EU tariffs on US goods come into force

[innkeeper]

@hero999
your still not offering any actionable plan to resolve the situation.  I still maintain that tariffs are the solution.

just saying that something that worked for us up until WWII for the USA will not work today is weak position to take. Pointing blame that it is corporations fault, and doesn't offer any solutions, only points out the flaws in a capitalist society that, if left unchecked,  can be taken advantage of.  You darn well know that individuals and corporations will do what is in their immediate economic interest and will not individually steer countries economic policy in the right direction and look out for their countries economic future. that what we look to the governance of a country for.

so I pose the question again to you.

if tariffs are not the answer to the situation, what is?

[MT]

defense of other nations mostly, and hence the ongoing changes in that policy in this administration.

In your dreams!

but that's getting into politics again. so easy to get off track on the tariff discussion, though, somewhat related when it comes to debt

Military industrial complex tariff'ed, how convenient and decent thing to do. Everything is a political decision even tariffs.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

defense of other nations mostly, and hence the ongoing changes in that policy in this administration.

In your dreams!

http://google.com/search?q=democracy+by+the+tons+meme&tbm=isch

[innkeeper]

defense of other nations mostly, and hence the ongoing changes in that policy in this administration.

In your dreams!

http://google.com/search?q=democracy+by+the+tons+meme&tbm=isch

it wasn't so funny back in WWII when no one was there to help stop the invasion fo Poland now was it.

[Zero999]

@hero999
your still not offering any actionable plan to resolve the situation.  I still maintain that tariffs are the solution.

just saying that something that worked for us up until WWII for the USA will not work today is weak position to take. Pointing blame that it is corporations fault, and doesn't offer any solutions, only points out the flaws in a capitalist society that, if left unchecked,  can be taken advantage of.  You darn well know that individuals and corporations will do what is in their immediate economic interest and will not individually steer countries economic policy in the right direction and look out for their countries economic future. that what we look to the governance of a country for.

so I pose the question again to you.

if tariffs are not the answer to the situation, what is?

I repeat, there is no solution to a problem, which doesn't exist. Since China has opened up, the US economy has been booming, as a result of using China as a cheap manufacturing resource and will continue to do so. Tariffs only harm the US economy, by making it more difficult to import goods and retaliatory action only makes things worse.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

defense of other nations mostly, and hence the ongoing changes in that policy in this administration.

In your dreams!

http://google.com/search?q=democracy+by+the+tons+meme&tbm=isch

it wasn't so funny back in WWII when no one was there to help stop the invasion fo Poland now was it.

LOL, US citizens and their partial view of the rest of the world strikes again... I gather that maybe 8..9 out of 10 polish would have preferred the german "occupation" rather than what the allies left them with: Yalta was a betrayal. IOW: thank you for nothing. (I'm not polish)

[IanB]

I repeat, there is no solution to a problem, which doesn't exist. Since China has opened up, the US economy has been booming...

At a superficial level this may be true. However, if we look at the social dimension there may indeed be a problem. For example, for whom has the economy been booming, and who has been benefiting from all the money flowing around? If you look at that, you may find it is the 1% who have experienced a booming economy, and the 99% who have experienced a decline in income, jobs and living standards.

[stj]

just remember the rich have a trick they used many times:
whenever unemployment gets too high - and it's over 40% right now,
they use some bullshit excuse to start a war and then draft all the unemployed and send them to get killed.

[Zero999]

I repeat, there is no solution to a problem, which doesn't exist. Since China has opened up, the US economy has been booming...

At a superficial level this may be true. However, if we look at the social dimension there may indeed be a problem. For example, for whom has the economy been booming, and who has been benefiting from all the money flowing around? If you look at that, you may find it is the 1% who have experienced a booming economy, and the 99% who have experienced a decline in income, jobs and living standards.

How is that linked to the trade deficit with China? The US will not get its manufacturing jobs back. The pattern of offshoring manufacturing to China, has been repeated, all over the developed world.

The problems you've highlighted: booming economy, reduced living standards for the many, have other causes: underinvestment in education and high value sectors such as engineering and over-reliance on welfare.

just remember the rich have a trick they used many times:
whenever unemployment gets too high - and it's over 40% right now,
they use some bullshit excuse to start a war and then draft all the unemployed and send them to get killed.

Where is unemployment 40%? Nowhere in the EU, is that bad.

[stj]

the u.s.

the u.k. is 20-30, i could explain all the tricks to mess with the official numbers if needed.

[Rick Law]

..

