US' Proposed China Tariffs Would Target Robotics, Satellites (engadget.com) 208
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: The U.S. Trade Representative has published the list of Chinese products that would be subject to its proposed tech tariffs, and there are a few clear themes. The move would hike the costs of about 1,300 products, including industrial robots, communication satellites, spacecraft and a slew of semiconductors.The aim, as before, is to punish China for allegedly goading American companies into transferring their patents and technology to Chinese firms for the sake of claiming economic superiority. The USTR claimed the proposed tariffs would stymie Chinese plans while "minimizing the impact" on the American economy. The tariffs are still subject to a 60-day notice process that would include public comments until May 11th and a public hearing on May 15th.
So... let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
Importing cheap semiconductors to the EU, designing and assembling my technology in Romania and then selling the finished product to the US could well be cheaper and more profitable than producing it in China and importing it directly from China to the US because the tariffs are going to even out the cents I have to pay the Romanians more? And all that without risking having my designs stolen so the Chinese could crank out cheap knockoffs?
On behalf of the EU, I wish to express my gratitude towards dear leader across the pond.
I guess we're in a trade war (Score:5, Interesting)
Importing cheap semiconductors to the EU, designing and assembling my technology in Romania and then selling the finished product to the US could well be cheaper and more profitable than producing it in China and importing it directly from China to the US because the tariffs are going to even out the cents I have to pay the Romanians more? And all that without risking having my designs stolen so the Chinese could crank out cheap knockoffs?
On behalf of the EU, I wish to express my gratitude towards dear leader across the pond.
Don't discount the economic damage done by the cheap knockoff process - it's so common that it's become a meme. It's nigh impossible for anyone to make electronics in China any more, even small hobbyist designers (think Adafruit and Sparkfun) get their products copied and sold for pennies.
Then there's the direct theft of IP (trade secrets, business practices, and such) that the FBI estimates at $600B/year.
Then there's selling steel and aluminum at below-market prices until our domestic producers go out of business (at last count, we had one steel foundry left that was capable of making the steel plates needed for military hardware).
Then there's the lack of IP enforcement, so that lots of Chinese run pirated code and view bootleg media without paying for it.
Then there's "thousand grains of sand", where Chinese students and scientists (in the US) coming back to their country are encouraged to bring one or two small pieces of technological or scientific information.
Then there's keeping their currency artificially low, so that we always have a trade deficit with them (they end up getting more and more of our money).
China has consistently violated their trade agreement in every possible way, and has done so for decades.
We're *already* in a trade war, it's only just now that we're doing something about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I guess we're in a trade war (Score:4, Insightful)
And already losing it.
. . . as in any war . . . the little folks always lose . . . no matter what side they are on . . . none of the little folks win.
. . . maybe some big business folks and politicians win.
The rest, lose.
And we're all little folks.
Re:I guess we're in a trade war (Score:5, Funny)
And already losing it.
My president sent me a message that said "trade wars are good, and easy to win". You're not calling him a liar, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Far from it. But he reminds me of the routine of a well known local comedy duo:
A: Are you so dumb or are you just faking it?
B: Why should I fake being dumb?
And how dumb are you? (Score:2, Insightful)
Far from it. But he reminds me of the routine of a well known local comedy duo:
A: Are you so dumb or are you just faking it?
B: Why should I fake being dumb?
What is the non-dumb move that fixes the problem then?
Come on, tell us! If the president's move is so obviously dumb, what *should* we be doing to fix the litany of problems?
Your post implies that you're much smarter than him.
Don't hold back, tell us please!
Re: (Score:3)
Get together with other markets that face a similar problem. The EU for example. Because that's where China will redirect its trade now, with the US standing at the fence and looking in. Instead of trying to punish countries, punish corporations that try to weasel out of building in the US. When he started out, there was lots of talk about getting fabrication back to the US and there was a lot of talk about companies moving their production back, what came of that? One of his strengths is PR, so why doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Get together with other markets that face a similar problem. The EU for example.
The EU has no similar problem, or do you mean the tariffs the US want to put on european steel and aluminium?
The EU does not import much from China ...
And actually it was mostly germany and partly sweden (IIRC) that put the Chinese (and indonesian) steel plant into place. We just sold them our old plants. They came here, dismantled them and put numbers on each piece and rebuild them in their country.
Italy was also involved, tha
Re: (Score:2)
The EU does not import much from China ...
Are you serious? From Eurostat: "Among the EU's trading partners, China was the largest partner for EU imports, and the second largest partner for EU exports in 2016.". Imports are just shy of 350b Euros per annum.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I'm serious. The EU GPD is: $17.1 trillion (nominal; 2017) $20.9 trillion (PPP; 2017).
However you got me surprised that it is meanwhile indeed so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So far China is mostly directly targeting areas where Trump and republicans won the election.
Interesting way to play the situation.
