The real results of Trump’s trade tariffs

[gunsmoke]

Not that this news should come as a shock to anyone:

The real results of Trump’s trade tariffs

PRESIDENT TRUMP regularly blames Democrat Joe Biden for “shipping your jobs” to China, while boasting that he is bringing them back, in part by “charging China a lot of money, too, with the tariffs,” as Mr. Trump put it on Oct. 10. Any voters still inclined to credit the president’s narrative need to acquaint themselves with the latest data, which show the paltry results of Mr. Trump’s trade policies toward China.

Troubling in theory, because it enshrines the idea of explicit government management of global trade flows, Mr. Trump’s deal has been a bust in practice, too. According to a recent report by Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, China has bought only 53 percent of what it should have through September 2020...

The U.S. trade deficit with China now stands exactly where it did when the president took office, having risen during his first 18 months, then come back down in the wake of the tariff war. The U.S.’s global trade deficit, meanwhile, is substantially higher than it was when Mr. Trump took office. As for manufacturing, the tariffs seem to have mainly shifted jobs from industries that do not benefit from such levies to those that do, pretty much as Economics 101 predicts. A December 2019 Federal Reserve paper found that tariffs helped raise manufacturing employment by 0.3 percent in industries exposed to Chinese competition, while cutting it 1.1 percent in industries that rely in Chinese-made inputs. Meanwhile, factory jobs also suffered somewhat from China’s retaliatory tariffs.

 

[GURPS]

Oooo Washington Compost OPINION Section ..........

Keep Spinning You Scared Little Bitch

 

[pontificator]

Of course SLURPS can't refute a singe word as he's been a ward of the state his entire pathetic life and doesn't know thing about global commerce.

 

[GURPS]

as he's been a ward of the state his entire pathetic life

Prove it you lying sack of s h i t

 

[PeoplesElbow]

So Biden is considering tariffs on China, guess it's a great original idea now.

 

[HemiHauler]

So Biden is considering tariffs on China, guess it's a great original idea now.

Any sources on this? What product sectors? Increasing extant tariffs or new ones altogether?

There are countless pieces in business press over at least the last week, 10 days or so talking about the increasing pressure by advisors/cabinet to ratchet back tariffs to remove some inflationary pressures, which it certainly would.

Only problem is that it is never easy - rarely can you just stop levying tariffs. Often, the country you are putting tariffs on will enact their own retaliatory tariffs. A nation can say, “OK, our bad. We will roll back tariffs on widgets.” But that doesn’t mean the other nation will roll back their retaliatory tariffs. You have to NEGOTIATE your way out of the situation. That can take years. Yet another reason tariffs are a terrible idea, no matter what letter is behind the president’s name.

But I haven’t seen a single piece talking about new tariffs.

 

[Kinnakeet]

So Biden is considering tariffs on China, guess it's a great original idea now.

i dont know anything about that but what i do know is since dummy somehow got into office everything has gone up BIG time

 

[Kyle]

i dont know anything about that but what i do know is since dummy somehow got into office everything has gone up BIG time

Hemi-Roid and his catcher Sappy call that "Democratic Prosperity."

 

[glhs837]

Any sources on this? What product sectors? Increasing extant tariffs or new ones altogether?

There are countless pieces in business press over at least the last week, 10 days or so talking about the increasing pressure by advisors/cabinet to ratchet back tariffs to remove some inflationary pressures, which it certainly would.

Only problem is that it is never easy - rarely can you just stop levying tariffs. Often, the country you are putting tariffs on will enact their own retaliatory tariffs. A nation can say, “OK, our bad. We will roll back tariffs on widgets.” But that doesn’t mean the other nation will roll back their retaliatory tariffs. You have to NEGOTIATE your way out of the situation. That can take years. Yet another reason tariffs are a terrible idea, no matter what letter is behind the president’s name.

But I haven’t seen a single piece talking about new tariffs.

So, what do you do when another nation acts unfairly, subsidizing their domestic industries to remove competition, enacting tariffs on your goods? Sit back say, that sucks, but tariffs dont work?

 

[HemiHauler]

So, what do you do when another nation acts unfairly, subsidizing their domestic industries to remove competition, enacting tariffs on your goods? Sit back say, that sucks, but tariffs dont work?

I’d encourage you to read this:

Tariffs as Welfare-State Economics | Mises Institute

Always begin thinking about tariffs with the mental image of two people on opposite sides of the street

mises.org

 

[glhs837]

I’d encourage you to read this:

Tariffs as Welfare-State Economics | Mises Institute

Always begin thinking about tariffs with the mental image of two people on opposite sides of the street

mises.org

I'm not seeing an argument there that supports unilateral tariffs. Which was my point. When one government imposes tariffs, what recourse does the government representing the people affected negatively by those tariffs have?

I agree, no tariffs, let market freedom ring. But when another country refuse to allow that, what should you do?

 

[HemiHauler]

I'm not seeing an argument there that supports unilateral tariffs. Which was my point. When one government imposes tariffs, what recourse does the government representing the people affected negatively by those tariffs have?

I agree, no tariffs, let market freedom ring. But when another country refuse to allow that, what should you do?

The piece didn’t make an argument supporting unilateral tariffs.

My takeaway was: don’t argue for State intervention in (ostensibly) free markets, despite dealing with trading partners who are not honest dealers.

 

[glhs837]

The piece didn’t make an argument supporting unilateral tariffs.

My takeaway was: don’t argue for State intervention in (ostensibly) free markets, despite dealing with trading partners who are not honest dealers.

Reread my first sentence again, very slowly. And you still haven't answered the question as to what a government's proper response should be when another government does not allow free markets. In China tilts the free market table solely in their favor. What is our response supposed to be? Just let them do it and devastate our industries?

 

[stgislander]

Reread my first sentence again, very slowly. And you still haven't answered the question as to what a government's proper response should be when another government does not allow free markets. In China tilts the free market table solely in their favor. What is our response supposed to be? Just let them do it and devastate our industries?

My takeaway from HH's response is nothing should be done.

 

[HemiHauler]

Sure, I’d be fine with doing nothing. The reality is that Rs and Ds aren’t really different in this respect: both parties favor protectionist policies over free trade and free association. So market interventionists of all political stripes get their way.

If you don’t like my answer of “do nothing”, then just because I don’t have an answer with which you’ll be satisfied doesn’t mean there’s not one you will find palatable.

 

[CPUSA]

My takeaway from HH's response is nothing should be done.

My takeaway was HH doesn't have a clue how global economics works...and it's posts clearly demonstrate this theory to be correct