Tariffs

[tggzzz]

There is no clown emoji on this forum, otherwise I would use own it.

FTFY

[PlainName]

Could we perhaps act like grown ups and refrain from ad hom abuse as a substitute for considered argument? No names, but Tims posts illustrate the best way.

[tggzzz]

Could we perhaps act like grown ups and refrain from ad hom abuse as a substitute for considered argument? No names, but Tims posts illustrate the best way.

Yup. What goes around comes around. Again and again

[themadhippy]

so lets get this right. The courts say trumpton cant impose tariffs,but whilst addressing the workers at a foreign owned steel works announces  he's  doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminum  to protect american jobs,and keep out shoddy steel from shanghai, the same  shanghai imported steel he used to build sevral of his projects.

Is it any wonder the monkeys confused.

[TimFox]

so lets get this right. The courts say trumpton cant impose tariffs,but whilst addressing the workers at a foreign owned steel works announces  he's  doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminum  to protect american jobs,and keep out shoddy steel from shanghai, the same  shanghai imported steel he used to build sevral of his projects.

Is it any wonder the monkeys confused.

Yes:  there is an ongoing disagreement between the President and the various Federal courts about if he is exceeding his authority by imposing tariffs, which the Constitution states are to be imposed, along with other taxes, by the Congress.

[tom66]

And there is approximately zero chance Congress would vote to implement something like this.

Given the president (executive) implementing tariffs of any amount has been deemed unlawful, does this mean the Biden-era tariffs also get rolled back?  That would put China around somewhere like 10% import tariff, which is the WTO default for the USA...

[Analog Kid]

so lets get this right. The courts say trumpton cant impose tariffs,but whilst addressing the workers at a foreign owned steel works announces  he's  doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminum  to protect american jobs,and keep out shoddy steel from shanghai, the same  shanghai imported steel he used to build sevral of his projects.

Is it any wonder the monkeys confused.

Yes:  there is an ongoing disagreement between the President and the various Federal courts about if he is exceeding his authority by imposing tariffs, which the Constitution states are to be imposed, along with other taxes, by the Congress.

Yes; the steel and aluminum tariffs are being imposed (attempted to anyhow) under a different legal authority from the other ones which were struck down.

At least we can take some small satisfaction here that the whole separation-of-powers thing is still working to some extent ...

[TimFox]

And there is approximately zero chance Congress would vote to implement something like this.

Given the president (executive) implementing tariffs of any amount has been deemed unlawful, does this mean the Biden-era tariffs also get rolled back?  That would put China around somewhere like 10% import tariff, which is the WTO default for the USA...

Previous historical examples of large US tariffs that, in hindsight, were not a good idea include the "McKinley Tariff" of 1890, and the "Smoot-Hawley Tariff" of 1930.
Both of those were imposed by normal act of Congress.
Note that McKinley was in the Senate at the time, before being elected to his short term as President.
Apparently, while President, he realized that the tariff was not a good thing.

[tom66]

I was just watching this Strange Parts video about a UV 3D printer made in China...



...and it struck me really how crazy they take quality and optimisation there.  Much like Japan was maligned for its cheap tacky goods in the 50's, and became a world leader in technology a few decades later, the same will of course happen to China.

Tariffs are not the answer - although I think that is known already.  You need an industrial strategy.  Whilst this work does involve a lot of labour, look at how much is automated, and how much effort is spent on optimising the production flow.  There are very skilled engineers and production managers working here.  I dare say most companies, regardless of whether they are American or not, are not working at this level.  And this is just one factory producing one small product - from a company that, 14-ish years ago, was producing replacement laptop batteries.  China isn't immoral or wrong in how they behave.  They are simply very, very good at what they do.  And they are getting better every day.

[Analog Kid]

China isn't immoral or wrong in how they behave.  They are simply very, very good at what they do.  And they are getting better every day.

Yes.
I think 85% of the anti-China sentiment is envy/fear rather than justifiable moral indignation.
More like 90%.

[tggzzz]

China isn't immoral or wrong in how they behave.  They are simply very, very good at what they do.  And they are getting better every day.

Yes.
I think 85% of the anti-China sentiment is envy/fear rather than justifiable moral indignation.
More like 90%.

