The Chinese beat Trump yet again regarding tariffs. (1 Viewer)

[roberthughey]

No. But some of us buy milk from the grocery store.

Many of us who go to the grocery store walk out with more groceries than we came in with and less money than we came in with. Does that mean that purchases at the grocery store aren't a fair trade?

I don't buy a lot of rice.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I don't buy a lot of rice.

What do you imagine that has to do with the topic?

 

[element94]

Now, it really isn't all that hard to outsmart Trump. As Warren Buffet once said, "Trump is a terrible businessman".

He is a successful criminal though... so far.

 

[Jay59]

This is why not: The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated that the "New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem—a force for evil."[60].

In a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[65]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Y...4 survey conducted,credible to 39% credible).

And: Failed Fact Checks

• Mostly False: Ted Cruz ‘same senator who once supported a ban on sex toys’ – Mostly False
• Newly Discovered Planet Could Destroy Earth Any Day Now – False
• Hillary Clinton Regularly Had Her Maid Print Classified Documents – Unproven
• PS 169 Pledge of Allegiance and Holiday Ban Controversy – Mostly False
• ‘New York Post’ op-ed rebuts starving children claim that was never made – Pants on Fire
• Hours after signing an executive order on Jan. 20, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden violated his own mask mandate. – False
• Migrant children being sheltered in Long Beach, California, were each given a copy of Vice President Kamala Harris’ children’s book by the Biden administration. – False

Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks. (7/16/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/03/2024)
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/

You are making the case that they deserve more attention. Center-right is flattering compared to some sources.

The tariffs are a stupid idea, and attempt to bully both friends and foes. Nations do not take kindly to being bullied. Did you think China, for example, would just roll over and say "yes sir! May I have another?" as a response to this stupidity. Targeted tariffs are fine; global tariffs are stupid. So.....how are those tariff deals coming along?

So you only look at facts that support your preconception.

Got it.

 

[Michael Cole]

I don't buy a lot of rice.

Is this supposed to be a point? Do you have a vehicle? Cordless power tools? TV? Phone? Computer? Stereo? Do you wear clothes? Shoes?

 

[Ethel2]

You are making the case that they deserve more attention. Center-right is flattering compared to some sources.


So you only look at facts that support your preconception.

Got it.

I only use reliable sources.
The NY Post fits your narrative and motive perfectly.
Do you know what “not credible” means?
You read it
I’ll pass

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Courtesy of the media, Trump is able to share his fantasies. For weeks he has been talking about numerous trade deals.There aren't any, none made public, anyway. The White House can't even name countries involved in Trump's deals.

It is difficult to understand what is happening in the Trump White House. Republicans there lie so much, separating reality from fantasy is difficult, if not impossible.

Republicans don't help. They don't say anything of consequence.

CNN reports, "President Donald Trump, the dealmaker-in-chief, has said for weeks that at least one trade deal is imminent with one of the dozens of countries in active negotiations with the United States to avoid punishing tariffs. So where is it?

"On Sunday aboard Air Force One, Trump said there “could very well be” trade deals announced this week. He also said that last week. And the week before.

"At the same time, Trump continued to temper expectations, saying foreign countries — both friends and foes — have been “ripping off” the United States for years, and trade agreements would come only when he agrees to terms that will benefit Americans. The ball is in his court, not theirs, Trump argues.

“We’re negotiating with many countries but at the end of this I’ll set my own deals because I set the deal, they don’t set the deal, I set the deal,” he told reporters Sunday. “This is not like a big deal that’s gonna be signed — in some cases we’ll sign them, but we don’t have to sign them. I’ll be setting the deal, I’ll be setting the tariff.”

With an attitude like that, American may never see a trade deal. Besides, aren't the trade deals designed to solve the economic problems Trump created?

It is more likely Trump is bent on taking his vengeance out on the America people, and lightly educated rural Americans gave him that power.

Republican will continue their silence.

 

[Lovebug]

The Financial Times reports that Chinese exporters are 'washing' their products by shipping them via third countries to 'conceal their true origin' and avoid tariffs imposed by Trump.

Doesn't that put a target on third countries?

 

[Lovebug]

You can go back to the 1950's in imagination but not in reality. It is 2025. We need policies that match our age. We cannot pretend we are in some past age that won't exist again.

Modern America exists in a global economy. Anything we do to reduce trade hurts us. If we want our GDP to be high (and we need it to be) we have to accept that we are part of a global economy.