The more likely result of these tariffs is that the u.s. will literally be cut apart from the global economy and everyone else will move on without the u.s. That and/or a huge recession (with the risk of a global world war that brings).
I've already seen some fools talking about taking on China militarily.
China would need to get *1* of their 260 nuclear missles above the u.s. an
Re: I guess we're in a trade war (Score:2)
That is called capitalism. Of you can't compete on price then you lose out to those that can.
Guess what it is how we defeated the Soviets and as china grows it is how we will defeated them too.
Lastly robotics is going to introduce a new concept in manufacturing. 20-30 years from now. Just in time manufacturing where you go to Best buy to buy a TV and as you pull one off the shelf to take home, they send an order to an automated factory in the next city over, to print and build another one. Using 3d prin
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what it is how we defeated the Soviets and as china grows it is how we will defeated them too.
China is probably the most Capitalist country on the world, followed directly by Russia.
You have no clue what you are talking about because you are not grasping that "economic system" and "political system" are two more or less orthogonal concepts.
Hint: you can have a regulated free market, capitalism, multi party political system and health insurance
If you think only predator capitalism, retarded two party
Re:I guess we're in a trade war (Score:5, Informative)
Don't discount the economic damage done by the cheap knockoff process - it's so common that it's become a meme. It's nigh impossible for anyone to make electronics in China any more, even small hobbyist designers (think Adafruit and Sparkfun) get their products copied and sold for pennies.
So the Chinese are basically IKEA... They clone more expensive furniture, mass produce it out of cheap materials and massively undercut the master craftsmen who built the originals.
Then there's selling steel and aluminum at below-market prices until our domestic producers go out of business
That is indeed a problem, but pissing off your allies who you need to solve that problem by slapping them with tariffs too isn't the way to solve it.
Then there's the lack of IP enforcement, so that lots of Chinese run pirated code and view bootleg media without paying for it.
On the other hand, there's a ridiculous level of IP enforcement in the US. Perpetual copyright, ridiculous patents on rounded corners, even patent trolls whose sole business is suing other people who can't afford to defend themselves. Also, it's not like piracy is rare in the west either.
Then there's keeping their currency artificially low, so that we always have a trade deficit with them
The US is just as bad, with corporate welfare programmes and bailouts. The way to fix it is not to double up and start a trade war, it's to do what the EU does and agree to some rules banning it in exchange for trade.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Chinese are basically IKEA... They clone more expensive furniture, mass produce it out of cheap materials and massively undercut the master craftsmen who built the originals.
I don't think the master craftsmen made flat packs, on the whole. Well, unless they were building cathedral roofs, which were often prefabricated on the ground, but I don't think IKEA sells a 'Snot' flat pack cathedral as yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's keeping their currency artificially low, so that we always have a trade deficit with them (they end up getting more and more of our money).
Lowering the currency is a double edge sword. If the currency is lowered then their purchasing power on the world marketplace is reduced. Everything like this in economics is a double edge sword.
Then there's selling steel and aluminum at below-market prices until our domestic producers go out of business (at last count, we had one steel foundry left that was capable of making the steel plates needed for military hardware).
If indeed they really are dumping a commodity like steel... then go on a buying spree, stockpile the steel and aluminum in the Mohave desert and thank them for subsiding our steel national reserve.
Re: (Score:2)
Property can be stolen through theft, ideas are not property and you're not talking about theft.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a good point...
We can move it to Romania!
Re: (Score:2)
At least as long as you can keep the EU and Russia from agreeing to cooperate.
Imagine the economic power of the EU coupled with the natural and personnel resources of Russia.
Just remember - there is no trade war (Score:4, Insightful)
We are not in a trade war with China, that war was lost many years ago by the foolish, or incompetent, people who represented the U.S. Now we have a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!
When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose!
And this folks, is what leadership has come to mean today.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember as well that imports make your citizens wealthier (and, if the differential is large enough, creates a net-increase in domestic jobs); exports draw money in (creates jobs directly, and gets cash for productivity); and your customers can move to another exporter if they find it cheaper elsewhere (e.g. buy from Indonesia instead of China), so exports are lucrative but also put you in the submissive position of the power dynamic and risk propping your economy up on a basis that may vanish at any time
Deficit is exagerated (Score:3)
Australia has a huge trade Surplus with China, and a huge deficit with the USA. So the money goes around in a circle.
And if one focuses on the goods, rather than the money, China is supplementing US incomes, which is silly.
However, there is a good non-macro economic reason to restrict some things like robots. The US did well historically by supporting its inefficient watch making industry against the Swiss. When war came, they could make instruments.
But I think that the USA will do what it does best -- l
Played correctly, the US has an advantage (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has a trade imbalance with China... that means the US imports more from China than China does from the US. Therefore, quid pro quo... the US can deny China more revenue than China can deny the US.