Has the phrase "yellow peril" been used recently? There are too many similarities for comfort with the 1930s, so perhaps that has raised its ugly head again.

[Analog Kid]

China isn't immoral or wrong in how they behave.  They are simply very, very good at what they do.  And they are getting better every day.

Yes.
I think 85% of the anti-China sentiment is envy/fear rather than justifiable moral indignation.
More like 90%.

Has the phrase "yellow peril" been used recently? There are too many similarities for comfort with the 1930s, so perhaps that has raised its ugly head again.

No, too obvious, and too obviously racist.
No, our prejudices nowadays are carefully calibrated and couched in more neutral terms, even though the underlying bigotry is alive and well.

"Optics", dontcha know.

[tom66]

Usually it is framed in some form of "security" concern - as if a more powerful China would threaten US interests.  Well, er, do something about that then? *Be* more competitive! Stop moaning that other countries are playing the capitalism game better than you are.

[Analog Kid]

Usually it is framed in some form of "security" concern - as if a more powerful China would threaten US interests.  Well, er, do something about that then? *Be* more competitive! Stop moaning that other countries are playing the capitalism game better than you are.

This is one of the few arguments I have with the noted political scientist John Mearsheimer, with whom I agree on almost every other subject (especially Ukraine vs. NATO/the West and Gaza/Israel).

Being a political "realist" he insists that the competition between us (the "west" but mainly the US) and China is inevitable and inescapable, because of the behavior of "great powers", which always try to grab as much global power as possible and attain the position of "top dog". To hear him explain it makes it sound like a religious dogma like predestination, which nothing can stop.

History bears out his theory, certainly; this is the way all great powers have conducted themselves. But does that necessarily mean that the same must be true going forward? Especially when it comes with so much danger attached to it in a nuclear world (which he acknowledges). That it really must be a zero-sum game?

My answer is "no", but what do I know?

[trophosphere]

Has anyone had any success in using HTS 9817.85.01 as a more specific classification for their prototype parts (e.g. PCBs) coming from China to the US?

More information here

[tszaboo]

Usually it is framed in some form of "security" concern - as if a more powerful China would threaten US interests.  Well, er, do something about that then? *Be* more competitive! Stop moaning that other countries are playing the capitalism game better than you are.

Start being competitive with dumping prices, which is designed to bankrupt your companies? You are being very naive. You think this is capitalism, while it's a completely different game.

[Analog Kid]

Usually it is framed in some form of "security" concern - as if a more powerful China would threaten US interests.  Well, er, do something about that then? *Be* more competitive! Stop moaning that other countries are playing the capitalism game better than you are.

Start being competitive with dumping prices, which is designed to bankrupt your companies? You are being very naive. You think this is capitalism, while it's a completely different game.

There you go, more "Eeeeevil Chinese! They're only out to destroy us!".
And how would that not be capitalism?

[PlainName]

Usually it is framed in some form of "security" concern - as if a more powerful China would threaten US interests.  Well, er, do something about that then? *Be* more competitive! Stop moaning that other countries are playing the capitalism game better than you are.

Start being competitive with dumping prices, which is designed to bankrupt your companies? You are being very naive. You think this is capitalism, while it's a completely different game.

There you go, more "Eeeeevil Chinese! They're only out to destroy us!".
And how would that not be capitalism?

Doesn't really matter what you call it, it's the result that counts. And we have many examples of monopolies that have come around in this kind of way, either from selling below costs, hoping your competition will give up before you run out of money, or buying the competition to kill them off. And in pretty much every case it's been bad news for the end user.

But capitalism is like everything else: there are degress where it works, and extremes where it doesn't. The killing off of the competition through means other than competition is where it tends not to work.

[tszaboo]

Usually it is framed in some form of "security" concern - as if a more powerful China would threaten US interests.  Well, er, do something about that then? *Be* more competitive! Stop moaning that other countries are playing the capitalism game better than you are.

Start being competitive with dumping prices, which is designed to bankrupt your companies? You are being very naive. You think this is capitalism, while it's a completely different game.

There you go, more "Eeeeevil Chinese! They're only out to destroy us!".
And how would that not be capitalism?

