U.S. and China agree to slash reciprocal tariffs in major step toward easing trade war

[SuperDS77]

But if you're just balancing out what could be gains, how are we improving anything? It sounds more like maintaining a status quo.

lol

Increasing economic output means more jobs and more taxpayers.

 

[Chomsky]

And by far their largest market. Next in line is Vietnam with 4%

Yes, but to put forth the argument that modifying our trade balance with China will prevent the expansion of their navy is quite preposterous.

 

[Chomsky]

Dysfunctional Donald is playing Whack-A-Mole with fictitious reasons why Republicans are supposedly better at handling the economy.

Originally it was we had to kick the immigrants out of America because they were stealing the jobs of Americans, and lowering wages.

Immigrants were attacked and deported, but wages got no better.

Then it became "unfair trade," supposedly because our trade partners with lower labor rates were not buying as much from the US as we were from them. The problem with that idea is they don't have the economic base to buy more from the US because they pay such lower labor wages.

Now it is becoming apparent that adding tariffs to imports is not going to improve the US economy at all. Instead, it's causing inflation.

All of this is dancing around the real reason the US economy is not better than it is. Extreme wealth inequality.

The wealthy in America have been very successful at extracting the wealth of the 99%. The simple fact is that leads to the 99% having less wealth to spend. When consumers can't buy things there is less consumerism. That leads to a smaller economy.

If the wealthiest want consumers to buy more they are going to have to support policies that lead to consumers having more wealth.

The real problem for the richest Class is they already won the Class War but they don't know when to quit.

They have already extracted vast amounts of wealth from consumers and now they wonder why they can't extract more. They are having trouble grasping the simple fact that people are already buying everything they can afford to buy. If they don't have any more discretionary money they stop buying.

All of this is just window dressing for the one fact Republicans don't want to admit. The real reason they want control of the US government is to prevent it from taxing the rich more and promoting the general welfare.

I believe the meme I'm quoting below, might be salient to your larger point:

"They keep us fighting culture wars, to keep us from fighting a class war"

(excellent post btw)

 

[Chomsky]

I prefer the less circumspect headline, just for the lulz:

Markets Celebrate Total Trump Surrender on Signature Policy

The U.S. agreed to temporarily lower tariffs on Chinese products while the two sides negotiate.

www.thedailybeast.com

It's pretty amazing the differences in perspective between MAGA & non-MAGA.

 

[Napoleon]

Besides the niches that are of strategic national interest (health, defense, IP property), I have yet to see it demonstrated that free trade hurts Americans.

We American citizens enjoy one of the highest qualities of life on the planet, brought to us by free trade.

Besides the niches I referenced in my first sentence, to which we are willing to pay a premium, attempting to bring general manufacturing of various & sundry items back to America is a fool's errand. It will never happen. Attempts at the tax levels required to precipitate that would only impoverishing the American people.

It may very well be that American manufacturing is beyond saving but we need to try. As a reminder, China has much grander, more sophisticated, and far more subtle geopolitical designs than the United States. Defining quality of life by the American obsession with instant gratification and cheap goods is going to be the end of us sooner or later.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes.

This means that Trump's plan as you envisioned it is bullshit

 

[ajn678]

Trump losing and backing down like a bitch once again.
Pathetic old demented idiot.

 

[Taylor]

But it's okay to buy more than we sell. We don't need our trade to be balanced. There are plenty of ways to make money, other than by exporting manufactured goods.

If you have a trade imbalance you are, by definition, spending more than you make.

Yes, one of the benefits of a trade deficit is access to affordable goods. This is at the cost of debt accumulation and potential economic vulnerability. We saw that during Covid, which is why there is a global pullback from free trade.

 

[Chomsky]

We injected $361.1 billion into their economy last year, that accounts for more than 1/3 of their total trade surplus and could cover their entire military budget.

I appreciate your efforts in compiling the numbers. No idea if they're accurate, but I won't hold you to citation.

But your assertion here does not imply we are "building China's Navy".

I do appreciate the perspective, though. Thanks for that.

 

[Chomsky]

meh, this is good news...

we need more trade and less wars....

Trump says China will 'open up' to U.S. businesses, suspend trade barriers
By Kevin Breuninger

CNBC

---

3 hours ago

• President Donald Trump said China “agreed to open” after the two countries agreed to temporarily slash most of the tariffs on each other’s goods.
• Trump said that was “maybe the most important thing” to come out of trade talks with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer and their Chinese counterparts.
• The U.S. and Chinese officials said they struck an agreement to pause most tariffs and other trade barriers for 90 days.

This is what bothers me:

Trump offered few details about that development, but said it was “maybe the most important thing” to come out of the high-level trade talks between the two superpowers in Geneva, Switzerland, over the weekend.

 

[Taylor]

It might be fair to attempt to argue "tariffs serve a strategic purpose" or some other argument.

But tariffs are indeed a tax born by the citizens of the host country. Those taxes are paid domestically by the purchaser, upon receipt of the goods in Customs.

Whether and to what degree a tariff is paid by consumers (or even importers) is highly dependent on the price elasticity of the product. If exporters could simply get away with a 30% increase on the price of goods, don't you think they would have done so prior to any tariff?