Sure, the US can hurt ITSELF by denying ITSELF Chinese goods which the US ITSELF makes more expensive in the US through tariffs. However, with really no exceptions there are comparable trade partners that can offer the same good at either the same or very similar price point.
What is more, there really isn't anything China produces that has to come from China. They don't own any IP that anyone cares about. The only reason anyone does anything in China is mostly due to low labor costs which are less relevant now for two reasons. First, Chinese labor costs have been going up such that labor costs are often cheaper somewhere else if that is important. And second, the rise of automation is rendering the relevance of labor costs of that type... less relevant.
Will tariffs help US producers? Maybe. They can and they sometimes don't. It is complicated. There are countries with very high tariffs that have absolutely flat-lined manufacturing... which results in things being more expensive for consumers without any pay off in terms of domestic production. Then there are places where tariffs are hugely helpful to domestic production.
A big part of the controversy so far as I can see if that there is a myth about "free trade"... that it is "the american way" and that "it actually exists anywhere". Historically, the US Federal Government funded itself principally from tariffs. This didn't really stop until the Cold War when very generous trade deals were offered as an inducement for fence sitting nations to join the "first world". For reference, first world during the Cold War referred to any nation allied with the US. Second world referred to any nation allied with the Soviet Union. Third world referred to any nation not allied with either the US or Soviet Union. Regardless, "free trade" was a marketing term the US used to brand its trade deals. The US was branding everything it did as "free" something. Freedom fighters, Free World, Free Trade etc. US Free Trade doctrine was only created to put pressure on the Soviets and has really no purpose in the 21st century unless again applied to serve some kind of geopolitical agenda. Instead, the US is applying the concept mindlessly with no particular purpose. Its cited as "the american way" like its something essential to American values when any fool that looks at history can see when it came around and why. Second, ACTUAL free trade only exists domestically within certain nations and doesn't really exist in any international context and never did. Trade is conditional. The US doesn't have free trade with Mexico and Canada through NAFTA much less with anyone else. And neither does any other country.
China has higher tariffs on US goods into China than the US does on Chinese goods into the US... and that was before Trump or any of this current bullshit.
Restrictions are happening everywhere all the time for various reasons. Some of the restrictions are a matter of law and policy and some are a subtle consequence of process or relationship. The net effect either way is that goods don't flow freely. They're restricted and regulated and taxed and have quotas applied etc.
US goods when they go nearly anywhere are limited in some way. US goods to Japan for example sometimes ROT on the pier because the Japanese want to protect their domestic market by limiting US trade. Countries come up with all sorts of pretexts to do it. Health and safety is a popular one. Differing regulatory standards which are approved at time X and then suddenly are questioned at X+1 at the worst possible time fucking over who ever chanced the market.
As regards China specifically, their fast and loose treatment of trade agreements, business agreements, licensing, intellectual property... etc is well known at this point. We're due a big shift in trade relationships with
Re: (Score:2)
Making things more-expensive by producing them domestically when it's cheaper to do so abroad always hurts the poor and middle-class by reducing their purchasing power (making them more-poor).
When the differential is sufficiently large (this is pretty trivial to achieve: it's not even a viable living wage in the US, as of 2006; although better technology is narrowing the gap by reducing the labor-hours invested in manufacturing et al), you also suffer a net-loss in jobs by cutting off imports (yep!). An
Nope. Linear versus curved (Score:3)
Making things more-expensive by producing them domestically when it's cheaper to do so abroad always hurts the poor and middle-class by reducing their purchasing power (making them more-poor).
Let me introduce you to the difference between linear functions and curves.
Assume you eliminate one job at $40,000 per year, but make widgets cheaper by $.02.
If there are enough widget sales across the country, the aggregate savings can add up to much more than the $40,000 lost domestically. One person has to find a new job, but millions of dollars can be saved overall.
The problem is that "one person has to find a new job" isn't free. It puts stress on the job market, driving down salaries, and incrementall
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that "one person has to find a new job" isn't free. It puts stress on the job market, driving down salaries, and incrementally increases the chances of someone turning to crime and welfare.
Actually, the aggregate of making the widget $0.02 cheaper would add up to $40,000 of savings for consumers after 2 million units per year. Essentially, that IS your savings: the cost of the jobs you eliminate.
Jobs don't come from employer charity; the employer has a need for a unit of labor to keep up with consumer demand. Likewise, price competition sets prices. This means that savings to consumers turn over to become job demand.
The question in creating a job here versus in China is largely whether
You're a candidate? (Score:2)
According to your sig, you're running for office as a representative from Maryland.
Good on you, we need more smart people in congress!
Please be aware that most economics is based on measures of corporate profits that ignores the human condition. It's *entirely* possible to have a healthy economy, by those measures, up to the point where your country falls to civil war.
