methodical
New member
This is not going to end well.
Nope its not and I'm betting they'll hit back on the agricultural exports the most just to really stick it to trumps voter base.
This is not going to end well.
Nope its not and I'm betting they'll hit back on the agricultural exports the most just to really stick it to trumps voter base.
A unintended consequence - apply this to our current world:Despite a petition from more than 1,000 economists urging him to veto the legislation, Hoover signed the bill into law on June 17, 1930.
In 1934 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, reducing tariff levels and promoting trade liberalization and cooperation with foreign governments. Some observers have argued that by deepening the Great Depression the tariff may have contributed to the rise of political extremism, enabling leaders such as Adolf Hitler to improve their political strength and gain power.
This definitely has shades of Smoot-Hawley, but be careful assuming a single or even one major cause for the Great Depression. The tariffs probably had a some effect, but here's a few other causes:It all reminds me of Smoot-Hawley. The protectionist act that is widely considered the trigger to
the great depression.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act
This sounds too familiar as our dear leader needs no advisors but yes men who will confirm his bad judgment:
A unintended consequence - apply this to our current world:
1. Stock Market Crash of 1929
2. Bank Failures
3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board
4. American Economic Policy with Europe
5. Drought Conditions
Long-term underlying causes sent the nation into a downward spiral of despair. First, American firms earned record profits during the 1920s and reinvested much of these funds into expansion. By 1929, companies had expanded to the bubble point. Workers could no longer continue to fuel further expansion, so a slowdown was inevitable. While corporate profits, skyrocketed, wages increased incrementally, which widened the distribution of wealth.
The richest one percent of Americans owned over a third of all American assets. Such wealth concentrated in the hands of a few limits economic growth. The wealthy tended to save money that might have been put back into the economy if it were spread among the middle and lower classes. Middle class Americans had already stretched their debt capacities by purchasing automobiles and household appliances on installment plans.
So, what exactly are we supposed to do about China? Anyone who works in industry knows that they regularly steal IP. We know that they routinely violate trade laws and circumvent current tariffs. So why can't we slap tariffs and penalties on them? Are we just supposed to sit back and take it while it kills our own businesses here at home?
I have lots of different things to say about it.
#1, when Trump is making a decision, I don't believe he's making the decision for the correct reasons, and I don't think he's doing it the right way. He doesn't even understand simple concepts.
There are lots of concepts I don't understand, but I'm not the President, and if I was, I wouldn't hire a bunch of yes men and then do whatever the hell I wanted it, thinking I'm the smartest person on earth.
So to the actual question, I don't know the answer but I'm going to think out loud here, just talking about steel and not the new tariffs and pretending China and America are the only countries on earth.
Let's pretend American steel and aluminum cost 120% what Chinese steel costs, and currently 99% of the steel manufactured in the U.S. is being sold (they wouldn't make more than they need to, right?). We don't have nearly as many of these plants as we used to because China started selling it cheaply quite awhile ago. I'm assuming we can increase production at the plants we have but that we would have a shortfall if every American company was forced to only buy from America.
So eventually, maybe 5-10 years from now, we might be able to open up some new plants and make up for that shortfall, and then the plants would be doing well which would, at least in a small way, help the economy. That's great.
But, and I've probably spent way too many words explaining my thoughts, doing a big tariff immediately might put a bunch of companies out of businesses, because they can't handle the sudden in crease in cost. We likely CANNOT produce enough steel for them. We don't have the plants now. These companies will HAVE to buy some from China and it will cost more. The U.S. steel already costs more, obviously. There are likely smart ways we can introduce tariffs that will not put steel-buying companies out of business, and will increase the chances that we can increase our steel production in the coming years. A 25% tariff risks putting companies out of business which will reduce the demand. OR, if they don't go out of business, they raise prices on all of us.
An example I will use, that I've already used, is a company in Omaha that uses a lot of steel and creates a crapton of products for Wal-mart. They are either going to have to raise their prices, or make less $. Maybe if they raise their prices Wal-mart goes elsewhere. Maybe Wal-mart can't go elsewhere, so they raise prices on their products to make up for the $ lost. (I don't like Wal-mart anyway but that's another topic). But if this was a gradual thing it would have less chance of being damaging, imo. That sounds logical to me, anyhow.
Finally, back to Trump. He doesn't understand trade deficit. And I read the other day that they have trouble calculating electronic transactions when it comes to import and export $. Their most accurate counts are for customs - so we're talking physical items entering harbors. Think about that for a minute... which countries sell the s#!t people buy electronically? I'm talking software, movies, video games, online services. Those exports are underrepresented, and they're American exports.
I mean, Moiraine, your logic is sound but it still doesn't address the fact that China routinely violates trade rules and no one seems to care. It like the North Korea problem, past administrations have let it fester too long and it's become a major issue. I know that myself and others at my work routinely talk about how a counter part in China asks for a drawing on a patented part, and we refuse to give it to them because they don't need it and we know exactly what will happen. We aren't playing on a level playing field.
Time will tell, but maybe....just maybe....getting a little tougher on unfair trade might not be a bad deal in the long run.
I’ve had personal experience with issues like this that cost us thousands to fix.I mean, Moiraine, your logic is sound but it still doesn't address the fact that China routinely violates trade rules and no one seems to care. It like the North Korea problem, past administrations have let it fester too long and it's become a major issue. I know that myself and others at my work routinely talk about how a counter part in China asks for a drawing on a patented part, and we refuse to give it to them because they don't need it and we know exactly what will happen. We aren't playing on a level playing field.
"We have spoken to China and we are in the midst of a very large negotiation," Mr. Trump said at a signing ceremony. "We will see where it takes us. In the meantime, we are sending a Section 301 action."