World trade moves on, without the US

[ataraxia]

The US, in its mistrust of globalism, and in its new pursuit of isolationist policies, decided to pull out of the TPP and other international trade deals. President Trump promised that this would help American business and workers.

So now, the rest of the world is moving on without the US.

A major 11-country agreement goes into effect Sunday, reshaping trade rules among economic powerhouses like Japan, Canada, Mexico and Australia — but the United States won't be a part of it.

That means that Welch's grape juice, Tyson's pork and California almonds will remain subject to tariffs in Japan, for example, while competitors' products from countries participating in the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will eventually be duty-free.

Japan will offer similar tariff relief to the European Union, in a separate trade deal set to go into effect on February 1.

"Our competitors in Australia and Canada will now benefit from those provisions, as US farmers watch helplessly," said US Wheat Associates President Vince Peterson at a hearing on the potential negotiations with Japan.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/29/politics/tpp-trade-trump/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

So discuss whether you think this really will help US workers and manufacturers in the long run to make America great again.

 

[Thoreau72]

The US, in its mistrust of globalism, and in its new pursuit of isolationist policies, decided to pull out of the TPP and other international trade deals. President Trump promised that this would help American business and workers.

So now, the rest of the world is moving on without the US.



So discuss whether you think this really will help US workers and manufacturers in the long run to make America great again.

I'm skeptical that NAFTA and the TPP are helpful to US workers and manufacturers at all. TPP of course did not pass, but NAFTA has been in effect for many years. Both work in favor of corporations and against the ordinary citizen and consumers. I'm glad TPP never became law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Note the word eventually in your OP link quote:

That means that Welch's grape juice, Tyson's pork and California almonds will remain subject to tariffs in Japan, for example, while competitors' products from countries participating in the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will eventually be duty-free.

There is nothing preventing an eventual tariff agreement between the US and any other nation. It is always difficult to say what will happen "in the long run" because international leaders, and therefore international situations, change over time. This is my objection to "10 year plans" (agreements?) proclaimed in congress by folks that may or may not be there for that length of time or who may *gasp* simply say that "the situation has changed". How long did "pay as you go" or "sequestration" last as deficit reduction agreements?

 

[ataraxia]

Note the word eventually in your OP link quote:



There is nothing preventing an eventual tariff agreement between the US and any other nation. It is always difficult to say what will happen "in the long run" because international leaders, and therefore international situations, change over time. This is my objection to "10 year plans" (agreements?) proclaimed in congress by folks that may or may not be there for that length of time or who may *gasp* simply say that "the situation has changed". How long did "pay as you go" or "sequestration" last as deficit reduction agreements?

But countries like China play the long game. They have 50-year visions of where they want to be, along with detailed long term strategic plans for how to get there. Do you think it hurts the US to not have any sort of coherent, long term vision towards which they are working? After World War II, of course, it did. This was a vision of global cooperation, trade, and peace among the free world, which was more or less pursued by every administration. Is it OK to just keep lurching now like a blind mole from administration to administration, with one administration completely destroying what the other has done?

 

[ataraxia]

I'm skeptical that NAFTA and the TPP are helpful to US workers and manufacturers at all. TPP of course did not pass, but NAFTA has been in effect for many years. Both work in favor of corporations and against the ordinary citizen and consumers. I'm glad TPP never became law.

Being tariffed out of countries with combined populations several times the size of the population here in the US is certainly going to hurt US corporations going forward. It’s not a matter of hurting right now, but it’s a matter of stagnation and lack of growth for American corporations in the future, as the rest of the world moves on and grows. This sort of isolationism, as in all cases of isolationism, inevitably leads to stagnation.

If you don’t think this time isolationism will lead to stagnation, what is different?

 

[ttwtt78640]

But countries like China play the long game. They have 50-year visions of where they want to be, along with detailed long term strategic plans for how to get there. Do you think it hurts the US to not have any sort of coherent, long term vision towards which they are working? After World War II, of course, it did. This was a vision of global cooperation, trade, and peace among the free world, which was more or less pursued by every administration. Is it OK to just keep lurching now like a blind mole from administration to administration, with one administration completely destroying what the other has done?