As a representative, please consider that the welfare of the people is paramount to the stability of the country. It does no good to have hea
Re: (Score:2)
I've been all over the board with everything from flatly ending poverty [google.com] to criminal justice reform [google.com] to a new bill of rights [google.com] as a guiding principle.
Good on you, we need more smart people in congress!
Brute force: I have no friends. No sense of social need, so I don't get lonely or seek relationships. I ended up running for office because I'm tired of seeing beggars everywhere--it's painful to watch. (That's also how I ended up with a cat.)
Please be aware that most economics is based on measures of corporate profits that ignores the human condition.
Economics is an odd subject. The root of economics is that people economize: they seek the most ends for the leas
Re: (Score:2)
As to trade restrictions hurting the poor, not always since it can have economic benefits. Though as I said, it is totally possible for it to be net negative.
And just to be clear here so I can short circuit any attempt to make a purist free trade argument, the US had a tariff based tax policy prior to WW1. And that period of US economic activity was the most productive and the statistically benefited the poorest in US society more than at any other period of US economic development. Everything from the per-
Re: (Score:2)
As to trade restrictions hurting the poor, not always since it can have economic benefits. Though as I said, it is totally possible for it to be net negative.
It is USUALLY net-negative.
More-expensive products ALWAYS hurt the poor. That's an inarguable fact. The question is whether a trade situation causes economic growth (by population growth, not individual wealth) or not. In other words: are people (per-capita) wealthier, or is the nation (economic power, military might) wealthier?
the US had a tariff based tax policy prior to WW1. And that period of US economic activity was the most productive and the statistically benefited the poorest in US society more than at any other period of US economic development
Your parents also got new, higher-paying jobs while your sister was in 7th grade, so having a 7th grader is empirically beneficial to the household income.
Why has our econom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try at a strawman.
What I said was:
1. Prior to WW1, the US Federal government relied primarily on tariffs.
2. Free Trade was generally promoted by the US government as a marketing term to describe the US trade deals that came along with First World association. It was a geopolitically motivated bribery to get countries to side against the Second World and join the First World.
3. Actual Free Trade doesn't exist and never did internationally. Cite any trade arrangement you like and I'll show the limitation
Re: (Score:2)
But there are quotas that forbid member nations from producing more than X units of all sorts of products. ...
Har har har har
There is inbuilt protectionism for French agriculture and German manufacturing for example.
That is complete nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
What I said was: 1. Prior to WW1, the US Federal government relied primarily on tariffs.
I'm sorry, but in the parent to the person responding to you you did NOT say that. You said:
A big part of the controversy so far as I can see if that there is a myth about "free trade"... that it is "the american way" and that "it actually exists anywhere". Historically, the US Federal Government funded itself principally from tariffs. This didn't really stop until the Cold War when very generous trade deals were offered as an inducement for fence sitting nations to join the "first world".
His response that it wasn't the Cold War, pointing out that in 1937 10 years prior to the cold war. I do not see that as a straw man at all. The changes occurred during the great depression, not as a part of the cold war. What have we mis-read from your post? Link to your post is here: https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, the US Federal Government funded itself principally from tariffs. This didn't really stop until the Cold War when very generous trade deals were offered as an inducement for fence sitting nations to join the "first world".
And I corrected you. You literally stated exactly what you now claim you didn't. Which is it? Did the US Federal Government fund itself principally from tariffs until the Cold War, or did that change over before WWII? Cannot have both be true. You claimed the former, when clearly data shows it's the latter.
Re:Played correctly, the US has an advantage (Score:5, Insightful)
General Omar Bradley once said, "Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics." In other words winning a war depends not just on the damage you can inflict, but on your ability to sustain the conflict.
Let's suppose it's true, as you claim, that China will suffer greater damage in a trade war measured in dollars; that's a secondary point. The side that "wins" (note scare quotes) is the one that can maintain its will to fight the longest. You win a trade war by being the first to inflict economic damage that is too painful for the other side to sustain politically.
Suppose the US loses a million jobs as a result of the trade war. Now imagine saying to those million people who are out of work, "It's OK because China lost two million jobs. We won." Now further imagine China gets to decide exactly in which Congressional districts those one million jobs will be lost -- because for practical purposes they do.
It's important not to overestimate an enemy's strengths, but you can't ignore them either. The Chinese leadership isn't beyond public opinion, but it doesn't have to put a key part of its government up for elections every two years. Over here Democratic discussion sites are full of lugubrious hand wringing over the effects of a trade war, but there is a very discernible note of glee over what it is going to do to the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's important not to overestimate or underestimate an opponent. China has distinct advantages and disadvantages vis a vis the US.
China no longer has a centrally planned economy, but they do have a lot more ability to intervene in the economy, both de jure and de facto. What's more the Chinese government has more political will to mitigate the effects of a trade war than the US would. Nobody in the Chinese government would disagree with intervening to start with, and its in everyone's interests to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why autocracies always win against representative republics...