 

[Chomsky]

If you seriously want to revive American manufacturing, then you need to subsidize American industries with federal money, exactly like the Chinese are doing. You can't just raise tariffs and then hope for the best. That's not gonna work. You'll end up trashing the quality of life for working class Americans, in exchange for nothing at all.

Exactly.

Identify industries of national importance, and subsidize them.

 

[Chomsky]

I don't think a trade deficit is necessarily a bad thing, at least not for consumers. Imports are a good thing. Consumers WANT to have access to goods from around the world at affordable prices. We don't want or need to produce everything ourselves.

And we especially don't want things we produce inferiorly, at higher costs or poorer quantity.

Nor do we want things produced that harm our environment or our workforce.

There's many good reasons for overseas' consumption.

 

[Taylor]

I appreciate your efforts in compiling the numbers. No idea if they're accurate, but I won't hold you to citation.

China will increase its defense budget 7.2% this year

China says it will increase its defense budget 7.2% this year as it continues its campaign to build a larger, more modern military to assert its territorial claims and challenge the U.S. defense lead in Asia.

apnews.com

The budget, which adds up to about $245 billion, was announced at the National People’s Congress, the annual meeting of China’s legislature. The Pentagon and many experts say China’s total spending on defense may be 40% higher or more because of items included under other budgets.

Our "14%" is hugely significant.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The arsonist wants credit for putting out a portion of the fire that he lit

“Hero Syndrome” it’s called. Actual pathology.

 

[Napoleon]

And we especially don't want things we produce inferiorly, at higher costs or poorer quantity.

Nor do we want things produced that harm our environment or our workforce.

There's many good reasons for overseas' consumption.

There’s only 1 reason and that reason is rank hypocrisy at the expense of economic health and resiliency, national security, and geopolitical strategy.

 

[Chomsky]

You can have imports while maintaining a healthy trade balance. A trade imbalance simply means you're buying more than you're selling.

What is it you expect to get out of a trade surplus? What accomplishment?

I ask this without animus.

 

[Chomsky]

Bingo! That's my point exactly!

Every announcement results in more of our personal monies being deposited in the federal coffers.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Increasing economic output means more jobs and more taxpayers.

If you honestly believe well paid manufacturing jobs that support a middle class are the end destination here.

You are being flat out DELUSIONAL.

 

[Parrish]

Our guy blinked. He folded.

 

[Lursa]

90 day pause. leaves tariffs on Chinese exports at 30% / US exports are 10%.. read the entire link for details

U.S. and China agree to slash reciprocal tariffs in major step toward easing trade war

The world’s two biggest economies agreed to a 90-day pause on most of their levies after a first round of trade talks in Switzerland over the weekend.

www.nbcnews.com

HONG KONG — The United States and China said Monday that they had agreed to a 90-day pause on most of the tariffs they have imposed on each other since last month, sending stocks soaring amid hopes of an easing trade war between the world's two largest economies.

Bessent rejected the suggestion that it might have been better to start with negotiations rather than announcing a series of tariffs that caused global financial turmoil, saying the U.S. had already tried to rebalance trade by working within the system and that “business as usual” would not have worked.

In an interview Monday morning on CNBC, Bessent said that the two countries now have "a mechanism to avoid the upward tariff pressure."

All they agreed to is to kick the can further down the road again. Neither wants to give in.

And mango MAGAt magnet finds out once again that bullying with no other back up plan doesnt work very well.

Disagree? "Eh?" Speak up! Good, glad you agree.

 

[Napoleon]

Our guy blinked. He folded.

Actually, China blinked on April 24th when they started exempting US goods from tariffs after realizing they had no other source.

 

[upsideguy]

If you have a trade imbalance you are, by definition, spending more than you make.

No, that is not correct (my head shaking so fast I am afraid of hurting myself). If your economy is making money, you will spend it internally and externally.

I hate using simple analogies as they can miss the mark..... but, I make money in my home based business. I go to Safeway to buy groceries, because I can only grow so much basil, and they have things I want and can not make. I have a trade imbalance with Safeway since they not paying me..... my spending money at Safeway says NOTHING about my personal finances.... I am not spending more than I make, I am merely spending more at Safeway than they are paying me. I go home, put my groceries away and continue to make more money that I now spend at Home Depot (I also have a trade deficit with them)....

Yes, one of the benefits of a trade deficit is access to affordable goods. This is at the cost of debt accumulation and potential economic vulnerability. We saw that during Covid, which is why there is a global pullback from free trade.

A trade deficit has nothing to do with debt (see above). Perhaps you should take an intro economics course at a local community college. I don't think you get any of this.... It might help your blood pressure and certainly improve your posts if you had at least a rudimentary understanding of economics...

 

[Taylor]

What is it you expect to get out of a trade surplus? What accomplishment?

I ask this without animus.

More than anything, I think this is a reaction to the fact that free trade has led to the US financing the rapid growth of a rival nation. They benefit far more from the relationship than we do.

 

[Napoleon]

More than anything, I think this is a reaction to the fact that free trade has led to the US financing the rapid growth of a rival nation. They benefit far more from the relationship than we do.

Creating economic dependencies that are impossible to detangle is part of China’s geopolitical strategy. And they’re winning.