stimulus of a dozen jobs are neither here nor there. Other stimulus would depend on parts suppliers, and taxes so on, compared to tax incentives or environmental effects. Net benefit is likely, but not a given.
And those of us with an IQ above room temperature know that building a wall won't stop even one single person from crossing it, since almost all illegal immigration is via overstayed visas. However, it might stop people from crossing BACK over, which is the direction they've been taking for the past couple years, so your plan will ultimately end up with a bunch of illegal immigrants stuck here waiting to be sold into child sex slavery.
Please learn to think.
Same here. I truly hope you win!
The leader of Venice [The Doge ] was NEVER allowed to negotiate with any foreigner except when observers from the 'local parliament' were present. No foreign negotiations by leader in private! They knew how to avoid some problems.
Regards Eion MacDonald
Agreed, which is what I mean about Amazon. Cities fall over themselves to host HQ2 but they forget that there should be something in it left for them.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
from the 3 billion USD gift to Chinese Telecom?
I think you need to work through the range of possible consequences in what is a complex system of feedbacks. Whilst i have a set of principles and hopes for outcomes (e.g. Individual liberty and personal fulfillment on small and large scales) , I believe that reducing things to simplistic slogans is unlikely to result in An evidence-backed answer.
You missed the point of my statement. The point is not the quality or quantity of stuff that I buy. The point is that buying things does not make you richer. Investing and selling stuff makes you richer. And the US is buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stuff from the China every year. And every year the people of China are getting richer, and the people of the United States are now getting poorer.