4 ms·

Glaringly, the NYT omits the scope of these new Chinese tariffs (on $3 billion in goods [0]), which in comparison to the $60 billion in tariffs recently imposed

Glaringly, the NYT omits the scope of these new Chinese tariffs (on $3 billion in goods [0]), which in comparison to the $60 billion in tariffs recently imposed on China would seem to present Trump with quite a victory. [0] http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/news/economy/china-us-tariffs-trade/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/news/economy/china-us-tariff...

allengeorge 9y ago
I could be wrong, but IIRC these tariffs are in response to the initial round of steel/aluminum tariffs. They have not responded to the latest round of tariffs.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
This is just the first batch of tariffs, the Chinese press says there will be more.
glenndebacker 9y ago
I'm not an economist or an American but from my POV I find the first round of sanctions seems to be very interesting (and may I say) well thought. In this round focusing on agricultural products seems to hit those voters - where I assume - that are mostly Trump voters. I find this very ironic to say the least. Reminds me of the more strategical thinking of possible EU sanctions targeting products that are important for certain high profile republicans and their states.
- pm90 9y ago
  This could easily backfire though. Voters would want even more bellicose and populist politicians, willing to impose even higher tariffs and even go to war for their perceived "wrongs".
- adventured 9y ago
  It reveals the nature of the position of each party. The US is targeting tariffs to correct perceived trade wrongs, where foreign nations have barriers that the US does not have. Or in the case of some foreign steel, it's often dumped globally, backed with State subsidies to facilitate that. Take Russian steel as one example. It's extremely difficult to do business in Russia and to sell major industrial products like steel into Russia. Why should the US buy any steel from Russia, when the US is highly capable of producing that steel domestically instead? It makes no sense to tolerate Russia's hyper nationalist protectionism in major industry and continue buying steel from them. Reciprocating their market behavior back toward them means that Russia never gets to sell steel into the US again. Russia buys very little from the US, representing 0.03% of the US economy. The US imports from Russia, including a lot of steel, are equal to 1.5% of the Russian economy. It's obvious which party has a lot to lose there, there's a 50 fold gap in importance to the economy. The EU and China by contrast to the US tariffs, started out targeting the US on political grounds. That tells you everything you need to know. It's because the US has extremely low tariffs overall, and particularly extraordinarily low tariffs on agriculture. These other trade parties have very few angles of attack that aren't political in nature because the US has such a generally open economy.
beisner 9y ago
The first round of Chinese tariffs are a signal of intent, not really a retaliation.
fspeech 9y ago
The China specific tariffs (on $50 billion worth of imports) have only been announced. The product list is not even released yet and they indicated it will be at least 60 days before the tariffs are actually imposed. So it would be premature for China to be imposing actual tariffs in response to that now. What China is doing is the so-called "offset" against the metal tariffs, which went into effect against China about 10 days ago. WTO rules allow offsets though technically people should wait for a WTO ruling first, which nobody seems to bother doing these days.

allengeorge 9y ago

I could be wrong, but IIRC these tariffs are in response to the initial round of steel/aluminum tariffs. They have not responded to the latest round of tariffs.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

This is just the first batch of tariffs, the Chinese press says there will be more.

glenndebacker 9y ago

I'm not an economist or an American but from my POV I find the first round of sanctions seems to be very interesting (and may I say) well thought. In this round focusing on agricultural products seems to hit those voters - where I assume - that are mostly Trump voters. I find this very ironic to say the least. Reminds me of the more strategical thinking of possible EU sanctions targeting products that are important for certain high profile republicans and their states.

pm90 9y ago
This could easily backfire though. Voters would want even more bellicose and populist politicians, willing to impose even higher tariffs and even go to war for their perceived "wrongs".
adventured 9y ago
It reveals the nature of the position of each party. The US is targeting tariffs to correct perceived trade wrongs, where foreign nations have barriers that the US does not have. Or in the case of some foreign steel, it's often dumped globally, backed with State subsidies to facilitate that. Take Russian steel as one example. It's extremely difficult to do business in Russia and to sell major industrial products like steel into Russia. Why should the US buy any steel from Russia, when the US is highly capable of producing that steel domestically instead? It makes no sense to tolerate Russia's hyper nationalist protectionism in major industry and continue buying steel from them. Reciprocating their market behavior back toward them means that Russia never gets to sell steel into the US again. Russia buys very little from the US, representing 0.03% of the US economy. The US imports from Russia, including a lot of steel, are equal to 1.5% of the Russian economy. It's obvious which party has a lot to lose there, there's a 50 fold gap in importance to the economy. The EU and China by contrast to the US tariffs, started out targeting the US on political grounds. That tells you everything you need to know. It's because the US has extremely low tariffs overall, and particularly extraordinarily low tariffs on agriculture. These other trade parties have very few angles of attack that aren't political in nature because the US has such a generally open economy.

beisner 9y ago

The first round of Chinese tariffs are a signal of intent, not really a retaliation.

fspeech 9y ago

The China specific tariffs (on $50 billion worth of imports) have only been announced. The product list is not even released yet and they indicated it will be at least 60 days before the tariffs are actually imposed. So it would be premature for China to be imposing actual tariffs in response to that now. What China is doing is the so-called "offset" against the metal tariffs, which went into effect against China about 10 days ago. WTO rules allow offsets though technically people should wait for a WTO ruling first, which nobody seems to bother doing these days.