...
on Tariffs in general, they serve a positive purpose.
Tarrifs help your country keeps its individual economy going, and seeks imports for items that are not practically produced inside their own borders, and exports those items that are impractical to produce in the countries they export to. in the case of the usa, post-WWII there was a need for the USA help prop up and rebuild the economies around the world, tariffs got in the way of that, but, now, those days are long gone. time for the USA to rebuild itself!
...
...

Tariff could actually may improve technology if used wisely.

Imagine if USA had heavy tariff on consumer electronics 20 years ago enough to keep consumer electronics manufacturing state-side, competition within the USA will drive development in manufacturing technology to drive down cost to compete within the USA as well as globally.

That may seem theoretical, but take a look at farming, automation greatly reduced production cost within the EU making farming still viable.  EU tariff for agricultural products (pre-current trade war around the corner) average is around 30% and US tariff is around 10% ^[1].  Without that, EU's farming may long since moved to the Americas (USA, Brazil, Argentina, etc.) or elsewhere.  Instead, EU's farming is still viable, EU's automation and robotics likely benefited ^[2] instead of becoming obsolete - and all these happens without the need of importing labor to do "jobs that Europeans wouldn't do."

That sounds good in theory, but electronics are different to farming.

Suppose a tariff is imposed on consumer electronics? Companies will get round that by importing nearly complete items and finishing them off an automated factory, in the US.

One can base tariff on % content or % value-add instead of basing on completed products.  That would stop the "assembled in XXX" but with content largely from YYY.

In my view, with exception to national security type stuff, tariff is not a solution for long term - but a short term thing to dampen abrupt changes.  This gives local economy to adjust rather than sudden death.  The local economy must have the knowledge and the grit (etc. etc.) to keep itself growing to stay at current or better level of living standard.

What you said about doing just the finishing locally can work out as bad for farms.  The farm technology improvement from the article I linked was mainly in AI and Robotics application.  There is nothing there supporting the idea that those would be mainly "home grown" stuff - it may be, but may be not. Germany sold Kuka (its largest Robotic manufacturer) to China already.  Kuka’s facilities in Shanghai is being expanded.  Following that kinds of event flow, EU farming may survive by only the veggie or meat grown on EU soil, but everything else is foreign (own or done).  This in my view would be an even-worst outcome.  The high value part (AI/Robotics) are gone leaving only the low value grass/plant growing locally.  This would  the "cow assembled in the EU."

Continuing on with farming to illustrate my point and note that this is not specific to Germany or farming or electronics.  The same applies to different industry and different nations.

What work is being done in Germany to keep itself in play with high-tech manufacturing and AI technology?  I don't know.  If not, Germany will hollow itself out.  There isn't many high-tech stuff that Germany can export to China that China cannot make in five years.  So it must use this duration to "re-engineer itself" to find another mean of creating value.  As we trade, tariff or not, we must do enough to support the live style we desire.

[IanB]

The problems you've highlighted: booming economy, reduced living standards for the many, have other causes: underinvestment in education and high value sectors such as engineering and over-reliance on welfare.

This has an internal contradiction, though. If there is a booming economy, why isn't there money to invest in education and high value sectors? The answer seems to be that the wealthy oligarchs do not want people to be educated, and do not want high value sectors to exist in the USA. And the reason for that seems to be that such things do not fit into their plans for making money...

[BravoV]

That's to say, among 22 years of raising kids, average Chines parents spend their 3/4 of income on education. Most families actually can't afford this, hence the grandpa generation also has to help to raise kids in China.

Its cultural difference and what you said above is norm, and its typical way of life in Asia family, you can't expect avg. Americans to understand this, let alone to think the idea about this.

[MK14]

If Americans can't do this, don't blame anyone else.

Actually, apparently, they (or the country as a whole) do ...

The US spends per child on Education U.S.: $58,464

Whereas China spends per child on Education China: $42,892

But I admit the former, UK {and now district of China}, Hong Kong spends per child on Education Hong Kong: $132,161

Source:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/pf/education-costs-hong-kong-tuition/index.html

[Bassman59]

The problems you've highlighted: booming economy, reduced living standards for the many, have other causes: underinvestment in education and high value sectors such as engineering and over-reliance on welfare.

This has an internal contradiction, though. If there is a booming economy, why isn't there money to invest in education and high value sectors? The answer seems to be that the wealthy oligarchs do not want people to be educated, and do not want high value sectors to exist in the USA. And the reason for that seems to be that such things do not fit into their plans for making money...

The problem is how we define "the economy." Too often, when you read a story about the "booming economy," what they're really talking about is the financial markets and corporate earnings. And yes, by all measures, that economy is booming.

