• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China hits U.S with $60B in tariffs to escalate trade war

Eh, your employer shouldn't have been dealing with a rogue state that has been constantly trying to steal and undermine US trade for the last two decades. Who has been stealing billions of dollars a year in technology and research.... Who's been threatening and promising to be able to invade Taiwan by 2020.... Who has no equal in threat to the United States...

The odds on China invading Taiwan before 2020 would really depend on whether or not they want to see Mr. Trump re-elected. If they do, the odds probably double (to around 0.05%). If they don't, the odds are probably halved (to around 0.0125%).

BTW, did you happen to notice that all of the threats that the PRC have been making have been in the context of Taiwanese Secession? Didn't something like that happen in the United States of America where a bunch of subsidiary local governments decided that they didn't want to be a part of the United States of America? I'm not sure what the national government of the United States of America did when that happened, so possibly you could tell me how long it took for the national government of the United States of America to agree that those subsidiary local governments had the right to secede?

Oh, I forgot "That's DIFFERENT!!!".
 
Not even the tiniest bit?

If "A" hits "B" first, does "A" have any logical grounds for saying that "B" was the one who "escalated" the situation?

Or is saying that "B" was the one who "hit (back) first" the one who was responsible for the fight because they "escalated" the fight rather than simply standing there and allowing "A" to beat them up rather duplicitous (and I'm being very polite when I use the term "duplicitous" rather than "telling a lie")?

Red:
Not even a tiny bit.
 
But what's the end game here then? China makes a shift to higher tech and is able to circumvent our tariff laws? How is America going to win? We're not going to get all that manufacturing back either, not while there are other people to exploit for cheap labor. So the People end up with just higher priced good, while corporations still use cheap labor, our exports become less competitive, etc. How do we win Trade-War then?

I believe that the "end game" is to impose sanctions on any country that doesn't buy all of its imports to the United States of America at whatever price the American companies feel like charging, to impose punitive sanctions on any country that attempts to fill its own domestic market with domestically produced goods rather than importing higher priced goods from the United States of America, and to impose REALLY crushing sanctions on any country that has the gall to object to being in a trade relationship where [1] the United States of America is ALWAYS the party that makes a profit on EVERY transaction, [2] the other country is ALWAYS the party that takes a loss on EVERY transaction, and [3] the government of the United States of America is the sole and final arbiter of whether or not any dispute over which country is in the right on any trading transaction (and can do so without allowing the government of any other country any input into that decision).

Once Mr. Trump is successful in establishing a "World Fair Trade Pact" that fulfills all three of those conditions, then everything will be absolutely perfect in every country in the world.

Right?
 
China is out of moves. Their economy is in the tank and they can longer hit back with tariffs. How many things to we export there?

Theyu are done.

They're done are they?

Where do we go if they call in our trillions in debt?

Well I know what trump will do, as usual just not pay it and borrow from Russia...
 
They will make Chinese goods more expensive, but it won't make exports more expensive. On the contrary, the whole idea behind the tax cuts and revised depreciation is to create the incentive to buy newer more modern equipment to get our prices down so we can compete with China. The depreciation tables get companies to buy equipment now, helping those companies down stream.

That, indeed, may have been the PR reason behind the tax cuts, but if that had been the real reason then the tax cuts would have been tied to the companies doing exactly that. They weren't.

The majority of the increased profits accruing from the tax cuts has gone into "share buybacks", "dividends", and "bonuses". The last two don't really affect the stock market as much as the first one does. The first one, by decreasing supply while demand remains constant, has the net effect of "boosting" stock prices and that, to the naive, looks like the economy is improving because "the stock market is going up". If the supply had remained constant and the demand for the shares had increased, then that would be an indication that the economy is improving. The reverse does NOT hold true.

Too many here think of China as MAGA hats and consumer items. That's not really where the US is going. We are trying to protect our leadership in capital equipment, aircraft, large industrial equipment used to make capital equipment, robotics, and AI. We are trying to get our competitive edge back where we can protect our processes by keeping them here in the USA rather than in China where they are copied, and we are going to redirect the global supply chain back the the USA. If they want to advance up the value chain, the need to do it honestly which, BTW and all B.S. aside, is a foreign concept to them.

In short, the policies of the US government must be tailored so as to maximize the profits of American corporations and to allow American corporations to create a world monopoly for American goods in order that all other countries can be treated as milk cows for American capital.

We make "national" money on the big stuff, and that is the market China is trying to push us out of.

I agree, it should be illegal for any country to compete with the United States of America. The only "fair trade" is when the US sells whatever it wants to sell at whatever price it feels like charging and buys whatever it wants to buy at whatever price it feels like paying. If any country offers its goods for sale at a price lower than the American price, then that country is not "trading fairly" and if any country offers to pay more for the goods it wants to buy than the American price, then that country is not "trading fairly" either. Those **E*V*I*L** countries must be stopped.

Right?

Somehow through the last 40 years the US population has been convinced that we can't do it and we might as well give up. That is totally wrong headed thinking. The less physical contact between US industrial processes and Chinese industrial processes, the better it is for the USA because there is a mental infrastructure as well has a physical one. That is what makes us different, and that we want to keep over here.

