Revolutionary war media coverage

[This_person]

 

[transporter]

That is a stupid cartoon on so many levels.

But let's just use today's news to contradict your idiotic post:

Trump administration to give a $16 billion bailout to farmers hurt by the China trade war, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue confirms

• President Donald Trump is expected to unveil a $16 billion aid package for American farmers who have been hurt by the U.S. trade war with China.
  [*]Agricultre Secretary Sonny Perdue says the aid package would come from the tariffs currently being collected by the Treasury.
  [*]Tariffs on Chinese goods have been paid almost entirely by U.S. importers, according to the IMF.

If the retaliatory tariffs aren't hurting farmers, why do they need a $16 bailout??

If consumers aren't paying higher prices because the costs are going up, why are the major retailers warning about coming increases in prices due to the tariffs?

If supply chains aren't going to be interrupted, why are stocks of US companies that get good manufactured in China falling?

 

[glhs837]

Whooooosh!!!! Right by ya. The point isn't that these effects are not happening. We all know they are. And they should be reported. the point, in small words, is that they should also be reporting the why of the neccesity of that hurt. Lets talk about unfair trade practices and how long we have taken it in the shorts as a nation. But oddly enough, the media mostly ignores that aspect and insptead trumpets the side of the stoory that hammers Trump. Shocking nobody, of course.

 

[GURPS]

Lets talk about unfair trade practices and how long we have taken it in the shorts as a nation.

I put up a good article on the coming Chinese Tariffs and how the Chinese are very careful and particular about the industries they are targeting

Like Farmers in the mid-west aka Trump Supporters .... and not like chemical industries they need for production or Aircraft parts

China's Tariff List Advertises Its Trade War Weakness

Unless Chinese leader Xi Jinping and his advisors are completely incompetent, there’s only one way to interpret Beijing’s list of U.S. products that will be slapped with retaliatory tariffs on June 1 if the trade war with the United States isn’t somehow deescalated pronto: China increasingly...

forums.somd.com

For example, take a look at chemicals (and chemical products). Nineteen sub-sectors in this grouping generated at least $100 million in U.S. exports to China last year. Their total sales to the People’s Republic were just under $5.24 billion—about 44 percent of the total $11.80 billion worth of 2018 American chemical and chemicals-related shipments to China. Three types of chemical products will clearly be subjected to tariffs: makeup and skincare preparations, certain kinds of photographic film, and ethylbenzene. Their total exports to China in 2018 fell slightly short of $745 million. That’s only 6.31 percent of all 2018 U.S. exports to China in these sectors, and less than one half of one percent of America’s $159.13 billion in total chemicals and chemicals-related exports last year.

But based on what we know, what’s even more revealing about China’s choices are the U.S.-made products that haven’t made any tariff list. They include civilian aircraft and their engines and parts, which had a 2018 export total of $17.73 billion. They include semiconductors and their components, which last year had China shipments that totaled several billion additional dollars. They include the equipment needed to manufacture and inspect semiconductors and their parts, which racked up at least $850 million in 2018 exports to China; devices for conducting chemical and physical analyses (with $912 million in China exports last year); laser equipment ($304 million), motor vehicles, auto parts, and plastics resins and polymers (which each produced billions in exports to China); and billions of dollars’ worth of other products that the Chinese either can’t (yet) make or can’t make in the amounts that they need—or that consist of goods preferred by Chinese consumers over their Made in China counterparts.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Lets talk about unfair trade practices and how long we have taken it in the shorts as a nation.

That aspect certainly isn't ignored. It just depends on where you see it and who that media outlet feels about trade.

For example, if you think trade is a zero-sum game, then you'll find stories that align with your thinking. That we've been on the losing end of trade.

If you think trade involves sending excess money to a country that can produce goods at a cost we find acceptable, then you'll look for those stories.

That's the real problem. The idea that Trump's plan to essentially give a massive tax to all Americans in order to combat a battle that can't be won without massive increases in government spending, bailouts, or worse, increased costs of goods Americans purchase is a good one because he believes trade is this zero sum game. No amount of debate or sources will change the minds of people who think that way if the other person debating believes that's an idiotic stance on trade in a global commerce that relies on many different supply chains from across the globe. Nativist trade policies are a bad idea.

 

[This_person]

Nativist trade policies are a bad idea.

In terms of the United States, we essentially do not need any external trade. We have almost every resource we could want (yes, I know a great deal of the Viet Nam war was over titanium, but that issue seems to have worked itself out). For almost (not all of) everything, we can handle it internally - from oil to food to medical supplies to - well, you name it. Every big ticket item.

And, if we do so, we establish our own costs and our own level of living.