But there is also the real economy, that of people who work for wages and use that income to pay rent/mortgage and utilities and buy food and other products in a mostly-local market. This economy isn't booming, it is stagnant, and has been for some time. Wages haven't increased as one would expect with a tightening labor market. People are working more than one part-time job rather than one full-time job in order to make ends meet. And so on.

Recall the recent tax giveaways to corporations, and also the changes where corporations were able to bring home overseas money and not have it taxed severely. The talking points were that the money would, yes, trickle down to workers. But, as was predicted, that didn't happen, and instead the windfall was used for stock buybacks/

So the reason "there isn't money to invest in education and high-value sectors" is simple. The people who have the money to make those investments don't want to. They don't need to -- again, even with that tightening labor market, wages aren't increasing which means the need to invest in people isn't (according to the investor class) necessary.

Of course how a consumer-based economy is supposed to function when the consumers cannot afford to consume remains a mystery.

[mtdoc]

So the reason "there isn't money to invest in education and high-value sectors" is simple. The people who have the money to make those investments don't want to. They don't need to -- again, even with that tightening labor market, wages aren't increasing which means the need to invest in people isn't (according to the investor class) necessary.

The problem is one of priorities. The people who make the decisions about where tax dollars are spent (congress) have other priorities. Congress casts the votes but the real power lies with the corporations who stand to benefit (and own most of the politicians).

The recent Senate approved increase in military spending alone is enough to provide free public college education

The general public do not agree with these priorities BTW.

[IanB]

The general public do not agree with these priorities BTW.

But sadly, the general public do not express those sentiments effectively enough when they vote...

(It reminds me of the story where the trees in the forest kept voting for the axe--because the axe was made of wood they thought it was one of them.)

[wraper]

The recent Senate approved increase in military spending alone is enough to provide free public college education

FWIW free education in US could be implemented for the money currently spent. State backed student loans might seem like a good thing, but in reality because of that education cost became so ridiculously inflated that barely anyone can afford it without a loan. Same goes for housing, if there were no easy loans, people could afford it without taking any loans which they need to pay back for decades. Say from my experience with my sister who lives in UK. In 2013 she heard that government will be backing loans for young families, so they can take mortgage even if they cannot save for like 20% deposit. She asked me to loan her like 15k EUR+ ASAP. Then she hurriedly bought a house in mortgage. And like half a year later, as soon as that crap was implemented, prices skyrocketed. House which she bought, now a few years later would cost twice as much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_to_Buy

[Zero999]

..

...
on Tariffs in general, they serve a positive purpose.
Tarrifs help your country keeps its individual economy going, and seeks imports for items that are not practically produced inside their own borders, and exports those items that are impractical to produce in the countries they export to. in the case of the usa, post-WWII there was a need for the USA help prop up and rebuild the economies around the world, tariffs got in the way of that, but, now, those days are long gone. time for the USA to rebuild itself!
...
...

Tariff could actually may improve technology if used wisely.

Imagine if USA had heavy tariff on consumer electronics 20 years ago enough to keep consumer electronics manufacturing state-side, competition within the USA will drive development in manufacturing technology to drive down cost to compete within the USA as well as globally.

That may seem theoretical, but take a look at farming, automation greatly reduced production cost within the EU making farming still viable.  EU tariff for agricultural products (pre-current trade war around the corner) average is around 30% and US tariff is around 10% ^[1].  Without that, EU's farming may long since moved to the Americas (USA, Brazil, Argentina, etc.) or elsewhere.  Instead, EU's farming is still viable, EU's automation and robotics likely benefited ^[2] instead of becoming obsolete - and all these happens without the need of importing labor to do "jobs that Europeans wouldn't do."

That sounds good in theory, but electronics are different to farming.

Suppose a tariff is imposed on consumer electronics? Companies will get round that by importing nearly complete items and finishing them off an automated factory, in the US.

One can base tariff on % content or % value-add instead of basing on completed products.  That would stop the "assembled in XXX" but with content largely from YYY.

Again, that's fine in theory, but proving the percentage add-on value is another matter. The company could say: the hardware is dirt cheap, so that's imported from China, with a very low tariff, then in a factory in the US, a robot loads the valuable firmware, which is most of the product's value and now it's actually worth something or that unbranded meter is worth very little, slap a Fluke label on it and now it's worth something: branding is everything.