Oh wait, they actually tend to lose.
Seriously, play devil's advocate with the argument. Historically representative democracies tend to perform very favorably against autocracies. They have significant economic advantages over time and are dramatically more resilient than their detractors would suggest given that when push comes to shove... they tend to win.
The last two hundred years give a wealth of examples here. I'm actually sort of b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time will tell. There are also powerful interest that benefit from tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinas economy is not centrally planned since over 25 years.
It is a capitalist economy, where only the important targets, like housing, schools, health care are "semi central planned".
Re: (Score:2)
The argument here seems to be that because the US is a democracy it is more vulnerable to economic propaganda where as China has controlled media and controlled economic elements that allows it to control the public response or whether the people even matter.
Ultimately, this is not an argument against trade war but rather an argument against representative democracy itself and a suggestion that autocracies are better at weathering conflicts. This is objectively invalidated by numerous historical examples of
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about propaganda; wars would be easy if you could propaganda your way to victory.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what you said:
""General Omar Bradley once said, "Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics." In other words winning a war depends not just on the damage you can inflict, but on your ability to sustain the conflict.
Let's suppose it's true, as you claim, that China will suffer greater damage in a trade war measured in dollars; that's a secondary point. The side that "wins" (note scare quotes) is the one that can maintain its will to fight the longest. You win a trade war by being the first
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what propaganda is. Let me illustrate.
Suppose a million soldiers died in an actual war. That fact is not propaganda. It is useful fodder for propagandists, who if they're skillful adhere to a carefully curated version of the truth. I know we think of voters as a tabula rasa onto which political strategists write their masterpieces, but peoples' personal experiences play a role in how they vote. This is why the Republicans had setbacks in 2008; they couldn't propaganda their way into maki
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't change my initial point or criticism of you post.
You're suggesting that China can more robustly politically weather economic and political consequences than the US. So the US will cave because it cannot sustain even moderate damage where as China by this argument can ignore extreme damage by comparison without losing stability.
There are multiple problems with this argument.
First, China's ability to damage the US is in practice very limited. Their putting tariffs on their minor US imports is unl
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you're ignoring the actual numbers. China imports 115 billion dollars in US goods annually plus another 54 billion in services. 169 billion dollars is not "minor". The marginal effects are going to be greater, because its affect on commodity prices will send a lot of producers out of business.
This is King Cotton thinking all over again. After South America gears up to replace the 14 billion dollars in soybean exports the US loses, they aren't going to just go away. They'll have the capa
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming a 100% termination of those exports and no alternative market to sell those goods anywhere in the world... which isn't very likely since some of those goods are of premium quality and would shove other suppliers out of the market before they would go unsold at their listed price...
You're looking at 7% of total US exports... and that's including both goods and services as you listed right there. US exports are about 2.4 Trillion a year. So... 164 billion / 2.4 Trillion = 7%
That would be unpleasant f
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose the US loses a million jobs as a result of the trade war. Now imagine saying to those million people who are out of work, "It's OK because China lost two million jobs. We won." Now further imagine China gets to decide exactly in which Congressional districts those one million jobs will be lost -- because for practical purposes they do.
But you do know that this is utter nonsense, or don't you?
A american worker who loses his job is soon: homeless, poor, no longer a member of the society.
A Chinese wor
Re: (Score:2)
Why did the US win out over the Soviet Union [if we follow your logic]?
Because the elected leaders in the SU, Gorbatschow and later Jelzin changed the system.
In 1991 the army made a coup to dethrone Gorbatschow, mass protests made the coup fail.
The US did not win anything, nothing to see here.
Claiming the US won the cold war is just idiotic, considering that we are again in a cold war because the "democratic reforms" in the SU are on the level of the "democracy" in the US around 1800.
Putin is the new Stal
Re: (Score:2)
Let's suppose it's true, as you claim, that China will suffer greater damage in a trade war measured in dollars; that's a secondary point.
People don't know much about China.
That is the main "problem". Chinese this, Chinese that. Most is simply nonsense.
Who is building infrastructure in Africa? Rails, Schools, Hospitals? China is.
Which country has the most savings in "foreign" currency? And actually a positive government budget since nearly half a century? China.
America going into a "trade war" is the most r
Re: (Score:2)
US manufacturing output has increased on a dollar basis in recent decades. But on a number of jobs basis we're where we were in the late 1940s, but with a much larger population. What's happened is that US manufacturing has specialized on high value areas like aerospace where unskilled labor is not a big factor in the end cost.
There's no doubt that some domestic manufacturers will add jobs as a result of a trade war, but this does not represent a net job gain, even in manufacturing as a whole. Sure we'll g
Re: (Score:2)
Completely irrelevant... the tariff will do that as well and a trade war would still impact china more than the US.
It is a buyer's market. China is already selling to as many markets as it can.