That is a good argument for treaties involving the US but a poor one for agreements. That was the point I was trying to make - the temporary and fickle nature of international agreements as opposed to the more stable method of using international treaties.

 

[marke]

The US, in its mistrust of globalism, and in its new pursuit of isolationist policies, decided to pull out of the TPP and other international trade deals. President Trump promised that this would help American business and workers.

So now, the rest of the world is moving on without the US.
So discuss whether you think this really will help US workers and manufacturers in the long run to make America great again.

Tariffs are a government intervention into business which will no doubt hurt some and help others. However, the more government can be restricted from involving itself in manipulating the free market the healthier the free market will be to the benefit of the most people involved.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Being tariffed out of countries with combined populations several times the size of the population here in the US is certainly going to hurt US corporations going forward. It’s not a matter of hurting right now, but it’s a matter of stagnation and lack of growth for American corporations in the future, as the rest of the world moves on and grows. This sort of isolationism, as in all cases of isolationism, inevitably leads to stagnation.

If you don’t think this time isolationism will lead to stagnation, what is different?

The argument can be (and often is) framed in a different light. Providing exports is good for our wealth and security, no doubt, but depending on imports is (or certainly could become) bad for our wealth and security. This, IMHO, is why the balance of trade is so important. One has to look carefully at whether the US is better off ceding control of any industry or economic sector largely to those outside of our nation or our group of allied nations.

 

[Mycroft]

The US, in its mistrust of globalism, and in its new pursuit of isolationist policies, decided to pull out of the TPP and other international trade deals. President Trump promised that this would help American business and workers.

So now, the rest of the world is moving on without the US.



So discuss whether you think this really will help US workers and manufacturers in the long run to make America great again.

Two comments:

1. Trump's position, overall, is that multinational agreements limit an individual country's ability to adjust conditions that turn out to not benefit that country.

For example, NAFTA allowed Mexico and Canada to buy auto parts from other countries and allowed them to install those parts in autos that were then sold to US consumers...with no tariffs. This cut out US auto makers and US auto parts makers and also allowed those other countries to skirt US tariffs that would apply if US auto and auto parts makers were to buy from those countries. Over the course of almost 25 years, this resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of US jobs lost.

There was no easy way to change those conditions because of the multinational nature of NAFTA. That's why Trump took NAFTA out of the picture.​

This same type of problem will exist in any other multinational trade agreement.

2. Whatever agreements other countries engage in, the fact remains that the US is the largest economy in the world.



The US, by not being bound by those multinational agreements, is free to negotiate the best trade deals (for the US) and has the economic clout to get good deals.

I happen to agree with Trump that staying away from multinational trade agreements is a good thing. But this doesn't mean we are isolationists. We are eager to make deals...that benefit the US...with anyone.

 

[ataraxia]

That is a good argument for treaties involving the US but a poor one for agreements. That was the point I was trying to make - the temporary and fickle nature of international agreements as opposed to the more stable method of using international treaties.

Wasn’t the TPP a treaty?

 

[ataraxia]

Two comments:

1. Trump's position, overall, is that multinational agreements limit an individual country's ability to adjust conditions that turn out to not benefit that country.

For example, NAFTA allowed Mexico and Canada to buy auto parts from other countries and allowed them to install those parts in autos that were then sold to US consumers...with no tariffs. This cut out US auto makers and US auto parts makers and also allowed those other countries to skirt US tariffs that would apply if US auto and auto parts makers were to buy from those countries. Over the course of almost 25 years, this resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of US jobs lost.

There was no easy way to change those conditions because of the multinational nature of NAFTA. That's why Trump took NAFTA out of the picture.​

This same type of problem will exist in any other multinational trade agreement.

2. Whatever agreements other countries engage in, the fact remains that the US is the largest economy in the world.

View attachment 67246953

The US, by not being bound by those multinational agreements, is free to negotiate the best trade deals (for the US) and has the economic clout to get good deals.

I happen to agree with Trump that staying away from multinational trade agreements is a good thing. But this doesn't mean we are isolationists. We are eager to make deals...that benefit the US...with anyone.

