Tourney64 wrote:Adding tariffs is a way of punishing China and making them change their practices of stealing our technology.
Tariffs are a tax paid by American businesses and American consumers. When goods subject to tariffs arrive in the US, CBP assigns/verifies the applicable HTS code for the product, applies the corresponding tariffs/fees, and sends an invoice to the importer. The importer has to pay the tax to get the goods, and has to pass that tax along to their customers. Not a single dime is paid by Chinese companies or the Chinese government.
The basic theory that tariffs will discourage US companies from buying Chinese products is problematic. First, because most American made goods still aren't price competitive vs. imported Chinese finished products, even with a 25% tariff. Second, because many (if not most) American made goods still use at least some components and/or materials from China and the tariffs are increasing their costs, negating (or worse) any price advantage the tariffs might hope to provide. Third, China has already retaliated with tariffs on American exports that amount to roughly half of what the US has proposed so far, and the US is already looking at shelling out additional subsidies to save those industries. Taxing US buyers for some goods and subsidizing other goods is just redistribution of wealth.
None of this helps with protecting US intellectual property. So yet again I ask, how do these tariffs stop China from "stealing our technology?"
Thogey wrote:Thogey wrote:Your perspective is obvious. You are benefiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing.
So are you, even if you refuse to see it.
We are not just benefiting from it, we a dependent on it. This is the problem. We want it corrected. Like in any war "sacrifices must be made".
We are largely dependent upon growers in tropical climates for pineapples and bananas. Do we need to "correct" that problem too?
Specialization is what drives an economy. Find something you are good at, focus on doing that thing as well and efficiently as you can, and trade that for all the other things you need. This is how it works from individual employment all the way up to global trade. Most people don't mine the limestone and fall the timber to make concrete and lumber for their house, grow and raise every plant and animal they eat, or smelt iron ore and alloy and pour ingots ingots to roll into sheet metal to stamp and assemble into a car. They specialize in something and trade for everything else.
Lots of factors go into what an individual or a region or a country is good at. Personal interests, family history, mental and physical ability. Climate and geography, natural resources, labor resources, government controls... Trying to force people (or regions or countries) into doing things they are less good at results in less efficiency, lower quality, and higher costs. Specialization and free markets allow for the greatest benefits for the largest number of participants. Currently, China is more efficient at manufacturing. If we wish to be a better competitor in this sector, we need to get our own house in order.
Thogey wrote:You keep implying we wish zero trade with China. Not one man has said that But we should make every effort to completely rip their lips off at every opportunity. Because that is what they want to do with us.
Why? What do we gain from ripping their lips off? Are there concrete indications that China is going to physically invade the US or threaten us with nuclear or chemical or biological weapons? If not, we should continue trading with them, without adding arbitrary and unnecessary barriers. “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none.” Free trade, open travel, communication, and diplomacy. What a soft, liberal, left-wing globalist Thomas Jefferson was, eh?
Thogey wrote:I really don't care how much a chinaman makes either. But we do care about us. Because we as us and they are them. That's the way they want it. Like it or not it is the way of the world
Everybody who isn't us is an enemy? That's a sad outlook. It's too bad that people who seek positions of power tend to think this way. That's part of what brings us a horribly ineffective foreign policy of forceful regime change...I'm sorry, "spreading democracy."
Thogey wrote:Some cannot stomach it. That is a fair position. Tariffs have already set some momentum in our direction, even if you refuse to see it.
Where is the momentum in our direction? Please share. That's what this thread is for.
Treetop wrote:Kept thinking of the thread and wanted to add something else. Nate, you listed a long list of things (regulations etc) that US business needs to content with, most of which isnt true for a place like china. One of my points has been the fact we have those differences is part of why I dont mind tariffs. Using it as a tool for other goals like maybe changing their policy on intellectual property is another. Are you of the opinion we should drop ALL of that? Workers comp... enviro protections... OSHA... uneployment benefits etc etc?? We could certainly do things cheaper if we did that.
Ideally yes, government would not be the entity running these types of things. Private organizations and voluntary unions and industry associations certainly could. The era of the internet makes these types of organizations and agreements more feasible than ever before, and certainly more efficient than entrenched government agencies. Environmental issues are really property rights issues so the government still plays a major justice role there, but we don't need a bloated, wasteful, unaccountable, unelected, weaponized bureaucracy to do it.
Treetop wrote:I even expect if we streamlined all these things we could probably get all the same things done with considerably less money.
Agreed.
Treetop wrote:This is somewhat moot though because I would expect the majority support most of these things.
Also agreed. Unfortunately people have been trained to believe that their government and/or their employer are obligated to take care of them from cradle to grave, and that that is the only way things can possibly work. We've largely lost a sense of individual planning and responsibility in our society.
Treetop wrote:So while all those things are easy to point to for cost savings, they are unlikely to ever be changed. Can we agree that is obvious? or no?
Not if we keep feeding and supporting the two-party system. It would require a meaningful representation of other ideas in congress to have a chance at gaining real support. And we know how hard it is to even get an independent or third party candidate on the debate stage, let alone to a seat in Washington. Both parties have a vested interest in the status quo.
Treetop wrote:Several libertarian mindsets are slowly becoming mainstream but not the idea the markets would solve all those types of issues. We probably have more americans who would vote for stalinism or marxism then that.
If they could bring themselves to actually put in the effort required to vote
), Trump has targeted exactly the wrong goods and in exactly the wrong order. The first thing (except solar panels and washing machines) he went after was raw materials / minimally manufactured aluminum and steel components. These are what make much of existing US manufacturing feasible. We should take full advantage of affordable imported materials and components to support US manufacturing operations. If you want US finished goods to be more competitive with Chinese finished goods, you need to make materials affordable and imported Chinese finished goods more expensive. The tariffs Trump implemented did exactly the opposite of that. He made imported materials and components more expensive for US manufacturers, which in turn also triggered a rise in the price of domestic materials and components, but left the imported finished products alone or, at the very least, waited months to implement them (and it will be several more before they rise to the level of the raw materials / components tariffs). This does not suggest a well-planned strategy for bringing manufacturing back to the US. It suggests hastily implemented pandering to a handful of US steel and aluminum makers, a midterm publicity stunt for his supporters, and throwing everybody else under the bus.