IF china loses the US as a market or has that market limited China cannot replace the US market elsewhere because China is already saturating the Global market with their products.
However, the US can very easily source their needs from other countries or even domestically because there is a surplus of production and a
Re: (Score:2)
Time will tell. As to china wanting to negotiate, really? What were they willing to offer to redress the US's grievances? What materially were they offering? Because we have a list here of things the US has been complaining about for well over a decade.
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
This sort of shit is typical. Is china "actually" going to do anything about this sort of thing?
Or this:
https://variety.com/2017/film/... [variety.com]
or this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/6... [cbsnews.com]
These are not "EVIL TRUMP" sources here, chum. T
Re: (Score:2)
Who's auditing who is and is not adult? Who judges and on what authority?
The Soviet Union had a guy banging his shoe on the podium... still a super power.
Various countries have outright fist fights that break out in their legistatures... does that mean they don't get a seat at the table?
I can go on.
By what standard is the US deficient and compared to whom?
Chinese have a totalitarian autocracy. Does that make them adults? They literally kill people that disagree with them politically in their country. Its st
Re: (Score:2)
can I get a citation?
I found this:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news... [zerohedge.com]
Seems like a nothing concession from China as best I've been able to find.
If China has a 25 percent tariff on US automobiles and outright forbids US beef... don't you think its a bit hypocritical to complain about the US imposing some tariffs as well?
This is how trade works. THIS for THAT. If the Chinese are giving the US a trade deal it doesn't like... then negotiations are reasonable. Why must either party accept a trade deal it doesn't li
Re: (Score:2)
I previously owned a US assembled Moto X that was made in Texas. It cost the same as any other smart phone. China isn't actually "making" the core components of most of the tech. They're mostly assembling. And that assembly costs are fairly incidental. Again, we had a Motorola cell phone assembly plant in Texas not long ago. The costs are marginal.
Do you want to do any kind of analysis on your argument? Are you actually curious as to whether what you're saying has any merit what so ever? Because I'm happy e
Re: (Score:2)
Cellphones... where is the CPU made? Where is the ram and solid state storage made? Where is the circuit board made?
What china is doing mostly in these relationships is receiving a kit from various places and assembling it.
As to mexico... look at Michigan... they can build the entire car in state to say nothing of the country. China generally can't say the same thing as regards many of these products. They source from foreign third parties. And generally speaking the IP in any case is owned by foreign third
Re: (Score:2)
Those countries are negotiating and are not adopting a hostile geopolitical posture.
South Korea and Japan have already agreed to alter aspects of their trade policy to avoid tariffs. So... what say you about that?
Your argument is that China is a scapegoat for trade issues throughout east asia.
To this, I have said that those other countries in East Asia have already caved to US requests for better trade deals and indifferent to that are not adopting hostile geopolitical policies.
So... there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
how is anything I'm saying hypocritical? Try to make the argument. Double dog dare you.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. I wasn't talking about trade imbalances being silly or not. I was saying that China has greater economic exposure to restricted trade with the US than does the US with China. You can disagree with whether we should care about trade imbalances or not but indifferent to that if trade war happens china cannot help but be at greater economic risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Things move all the time. We have massive automotive plants in Georgia for example despite legacy investments in Michigan.
Nothing will move on a dime. But over decades, anything can change.
Re: (Score:2)
There really isn't anything the US gets from China that it can't get from another market. Its cheap plastic crap or packaged electronic goods from China... In the case of the plastic stuff we can get that from almost anywhere. In the case of the packaged electronic goods, they don't have to be packaged in China... we can shift assembly out of China. There was a fairly large cellphone assembly operation in Texas for example that was assembling Moto X's (Generation 1). Its really a tempest in a tea pot. Peopl
Wait, what? (Score:2)
> The move would hike the costs of about 1,300 products, including industrial robots
So the solution to China taking all the jobs because of low labor costs is to increase the cost of robots? Yeah, that'll fix 'er.
What about news? (Score:2)
China already retaliated and published a list of 106 articles, Soy, Corn, Beef, Orange juice...almost all the things that Trumps deplorables produce.
It will be fun to watch how the 'winning' will be going.
Tiger Blood!
Re: (Score:2)
Last check of Wall Street shows they are tired of winning and are now running away with their tails between their legs. The Republicans in Congress are tired of winning too, so much so they decided to sit out the recent special elections...might even sit out the midterms to catch their breaths.
Re: (Score:2)
China already retaliated and published a list of 106 articles, Soy, Corn, Beef, Orange juice...almost all the things that Trumps deplorables produce.
It will be fun to watch how the 'winning' will be going.
Tiger Blood!
Have no fear, I have word from a devote Republican (my father) than this is all just meant to bring the Chinese to the bargining table, and then Trump will unleash his mastery of business and deal making on them and easily win this "trade war".