Haven't you embarrassed yourself already for this week?

[tom66]

The USA manipulates its currency and invades and aids foreign nations (Iraq, Afghanistan in wars, continued support for Israel, Saudi, UAE as just a few examples) in order to maintain the power of the petrodollar and their regional influence for trade purposes.  The US also does subsidise its own industries; for instance, the US auto industry bailouts, tax credits towards EVs, "Buy American" policies.  A truly free market would have none of these.  It's ok that the US does that, any country wants to protect its own interests.  It is hypocritical for No.47 to then come into the Rose Garden and moan about how other countries are doing this kind of manipulation and hurting the USA.  They are playing the same game at the end of the day.

edit: typo

[tggzzz]

The USA manipulates its currency and invades and aids foreign nations (Iraq, Afghanistan in wars, continued support for Israel, Saudi, UAE as just a few examples) in order to maintain the power of the petrodollar and their regional influence for trade purposes.  The US also does subsidise its own industries; for instance, the US auto industry bailouts, tax credits towards EVs, "Buy American" policies.  A truly free market would have none of these.  It's ok that the US does that, any country wants to protect its own interests.  It is hypocritical for No.47 to then come into the Rose Garden and moan about how other countries are doing this kind of manipulation and hurting the USA.  They are playing the same game at the end of the day.

True.

But that's different.
But none of that counts.
Does it?

[Zero999]

Tariffs are not the answer - although I think that is known already.  You need an industrial strategy.  Whilst this work does involve a lot of labour, look at how much is automated, and how much effort is spent on optimising the production flow.  There are very skilled engineers and production managers working here.  I dare say most companies, regardless of whether they are American or not, are not working at this level.  And this is just one factory producing one small product - from a company that, 14-ish years ago, was producing replacement laptop batteries.  China isn't immoral or wrong in how they behave.  They are simply very, very good at what they do.  And they are getting better every day.

There's no will in the US to do any of that. Indeed, the reverse has been the case. Rather than invest in automation, the policy has been to use cheap foreign labour, either by offshoring, or mass immigration from low wage economies. Policies aimed at reducing emissions, simply move manufacturing, along with emissions abroad.

It's not just labour, but skills. China is no longer has the cheapest labour, but Western companies still use them for manufacturing because they have the skills, which have been lost from the West many years ago.

Taxes have their place and tariffs are just one of them, but the way the current administration are implanting them is wrong and won't have the intended effect.

[tggzzz]

Tariffs are not the answer - although I think that is known already.  You need an industrial strategy.  Whilst this work does involve a lot of labour, look at how much is automated, and how much effort is spent on optimising the production flow.  There are very skilled engineers and production managers working here.  I dare say most companies, regardless of whether they are American or not, are not working at this level.  And this is just one factory producing one small product - from a company that, 14-ish years ago, was producing replacement laptop batteries.  China isn't immoral or wrong in how they behave.  They are simply very, very good at what they do.  And they are getting better every day.

There's no will in the US to do any of that. Indeed, the reverse has been the case. Rather than invest in automation, the policy has been to use cheap foreign labour, either by offshoring, or mass immigration from low wage economies. Policies aimed at reducing emissions, simply move manufacturing, along with emissions abroad.

It's not just labour, but skills. China is no longer has the cheapest labour, but Western companies still use them for manufacturing because they have the skills, which have been lost from the West many years ago.

More than "lost", which has the implication of "accidental". The skills were knowingly and explicitly exported over many years, for a variety of reasons.

The phrase "architect of their own misfortune" springs to mind.

Taxes have their place and tariffs are just one of them, but the way the current administration are implanting them is wrong and won't have the intended effect.

Just so (but I think a spell chucker or LLM predictor mutated "implementing" into "implanting")

[Marco]

There you go, more "Eeeeevil Chinese! They're only out to destroy us!".

Xi is out to secure China against outside influence, by economic destruction of the west.

China should be helicopter dropping money on their citizens, instead they are depreciating against the Euro. Wage suppression is Xi's hammer and everything is a nail. The few little baby steps made for increasing Chinese disposable income got dropped like a brick again in this crisis.

And how would that not be capitalism?

It's mercantilism.

[u666sa]