This is where China will end up losing. They are trying to sell us what we could, albeit at a higher cost, take care of ourselves. We choose them because they treat their citizens as slaves and we can literally buy stuff from them and ship it here cheaper than we can make it. That is NOT because their profit margin is so much lower, or their taxes are lower. That's because their standard of living, their safety practices, their environmental regulations, etc., are all inferior to ours (subjective, I know, but I'm sure you get my point). The flip side of that coin is that they do not have the money we do to support themselves. They have too many people and too few jobs without selling to us.

Trade wars always go to the side with the money if that side also can supply themselves. And, we can supply ourselves.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And, we can supply ourselves.

Yet we don't.

Why is that?

 

[This_person]

Yet we don't.

Why is that?

We choose them because they treat their citizens as slaves and we can literally buy stuff from them and ship it here cheaper than we can make it.

 

[glhs837]

That's the real problem. The idea that Trump's plan to essentially give a massive tax to all Americans in order to combat a battle that can't be won without massive increases in government spending, bailouts, or worse, increased costs of goods Americans purchase is a good one because he believes trade is this zero sum game. No amount of debate or sources will change the minds of people who think that way if the other person debating believes that's an idiotic stance on trade in a global commerce that relies on many different supply chains from across the globe. Nativist trade policies are a bad idea.

Then you have the notion that this cant be "won". I say there's room for disagreement on that front. And that expecting truly fair trade, where your own companies IPs are respected and other countries dont tariff your goods while subsidizing their own isn't "nativist".

 

[Chris0nllyn]

We choose them because they treat their citizens as slaves and we can literally buy stuff from them and ship it here cheaper than we can make it.

That's Capitalism. How do you combat natural capitalist market tendencies with government force? When has that battle ever been won by government?

Then you have the notion that this cant be "won". I say there's room for disagreement on that front. And that expecting truly fair trade, where your own companies IPs are respected and other countries dont tariff your goods while subsidizing their own isn't "nativist".

Good point. It certainly depends on what your definition of "winning" is regarding trade wars.

If it's to create American jobs, no matter the expense, then yea, that could be won. I happen to think that forcing consumers to pay more so that jobs can be created at massive cost is not winning.

 

[Gilligan]

. And that expecting truly fair trade, where your own companies IPs are respected and other countries dont tariff your goods while subsidizing their own isn't "nativist".

I don't think most people understand just how bad that IP situation is with respect to doing business with Chinese companies. It's perhaps worthwhile to note that it's not just China that appropriates IP, through legal strong arm tactics or illegally, both. South Korea and Taiwan are no slouches in that department.

 

[This_person]

That's Capitalism. How do you combat natural capitalist market tendencies with government force? When has that battle ever been won by government?

And, true to their capitalistic tendencies being non-existent, they put high tariffs on our goods so there is no reciprocity.

But, we are not talking about different economic types here. We are talking about global socio-economics. Their market and ours are not the same. The government, in this case, is not necessarily picking one company over another, it is saying, "y'all aren't fair, so we are going to fight this fight like you've been doing for generations." Oh, and, "you're far more likely to go hungry over this fight before we'll die from lack of cheap shoes and electronics."

We don't want to combat natural capitalist market tendencies, we want them fair. Realize, this is a fight the United States did not start, and our government did not want. Their government got involved, and ours is trying to level the playing field some.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And, true to their capitalistic tendencies being non-existent, they put high tariffs on our goods so there is no reciprocity.

But, we are not talking about different economic types here. We are talking about global socio-economics. Their market and ours are not the same. The government, in this case, is not necessarily picking one company over another, it is saying, "y'all aren't fair, so we are going to fight this fight like you've been doing for generations." Oh, and, "you're far more likely to go hungry over this fight before we'll die from lack of cheap shoes and electronics."

We don't want to combat natural capitalist market tendencies, we want them fair. Realize, this is a fight the United States did not start, and our government did not want. Their government got involved, and ours is trying to level the playing field some.

"Their"? We're talking American choices here. We choose to buy cheap crap from China because we speak with our wallets.

Our govt didn't want it? Trump wanted it all along. The problem is, he, and others, think tariffs are the means to do it. And it'll all come at our expense.

 

[This_person]

"Their"? We're talking American choices here. We choose to buy cheap crap from China because we speak with our wallets.

Our govt didn't want it? Trump wanted it all along. The problem is, he, and others, think tariffs are the means to do it. And it'll all come at our expense.

They had steep tariffs on our stuff long before Trump was a politician let alone president. Our government clearly didn't want to challenge China because they did Jack Schitt about it.

Trump is merely trying to resolve things no one else would because of the short-sighted backlash Trump is getting.