Is that what’s happening now? And the TPP moving on without the US leaves the pacific basin very vulnerable now to China.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Wasn’t the TPP a treaty?

Nope.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

 

[ataraxia]

The argument can be (and often is) framed in a different light. Providing exports is good for our wealth and security, no doubt, but depending on imports is (or certainly could become) bad for our wealth and security. This, IMHO, is why the balance of trade is so important. One has to look carefully at whether the US is better off ceding control of any industry or economic sector largely to those outside of our nation or our group of allied nations.

Cheaper and more plentiful foreign imports means more competition, and cheaper and more plentiful goods for American consumers. We make fun of all those cheap Chinese imports, and bellyache about them, but we still love buying them at Walmart. Think about if all of those were taken away.

 

[Mycroft]

Is that what’s happening now?

Is what "what's happening now"?

And the TPP moving on without the US leaves the pacific basin very vulnerable now to China.

How so?

 

[ataraxia]

Is what "what's happening now"?



How so?

Speaking at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last weekend, Xi said China would be happy to take over the leadership role in global trade that the United States has now relinquished. That will be good for China, but not so good for anyone else.

One of the main reasons that Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia chose to align themselves with the United States by signing the TPP is that they didn’t want to be left alone on a dark street with China. Several other East Asian countries were expected to join TPP after it took effect, mostly for the same reason. They wanted a continued U.S. presence in the region to serve as an economic and strategic counterweight to China’s imperialistic and bellicose designs. The Chinese want Asia all to themselves and Trump just gave it to them.

Trump Hands China A Gift In Dumping Trans-Pacific Partnership

 

[Mycroft]

Trump Hands China A Gift In Dumping Trans-Pacific Partnership

As I said, Trump isn't an isolationist.

One of the main reasons that Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia chose to align themselves with the United States by signing the TPP is that they didn’t want to be left alone on a dark street with China. Several other East Asian countries were expected to join TPP after it took effect, mostly for the same reason. They wanted a continued U.S. presence in the region to serve as an economic and strategic counterweight to China’s imperialistic and bellicose designs. The Chinese want Asia all to themselves and Trump just gave it to them.

The US isn't leaving the region. We just won't be bound by a multinational trade agreement in the region. China will STILL have to deal with our presence. They won't have Asia all to themselves, no matter what that writer wants you to think.

 

[cabse5]

Being tariffed out of countries with combined populations several times the size of the population here in the US is certainly going to hurt US corporations going forward. It’s not a matter of hurting right now, but it’s a matter of stagnation and lack of growth for American corporations in the future, as the rest of the world moves on and grows. This sort of isolationism, as in all cases of isolationism, inevitably leads to stagnation.

If you don’t think this time isolationism will lead to stagnation, what is different?

Actually, I would say that the world's tariffs on American goods has tariffed the world from trade with America.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Cheaper and more plentiful foreign imports means more competition, and cheaper and more plentiful goods for American consumers. We make fun of all those cheap Chinese imports, and bellyache about them, but we still love buying them at Walmart. Think about if all of those were taken away.

That (bolded above) is pure BS whether you look at goods or services. Using your Walmart example is a good place to start. Try to find any US made (not simply US assembled or branded) television set in Walmart. The last line of your post is exacly why you never want to be too heavily dependent on imports - because some other nation(s) could take them away or triple their price on a whim.

Maybe these links will help:

https://www.politifact.com/virginia...donald-trump-says-us-doesnt-make-tvs-anymore/

https://www.consumerreports.org/lcd-led-oled-tvs/tv-brands-arent-always-what-they-seem/

https://www.techwalla.com/articles/list-of-televisions-that-are-made-in-america

 

[apdst]

But countries like China play the long game. They have 50-year visions of where they want to be, along with detailed long term strategic plans for how to get there. Do you think it hurts the US to not have any sort of coherent, long term vision towards which they are working? After World War II, of course, it did. This was a vision of global cooperation, trade, and peace among the free world, which was more or less pursued by every administration. Is it OK to just keep lurching now like a blind mole from administration to administration, with one administration completely destroying what the other has done?

The United States is the most lucrative market in the world. No one is going to turn their backs on her; not permanently, anyway.