More than 10 years ago no other than Rush Limbaugh said exactly that. I so wish I could find a link to him saying it on one of his radio shows.
(yes, I listened to Rush way back)

For every country that we piss off and cut off diplomacy with, that's handing our valuable relationships with all those countries to China. Every nation we step away from is a nation China steps in closer to. Obviously maga has not considered this at all.

China thinks long term. MAGA thinks here and now.

If we don't like having the world use dollars as the main form of currency, and we keep messing around with these tremendously stupid ideas and shaking the core of financial security with all this uncertainly and unpredictability, we will end up seeing the world shift to the Yen as the most common form of currency.

Guess how tough it's gonna be to pay down our debt after that happens?

Maga = fools.

 

[Lovebug]

Trump was good at one thing.

Playing a businessman on TV.

And even then it was less about the business and more about the entertainment.

...and Trump

 

[Jay59]

I only use reliable sources.

The NY Post fits your narrative and motive perfectly. Do you know what “not credible” means? You read it I’ll pass

You pass on half the relevant facts.

Sounds about right.

 

[Ethel2]

You pass on half the relevant facts.

Sounds about right.

 

[roberthughey]

What do you imagine that has to do with the topic?

Like groceries.

 

[roberthughey]

Is this supposed to be a point? Do you have a vehicle? Cordless power tools? TV? Phone? Computer? Stereo? Do you wear clothes? Shoes?

Hint.

We don't import the everyday grocery items from China as was being implied.

The point is unfair China trade practices.

Some can't even see this or just refuse to acknowledge that fact.

How about you?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Like groceries.

Yes, I like groceries as well. That is why I buy them.

The thing about buying groceries is that when you buy milk, or rice, or anything else, you lose money on the deal. The grocery store gets money from you, but you don't get any money from them.

Apparently this seems very unfair to you, but what you don't seem to realize is that you get groceries from them, but they don't get any groceries from you.

So if the value that the groceries you got from them was worth as much as the money that you spent, then the trade was still fair, even though the grocery store got more money out of the trade.

Are you really still struggling with how that works?


Likewise, for the US trade imbalance with China, we buy more electronics from China than they buy from us, because we have more money and can afford to buy more from them.

But that means that we are receiving more electronics from China than they are receiving from us. So as long as the electronics we receive are worth as much as the money the seller in China receives, it is still a fair trade, even though China ended up with the money, and we ended up with the electronics.

If the electronics weren't worth the money we spent on them, we wouldn't buy them to begin with.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Hint.

We don't import the everyday grocery items from China as was being implied.

That wasn't being implied. You appear to be struggling to understand how a more affluent nation might end up spending more money on imports than a relatively poorer nation does, or how it could possible be fair trade if the US is buying more from some country than that country is buying from the US.

The grocery store example was to intended to help you relate to the concept that sometimes when you buy things from somewhere, they don't always buy things from you.

Presumable you eat food, and grocery stores are a fairly common place to obtain food, so I thought you might have some personal experience with shopping at a grocery store to relate to.

Chances are that when you shop at a grocery store, the store doesn't buy as much from you as you buy from them. This means that you have a trade imbalance with the grocery store. That is how a trade imbalance works, when party A buys more from party B than party B buys from party A.

But perhaps you can recognize that even though the grocery store doesn't buy as many groceries from you as you buy from them, it is still a fair trade when you buy groceries, because you receive groceries that are worth more to you than the money you spent on them.

The point is unfair China trade practices.

Some can't even see this or just refuse to acknowledge that fact.

A trade imbalance does not indicate unfair trade practices. The only thing a trade imbalance indicates is who the supplier of goods is and who the purchaser of goods is in a trade relationship.

Just like with the grocery store example, the fact that you buy more from the grocery store than the grocery store buys from you does not mean that the grocery store is engaging in unfair trade practices. It just means that the grocery store is the supplier, and you are the purchaser in your trade relationship with the grocery store.

Likewise, our trade imbalance with China indicates that China is primarily a supplier of goods, and the US is primarily a purchaser of goods in our trade relationship with China.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

MAGA thinks

You got any evidence that MAGA thinks? I'm skeptical.

 

[Michael Cole]

Hint.

Do you really need one? Okay.

Lithium.

We don't import the everyday grocery items from China as was being implied.

What was being implied is that you don't know how trade works.

The point is unfair China trade practices.

The point is that you buy lots of things from China.

Some can't even see this or just refuse to acknowledge that fact.

I acknowledge the fact you are customer of Chinese products.

How about you?

No, I don't need any hints. I read.