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Troll? This speaks to the heart of the problem, which is our taxes. We've been damaging ourselves with income taxes for over 100 years. We need to stop, and gain great advantage over our international trading partners.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxes are not the problem. The problem is spending. Government spend must be reined in, particularly spending which is not for the common good, i.e. entitlements.
If spending is reduced, the taxes and borrowing will take care of themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Abolishing income taxes would put virtually everyone back to work again, and "entitlements", which is a code word for welfare, would plummet. There wouldn't be many people left that actually need assistance, because they would have good jobs in factories or mines or in farming, and would be producing the world's goods, raw materials, and foods. The USA would become the major manufacturer of the world, have full employment, with wages spiraling up as the supply of jobs exceeded availability of workers. W
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The more likely result would be a decade long recession where very few people had jobs.
Look, it's just a fact that even the lowest paid worker in the u.s. needs about $18,000 a year to survive.
You can survive in china for $3000 a year. You can survive in India for about $1800 a year (and many get by on $720 but with a very low standard of living and reduced lifespan).
A tax cut isn't going to cut it. High inflation in china and india are fixing the problem but it's going to be 2045 and 2055 before they ap
Re: (Score:2)
Its not the wages, its the taxes making our stuff expensive.
For instance, cars. It takes about 30 - 33 hours of labor to build each car in the USA. The auto companies claim $78 / hr for labor, the unions say less but lets go with the auto companies, and multiplying that out gives us about $2,500 worth of labor expense to build a car.
The research into the FairTax has yielded a figure that, on average, 22% of the price of goods manufactured in the USA are composed of the effects of embedded income taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA was financed by consumption taxes before the 1913 passage of the income taxes, and had roads, libraries, fired departments, etc. The FairTax is just another way to collect the same amount of taxes as before (until the economy expands dramatically from all the new business opportunity) so revenues will remain the same until the economy expands, and then will exceed present day tax collection.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny... why did they start the income taxes? Because the rich were paying almost all of them, where tired of it, and acted to be able to steal it from the average American instead of them paying almost all of it, that's why. And if you're of the persuasion that the rich are in control of everything as some are, and we still have the income taxes, then you have to ask yourself why that is. Its because the rich get to skate on the income taxes, with guys like Warren Buffet bragging that he pays le
Re: (Score:2)
The 15% - 19% over 65 are existing on pensions, 401K's, social security (SS is NOT welfare, people paid into that their whole lives and now they are withdrawing), and indeed SOME will probably deem that they are able to do some basic things in a factory in order to draw the kind of wages that factory work will spiral up to. Can an over-65 be climbing up and down ladders all day, repairing plumbing, compressed air, and sprinkler pipes, as well as laying electrical conduit, repairing electrical faults, and
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I've seen accounts of the situation where there are pretty much hordes of people that are perfectly healthy, but have faked disabilities in order to qualify for enough money so they're not living in a refrigerator carton under a bridge, nor actually going to the welfare office and getting handouts. You see it every now and then on the news, some guy on disability gets filmed dancing up a storm, and is then either cut off from disability payments or prosecuted for fraud or both. I wasn't talking abou
Re: (Score:2)
The opinion of a guy who does not really know the various names of taxes (hint: a company/corporation does not pay "income tax") is most likely not very trusted in the merits of his opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
The 16th Amendment authorizes the income taxes and the payroll taxes are enabled by the 16th Amendment, therefore the payroll taxes are the identical form of government stealing as are the personal income taxes. Capital gains, alternative minimum, corporate, inheritance, gift self-employment are also all income taxes and should be abolished just on moral grounds, as well as to eliminate the damage to prosperity that they cause.
Re: (Score:2)
If you eliminate all taxes (on what ever ground), how would you run a government?
Re: (Score:2)
The FairTax. We're eliminating all INCOME taxes. Tax consumption instead. Read back thru this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
I read most of your posts, but no idea what FairTax would be.
Re: (Score:2)
UBI is sort of the progressive tax taken to extreme such that it goes negative. I think some form of UBI could work, but it would have to be highly limited. You want to live like a priest, with very few worldly possessions other than basic meals and health care?.
Like prison? at least there you can get cable tv and some free college also the health care covers more then ER
Re: (Score:3)
> Except the income taxes are not progressive, they're highly regressive. :rolleyes:
They are not. Please read the definition before posting about it.
> Since the payroll taxes are part of the income taxes
Payroll taxes are NOT part of "the income taxes". Have you ever filed a tax return? Did you understand why you were entering those numbers?
> they tax rates were increased for the jump to the next bracket
And he still made more money. It appears you are unaware of the definition of "marginal tax rate"
Re: (Score:2)
Payroll taxes are earned income taxes, and go away upon the repeal of the 16th amendment, which enables them. The payroll taxes, individual income taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, self-employment taxes, corporate income taxes, inheritance (estate) taxes, are all taxes on income, and would be abolished under the Fair Tax.