 

[Greenbeard]

As I said, Trump isn't an isolationist.

He just wants to end our trade and military alliances and retreat behind a literal wall.

 

[Mycroft]

He just wants to end our trade and military alliances and retreat behind a literal wall.

Nonsense

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The US, in its mistrust of globalism, and in its new pursuit of isolationist policies, decided to pull out of the TPP and other international trade deals. President Trump promised that this would help American business and workers.

So now, the rest of the world is moving on without the US.



So discuss whether you think this really will help US workers and manufacturers in the long run to make America great again.

While Russia and China are still more than willing to talk with the US government ["Putin tells Trump that Moscow is open for dialogue on a ‘wide-ranging agenda’" - "After Trump touts ‘Big progress’ in trade talks, China expresses willingness to work with US through ‘storms’"] they appear to be doing so in the full knowledge that they are negotiating with someone who is franticly trying to see how few keys he can get the piano vendors to agree to put on the pianos that he is buying for full price.

In the mean time, at least one of the other two countries (Canada) involved with the US in NAFTA 2.0 is looking out for its own interests.

What will happen if the PRC signs on to the CPATPP, we will simply have to wait to find out.

 

[ataraxia]

That (bolded above) is pure BS whether you look at goods or services. Using your Walmart example is a good place to start. Try to find any US made (not simply US assembled or branded) television set in Walmart. The last line of your post is exacly why you never want to be too heavily dependent on imports - because some other nation(s) could take them away or triple their price on a whim.

Maybe these links will help:

https://www.politifact.com/virginia...donald-trump-says-us-doesnt-make-tvs-anymore/

https://www.consumerreports.org/lcd-led-oled-tvs/tv-brands-arent-always-what-they-seem/

https://www.techwalla.com/articles/list-of-televisions-that-are-made-in-america

When there is a free market and free trade, no one can just triple their price on a whim. That’s how free trade and free markets work. Artificially protect one part of the market, however, and they can. That can include domestic manufacturers.

Lack of competition always leads to higher prices and inferior quality.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Two comments:

1. Trump's position, overall, is that multinational agreements limit an individual country's ability to adjust conditions that turn out to not benefit that country.

For example, NAFTA allowed Mexico and Canada to buy auto parts from other countries and allowed them to install those parts in autos that were then sold to US consumers...with no tariffs. This cut out US auto makers and US auto parts makers and also allowed those other countries to skirt US tariffs that would apply if US auto and auto parts makers were to buy from those countries. Over the course of almost 25 years, this resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of US jobs lost.

There was no easy way to change those conditions because of the multinational nature of NAFTA. That's why Trump took NAFTA out of the picture.​

This same type of problem will exist in any other multinational trade agreement.

2. Whatever agreements other countries engage in, the fact remains that the US is the largest economy in the world.

View attachment 67246953

The US, by not being bound by those multinational agreements, is free to negotiate the best trade deals (for the US) and has the economic clout to get good deals.

I happen to agree with Trump that staying away from multinational trade agreements is a good thing. But this doesn't mean we are isolationists. We are eager to make deals...that benefit the US...with anyone.

If I have the choice of developing a market that is restricted to the US (20.4) or one that excludes the US but includes China (14), Japan (5.1), Germany (4.2), France (2.93), the UK (2.94), Brazil (2.14), and Canada (1.8) - I think that I'd be looking at the potential market that totalled 33.12 rather than the one that totalled 20.4. For one thing that market is bigger and for another the diversity of that market means that I'm not going to get caught in the "Wal*Mart Trap".

If I see that the "20.4 market" is expanding less rapidly than the "33.12 market" then my choice gets even easier.

If it looks suspiciously like the expansion rate for the "20.4 market" is actually going to be negative, then the decision is a slam-dunk.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

As I said, Trump isn't an isolationist.



The US isn't leaving the region. We just won't be bound by a multinational trade agreement in the region. China will STILL have to deal with our presence. They won't have Asia all to themselves, no matter what that writer wants you to think.

Quite right.

The US can ship more cars, soybeans, pork, and oil on its aircraft carriers than the Chinese can.