I don't think that "the US population" has been convinced of that, but I will agree that "the owners of US capital" have most certainly been convinced that they can make more profit by manufacturing elsewhere (and paying better than average local wages while doing so) than they can by manufacturing in obsolescent American factories using highly paid American labour, and, you know what, they are right.

If American workers were prepared to work 12 hour days, six day weeks, at $13.50 per hour, without fringe benefits, and without any union protection, then the American companies would take a different view of investing in the US manufacturing sector again. I mean that works out to around $50,544 per year and that's more than DOUBLE the poverty level, so everyone would be well taken care of.

Right?
 
You heard it here first, folks. Internet political expert Bucky declares the nation of China "done". We won't be hearing from them anymore.



If you're the kind of "libertarian" that likes the executive branch unilaterally raising the prices Americans pay for their goods, then yes, this was a big win for you. How long have you been a fan of central economic planning?

Farm channels have already warned about a 25% increase in Christmas costs before these tariffs. The 25% tariffs in January will knock the world into a recession.
 
They're done are they?

Where do we go if they call in our trillions in debt?

Well I know what trump will do, as usual just not pay it and borrow from Russia...


The stock market was up 200 points today. Consider that.

It was 10%, not 25%. This indicates we are closer to the end of the trade war, than the beginning. Today was a sign of the de-escalation of the trade war. I have confidence a deal will be worked out by the end of the year.
 
Last edited:
From United Press International

China hits U.S with $60B in tariffs to escalate trade war

Sept. 18 (UPI) -- The trade war between the United States and China again escalated Tuesday, as Beijing announced 10 percent tariffs on $60 billion in U.S. imports.

This comes one day after President Donald Trump announced a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion in Chinese imports starting next week. The U.S. administration said the tariffs will rise to 25 percent in January.

Trump reacted on Twitter, promising "great and fast economic retaliation against China if our farmers, ranchers and/or industrial workers are targeted."

Trump added that many of those workers back his presidency, saying the Chinese tariffs are an attempt to influence U.S. elections. But, he said voters know China has been taking advantage of U.S. trade for years.

COMMENT:-

In light of "Trump announces 10% tariffs on $200B worth of Chinese goods" (which came first), isn't this headline a bit like complaining "He hit me back first."?

No, because American workers don't have a level playing field with China - so that's the original offense that Trump is retaliating over. China's unwarranted retaliations are only earning more retaliations against them. This is a fight they can't win - and don't deserve to.
 
I believe that the "end game" is to impose sanctions on any country that doesn't buy all of its imports to the United States of America at whatever price the American companies feel like charging, to impose punitive sanctions on any country that attempts to fill its own domestic market with domestically produced goods rather than importing higher priced goods from the United States of America, and to impose REALLY crushing sanctions on any country that has the gall to object to being in a trade relationship where [1] the United States of America is ALWAYS the party that makes a profit on EVERY transaction, [2] the other country is ALWAYS the party that takes a loss on EVERY transaction, and [3] the government of the United States of America is the sole and final arbiter of whether or not any dispute over which country is in the right on any trading transaction (and can do so without allowing the government of any other country any input into that decision).

Once Mr. Trump is successful in establishing a "World Fair Trade Pact" that fulfills all three of those conditions, then everything will be absolutely perfect in every country in the world.

Right?

"Fair trade" has become an attempt to flimflam America's trading partners. It's the area of Trump's expertise.

$25 million settlement finalized in Trump University lawsuit
 
Last edited:
You heard it here first, folks. Internet political expert Bucky declares the nation of China "done". We won't be hearing from them anymore.



If you're the kind of "libertarian" that likes the executive branch unilaterally raising the prices Americans pay for their goods, then yes, this was a big win for you. How long have you been a fan of central economic planning?

LMAO!..take a bow Alpaca...:thumbs:
 
No, because American workers don't have a level playing field with China ...

By which I presume you mean "Because American workers aren't willing to work as many hours per day, as many days per week and at the same wages that a Chinese worker is prepared to work".

Or is it that you mean "Because American corporations see that they make bigger profits when they conduct their manufacturing operations outside of the United States of America and/or use components that are manufactured where labour costs are lower than they are in the United States of America."?

This is a fight they can't win - and don't deserve to.

Surprisingly enough the Chinese attitude is that "This is a fight that the American's can't win - and don't deserve to.".

Because the Chinese economy is a "Command/Control" economy (which it has been for almost all of the past 2,500 years) the Chinese government has a bit more leverage in counteracting the effects of Mr. Trump's blanket actions than Mr. Trump has in counteracting the effects of the Chinese governments rather carefully targeted actions.

Not only that, but the blanket nature of Mr. Trump's actions are highly likely to result in an increase of "national solidarity" in order to "resist the attacks of the foreigners who are seeking to take control of China" than they are to achieve any other result. On the other hand, the Chinese responses to Mr. Trump's actions have been designed to exploit specific potential cracks in American national solidarity. While (by analogy) the Chinese are shooting with a telescopic sights equipped rifle, Mr. Trump is (again by analogy) trying to snipe with a shotgun.
 
Back
Top Bottom