Is it really that important to protect manufacturing? Margins are tight and it's not that profitable, compared to design and branding. All tariffs would do is push prices up, making consumer electronics more expensive, for the US consumer. Very few extra jobs will be gained and some could be lost, due to the impacts of retaliatory action.

the u.s.

the u.k. is 20-30, i could explain all the tricks to mess with the official numbers if needed.

Where did you get those figures from? I agree that the government may manipulate the official statistics but your figures of, 20% to 30% unemployment in the UK, are total bollocks. A simple straw poll of the people I know, confirms that unemployment is much lower than this and even though the sample size is too small to be valid, it's still more meaningful than making numbers up.

The problems you've highlighted: booming economy, reduced living standards for the many, have other causes: underinvestment in education and high value sectors such as engineering and over-reliance on welfare.

This has an internal contradiction, though. If there is a booming economy, why isn't there money to invest in education and high value sectors? The answer seems to be that the wealthy oligarchs do not want people to be educated, and do not want high value sectors to exist in the USA. And the reason for that seems to be that such things do not fit into their plans for making money...

There are plenty of other countries who have a massive trade deficit with China, yet have a more even wealth distribution than the US. Your government is lying to you, when they say the US trade deficit with China is to blame for poverty!

[wraper]

the u.s.

the u.k. is 20-30, i could explain all the tricks to mess with the official numbers if needed.

Where did you get those figures from? I agree that the government may manipulate the official statistics but your figures of, 20% to 30% unemployment in the UK, are total bollocks. A simple straw poll of the people I know, confirms that unemployment is much lower than this and even though the sample size is too small to be valid, it's still more meaningful than making numbers up.

Official unemployment rate in UK is 4.1%. If you count children and retired, then I guess you could get 30%  .

[IanB]

Your government is lying to you

I think that's all you need to say. No qualifier needed   

Of course politicians lie. That's what they do.

[Mr. Scram]

So Trump goes after the big important commodities like a proper mercantilist. EU fucks around with scattershot which will just harm the economy with red tape ... no one is going to see a business opportunity in this, by the time the R&D is finished all this will be water under the bridge. Nice going EU, you make Trump look smart.

"anything with an internal combustion engine"

Only one which makes sense, almost always big ticket items for which there are existing EU market alternatives.

PS. I guess orange juice, jeans and shoes too.

The EU targets agriculture and industries that can predominantly found in red states. In short, they're going after Trump supporters. Just because it looks random to you doesn't mean it actually is.

[Mr. Scram]

Yes, there are certainly losers, and the USA has been loosing at trade for the past 43 years consecutively... yes 43 years of a negative trade balance!

in fact the slide began before that, and can be traced back to the post WWII era.
i would point you to this graph to depict us tariff rates and the slide of the trade imbalance.

now let us compare that post wwII debt  ... its an interesting comparison.. isn't it.

sorry these charts don't end at the same dates... just found something quick to illustrate the point

What exactly do you think a negative trade balance is? People somehow seem to think that the "negative" part denotes something bad and that's certainly how Trump seems to picture it, but it's just a metric. It's like saying a negative voltage is bad. Having a negative trade balance does not mean "losing at trade". From Wikipedia: "The notion that bilateral trade deficits are bad in and of themselves is overwhelmingly rejected by trade experts and economists."

Economists say as much. The US had a stellar trade surplus during The Great Depression, for example. Either Trump is using it as a ploy and banks on people not understanding the concept, or doesn't understand the concept himself. It can't be used as a metric for "winning" or "losing" in the way it's used now.

[Mr. Scram]

The recent Senate approved increase in military spending alone is enough to provide free public college education

FWIW free education in US could be implemented for the money currently spent. State backed student loans might seem like a good thing, but in reality because of that education cost became so ridiculously inflated that barely anyone can afford it without a loan. Same goes for housing, if there were no easy loans, people could afford it without taking any loans which they need to pay back for decades. Say from my experience with my sister who lives in UK. In 2013 she heard that government will be backing loans for young families, so they can take mortgage even if they cannot save for like 20% deposit. She asked me to loan her like 15k EUR+ ASAP. Then she hurriedly bought a house in mortgage. And like half a year later, as soon as that crap was implemented, prices skyrocketed. House which she bought, now a few years later would cost twice as much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_to_Buy

I've had almost this exact discussion recently with someone in the banking world. Lending money to everyone just leads people to compete for the same resources, except now with a crippling debt attached. It's an arms race and as always the house, or the arms dealer always wins.

[stj]

@wraper:

try adding the long term unemployed who are on schemes and not listed,
and the young who are forced into part-time "training" and not listed.
then add the people who cant claim benefits for months because they where previously registered as "self employed" - something a lot of employment agency's make people do.