 

[Peacenik]

More than 10 years ago no other than Rush Limbaugh said exactly that. I so wish I could find a link to him saying it on one of his radio shows.
(yes, I listened to Rush way back)

China thinks long term. MAGA thinks here and now.

Not surprised. Donald has this thing with China. Hates them. Don't know why. Remember how quick he was to blame them for COVID? Wanted to call it the China flu.

 

[roberthughey]

That wasn't being implied. You appear to be struggling to understand how a more affluent nation might end up spending more money on imports than a relatively poorer nation does, or how it could possible be fair trade if the US is buying more from some country than that country is buying from the US.

The grocery store example was to intended to help you relate to the concept that sometimes when you buy things from somewhere, they don't always buy things from you.

Presumable you eat food, and grocery stores are a fairly common place to obtain food, so I thought you might have some personal experience with shopping at a grocery store to relate to.

Chances are that when you shop at a grocery store, the store doesn't buy as much from you as you buy from them. This means that you have a trade imbalance with the grocery store. That is how a trade imbalance works, when party A buys more from party B than party B buys from party A.

But perhaps you can recognize that even though the grocery store doesn't buy as many groceries from you as you buy from them, it is still a fair trade when you buy groceries, because you receive groceries that are worth more to you than the money you spent on them.




A trade imbalance does not indicate unfair trade practices. The only thing a trade imbalance indicates is who the supplier of goods is and who the purchaser of goods is in a trade relationship.

Just like with the grocery store example, the fact that you buy more from the grocery store than the grocery store buys from you does not mean that the grocery store is engaging in unfair trade practices. It just means that the grocery store is the supplier, and you are the purchaser in your trade relationship with the grocery store.

Likewise, our trade imbalance with China indicates that China is primarily a supplier of goods, and the US is primarily a purchaser of goods in our trade relationship with China.

Do you really need one? Okay.

Lithium.


What was being implied is that you don't know how trade works.


The point is that you buy lots of things from China.


I acknowledge the fact you are customer of Chinese products.


No, I don't need any hints. I read.

China only allows $150 billion of our goods into their country.

Our markets are pretty much open for them to dump their subsidized goods into this country.

Talk about this, talk about this................

Does China dump subsidized goods into the US market?

Yes​

Yes, China does dump subsidized goods into the US market. This practice has been a significant issue, as China's subsidies allow low-productivity producers to operate at a loss, leading to a flood of cheap exports that undercut U.S. producers. The U.S. government has attempted to address this through tariffs, but these measures often have limited effectiveness due to the nature of the subsidies and the scale of imports

-----------------

China’s extensive use of subsidies is a significant driver of global trade tensions, influencing market dynamics and prompting concerns about a potential “subsidy race” among nations. With more anti-dumping measures being taken out against the nation, China may be required to rethink its strategy or lose further trade market share among an increasingly skittish global economy.

A recent working paper published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that subsidies made up 95 percent of all Chinese trade distortive policies between 2009 and 2022. For western observers and politicians who have long complained of the impact of Chinese subsidies on domestic producers, the report provides a degree of vindication. As China continues to file complaints with the WTO for other countries’ supposedly excessive tariff regimes, it raises a crucial question: what role does China’s subsidies play in global trade distortion? These frequent complaints may indicate a defensive posture in response to external pressures, but they reveal a concerning disconnect from the implications of its own subsidy program.

“It’s you, not me”: China’s Subsidies and Global Trade Tensions - Australian Institute of International Affairs

 

[Visbek]

Bad deals.

So you think that the USMCA -- which Trump negotiated, signed and praised -- was a "bad deal?"

Here's what he said at the signing:

The USMCA is the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made...

We’re bringing your jobs back to America. Jobs are coming back, and they’re coming back fast, and they’re coming right here to Michigan. They are coming rapidly. You see what’s going on.

I guess he ****ed up and got totally taken for a ride by Mexico and Canada, eh?

You are another one those - keep the status quo.

Do you like $1.15 trillion US trade deficits?

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of economics knows that the trade is beneficial... that's why people trade. Seriously, that's like 4th week of Econ 101.

You see this as fair trade.

The trade between the US, Mexico and China -- which is substantial, and is the trade agreement Trump praised and then blatantly violated based on a flimsy pretext -- is quite fair. If it isn't fair, then blame Trump, as he signed the deal.

As to China? Sometimes they're fair, sometimes they aren't. The exact same thing can be said of the US, you're just oblivious to the ways the US favors and subsidizes domestic industries, and bullies other nations.