And since the payroll taxes tax the poor at 15.3% (the poor are actually paying them "employer's share" of the payroll taxes whether they know it or not, because the employer simply
Re: (Score:2)
the poor are actually paying them "employer's share" of the payroll taxes whether they know it or not, because the employer simply lowers their wages to make up for the money he has to cough up to Washington for the payroll taxes he sends in
If you believe that, you must also believe that if employers were relieved of the requirement to pay their share of payroll taxes, the savings would be passed on to the employees. Right?
By the way, Social Security benefits are capped just like the tax is. When you stop contributing, your benefit stops growing.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you believe that, you must also believe that if employers were relieved of the requirement to pay their share of payroll taxes, the savings would be passed on to the employees. Right?"
They might be used to lower the price of the product, they might be used to increase wages, they might be used to increase dividends of their stock. In each case, the beneficiaries of this is us, us, and us. We're the consumers, we're the employees, we're the stockholders assuming we have retirement savings, which many
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of optimistic assumptions wrapped up in that post.
They might be used to lower the price of the product
This assumes that the cost of labor is a significant driver for price, which it isn't for low-paying jobs.
they might be used to increase wages
This assumes that competitors are willing to pay your low-paid workers more than you are. Again, not really true for low-paying jobs.
they might be used to increase dividends of their stock
This assumes that the employer is a public corporation that actually pays dividends. Demonstrably untrue for most jobs in the US. Anyway, you missed a significant "might": They might be used automate product
Re: (Score:2)
"Unless you can cite a reputable study, the proposition that the Fair Tax drives "dramatically increased business opportunities in the USA" is opinion stated as fact. Your passionate belief doesn't make it true."
https://fairtax-structure-psyc... [netdna-ssl.com]
Page 28 chart is supportive:
https://fairtax-structure-psyc... [netdna-ssl.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Those are very interesting, though I noticed that almost all of the citations are over 20 years old, which makes me wonder why more recent data is absent.
One thing I'm left to wonder about: the studies say the Fair Tax is revenue neutral. Under the current system, nearly half of American workers pay zero income tax, and the overwhelming majority of them are not below poverty level and hence would not be exempt from consumption tax. On the surface, it appears that those workers would face a large increase in
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the studies are old because the initial proposal for the income tax was about 20 years ago and financed by a group of businessmen who wanted to change the tax system to promote prosperity for everyone. Since then, money to redo the studies for more modern times has not been available. Maybe we could talk Donald into financing it?
It is not true that half of American workers do not pay income taxes because those so stating wish to ignore the payroll taxes as income taxes. Authorized under the 16th Am
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't get to make up your personal definitions for words while expecting others to understand. Regressive taxation is explicitly taxing the poor more than the rich. That's it."
Yep, and the payroll taxes, enabled under the 16th Amendment and which vary at the rate of earnings of the taxed labor, are definitely income taxes and definitely regressive. As I stated in another post here, the poor sot making $12K a year is getting taxed at 15.3%, while Donald Trump, making $400,000,000 a year before he beca
Re: (Score:2)
That number is 23% of the $1000 a month that a guy making $12K a year receives. The guy would thus be receiving $230 from the gov't every month. The FairTax rate is 23% inclusive, or 30% exclusive, but either way, the $230 will make sure that the guy making the $12K a year pays no FairTax. At the end of the month, if the guy buys new good and services with the entire $1000 he's making, he'll have paid $0 FairTax because he's using the money the gov't gave him to pay the FairTax charged on his purchases.
Re: (Score:3)
> This is about China using economic warfare to destroy our manufacturing capability
Or it's about China trying to provide a modern quality of life to their citizens.
> almost all of the manufacturing for the war effort was in the United States
Soviet production numbers were pretty similar to the US. Aircraft, tanks, trucks, all pretty similar.
> The Chinese see this and have been paying the investment bankers
So based on a baseless assumption and counter-factual claim, now I introduce a conspiracy theo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I fondly remember all the 80,000 T-34s the Soviets imported from the U.S. during WWII. And those Kalashnikovs, yep them was built in the U.S. too. And the entire Soviet Air Force used American built planes.
Now, are any other facts about WWII you'd like to invent?
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to note that China rejected Marxism after the disastrous Cultural Revolution. Nowadays, they are capitalist -- perhaps more so than the US. What they aren't is a representative democracy. But then neither, in practice is the US which is more of a two party oligarchy Hard to think of a country that actually is a representative democracy .... Iceland maybe. Switzerland somewhat I'm told
Re: (Score:2)
If repugnicans are against it then I'm all for it.
Actually I was all for it because "Professional Economists" support it, fucking nutjobs.
I think it is the first logical thing the orange occupier of the WH has done since he decided being a psychopath was his path in life.
Protectionism and stealing patents got the US to where it got to at its apex. It is what has gotten China to where it is today. It works because it works.