Meanwhile, tariffs have repeatedly failed to compel China to fix its ways. For example: Obama, Trump and Biden all tried to use tariffs to force China to stop dumping cheap steel and other products on international markets, and all three failed. These blanket tariffs won't work either, and are already doing significant damage to US markets.

You'll see soon enough. Unless, of course, you expend your energy ignoring reality and rationalizing Dear Leader's massive mistakes, instead of accepting the truth.

 

[Michael Cole]

China only allows $150 billion of our goods into their country.

So what? Musk needs lithium. We don't produce it. It must be imported. Exports to foreign customers cannot change this simple economic fact. You don't understand trade. I can't teach you.

Our markets are pretty much open for them to dump their subsidized goods into this country.

Talk about this, talk about this................

Does China dump subsidized goods into the US market?

Yes​

Yes, China does dump subsidized goods into the US market. This practice has been a significant issue, as China's subsidies allow low-productivity producers to operate at a loss, leading to a flood of cheap exports that undercut U.S. producers. The U.S. government has attempted to address this through tariffs, but these measures often have limited effectiveness due to the nature of the subsidies and the scale of imports

-----------------

China’s extensive use of subsidies is a significant driver of global trade tensions, influencing market dynamics and prompting concerns about a potential “subsidy race” among nations. With more anti-dumping measures being taken out against the nation, China may be required to rethink its strategy or lose further trade market share among an increasingly skittish global economy.

A recent working paper published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that subsidies made up 95 percent of all Chinese trade distortive policies between 2009 and 2022. For western observers and politicians who have long complained of the impact of Chinese subsidies on domestic producers, the report provides a degree of vindication. As China continues to file complaints with the WTO for other countries’ supposedly excessive tariff regimes, it raises a crucial question: what role does China’s subsidies play in global trade distortion? These frequent complaints may indicate a defensive posture in response to external pressures, but they reveal a concerning disconnect from the implications of its own subsidy program.

“It’s you, not me”: China’s Subsidies and Global Trade Tensions - Australian Institute of International Affairs

This has nothing to do with trade balances. It's like you just repeat Trump's ignorance. US customers don't care whether the goods they use to run their businesses are subsidized. Countries all around the world subsize industries.

If Elon Musk can make a profit from every ton of lithium he imports, then that enables him to manufacture electric vehicles. Elon doesn't care whether he sells his cars back to people in the exporting countries or here in the US. It doesn't matter. The economics don't care.

If you cut off Elon's supply of lithium, or if you tax it beyond the company's ability to make a profit, then anyone who wants an electric car will have to buy foreign and pay the duty.

You need to think about the economy in broader terms. Trump's soundbites are ignorant.

 

[Visbek]

China only allows $150 billion of our goods into their country.

Our markets are pretty much open for them to dump their subsidized goods into this country.

Sigh.

The average household income in China is around $4,500.

The average household income in the US is $75,000.

Even though China's population is 4 times that of the US, there is no way that China can buy $1.2 trillion of US goods.

And no, US markets aren't completely open to Chinese goods. For example, Chinese EVs cannot be imported to the US.

Does China dump subsidized goods into the US market?

Yes.

Does America dump subsidized goods on global markets?

Yes​

Have tariffs ever stopped China from dumping subsidized goods on global markets?

NO​

As noted above: Obama, Trump and Biden all tried to use tariffs to curb China's behavior. It didn't work, and won't work this time either.

 

[roberthughey]

So what? Musk needs lithium. We don't produce it. It must be imported. Exports to foreign customers cannot change this simple economic fact. You don't understand trade. I can't teach you.


This has nothing to do with trade balances. It's like you just repeat Trump's ignorance. US customers don't care whether the goods they use to run their businesses are subsidized. Countries all around the world subsize industries.

If Elon Musk can make a profit from every ton of lithium he imports, then that enables him to manufacture electric vehicles. Elon doesn't care whether he sells his cars back to people in the exporting countries or here in the US. It doesn't matter. The economics don't care.

If you cut off Elon's supply of lithium, or if you tax it beyond the company's ability to make a profit, then anyone who wants an electric car will have to buy foreign and pay the duty.

You need to think about the economy in broader terms. Trump's soundbites are ignorant.

It most certainly does.

You are avoiding the facts.

Why are talking about Musk?

 

[SCrider]

Unfair trade practices.

They get nearly a half trillion dollars worth of trade into our country of 340 million people.

Yet China a country of over 1.2 billion people only allows 150 billion of our trade into their country.

Your understanding of this topic is astounding