6 ms·

I don't know why you're being downvoted; China absolutely does all of those things. They are not playing fair in the global market and never have. One can debat

I don't know why you're being downvoted; China absolutely does all of those things. They are not playing fair in the global market and never have. One can debate whether or not the tariff is the right approach, but let's not pretend that China is a victim.

tehbeard 8y ago
GP never said China was a victim, just that a tariff screws over US companies, not China.
- anon23423532 8y ago
  If manufacturing moves elsewhere and a few million already disgruntled Chinese are out of jobs, Chinese government has big problems. Their impotent threat towards the US ag industry is also laughable when we produce 40-50% of the worlds soybeans and corn. Increasing food prices for the millions of unemployed workers is surely a winning strategy Cheap labor is plentiful, there's only one US consumer market. China has no leverage here.
  - elago 8y ago
    I'm curious how are you coming up with these economic projections? Are you running simulations? Reading reports? Are you an economist? What if China just sells to other customers? What is China subsidizes it's manufacturers, so they get paid and keep their production capacity whether or not they're actually producing? Exactly like soybean and corn farmers in the US are btw. The whole thing seems incredibly complex, and most of the economic opinions I read about don't say "markets are better when the goverment skims 25% off of all transactions". So I'm curious how you immediately come to the conclusion "USA Wins, China has no leverage, game over".
    - anon23423532 8y ago
      They can try selling to other customers, but US is still around 25% of global GDP and probably a larger percentage of the market for the components that have been tariffed. Chinese government would have to print a lot of money to make up for that, which causes it's own issues, especially when considering the amount of debt China has already racked up. The point isn't for the government to skim 25%, it's to get China to trade fairly or if worse comes to worse bring manufacturing back to the US. In the event of a trade war US has leverage because we have the market and a essential product, food. US consumers can live without another 42in tv, Chinese can't live without food and they are entirely dependent on importing that food.
      - mcphage 8y ago
        > if worse comes to worse bring manufacturing back to the US If these tariffs are on components and not manufactured goods, then it seems like it would push manufacturing into China, not bring it back to the US.
        tridentlead 8y ago
        Not if the goal is to bring back component manufacturing.
        mcphage 8y ago
        Who’s going to buy the US-made components if the manufacturers that use those products have already moved to China because of the tariffs?
        yellowapple 8y ago
        Probably those same manufacturers, depending on whether the added labor premium is less than the cost of shipping finished goods across the Pacific.
        HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
        As a first-order approximation, transoceanic shipping is essentially free. A quick google gives me $5,000 to ship a container from China to a US port. Considering the volume that a 40' container can hold, yeah, that's pretty much free. Compare that to even cheap US labor rates and it's a no-brainer.
        systoll 8y ago
        The stated goal only matters insofar as it affects the policies that are created. In 2018, it's a whole lot easier to avoid doing any manufacturing in the US than it is to avoid using any components made in China; and both approaches avoid the tariff as written. If the goal is to bring back component manufacturing, they need to go back to the drawing board.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > and most of the economic opinions I read Have you read the economic opinion on income taxes? Hint: They also make markets less efficient. But nevertheless we think the trade off is worth it.
  - xbmcuser 8y ago
    Isn't this playing into China's hands they want to move up value chain from providing components to whole devices. Now chinese made devices will be at least 25% cheaper on components alone they already have the advantage of cheap labour. In the last few years assembly plants were supposedly coming back to the US now that would less likely.
  - chrisjc 8y ago
    I agree with you, although the thought of millions of nationalized, disgruntled, unemployed citizens within a highly industrialized country is rather terrifying in general, not just for the Chinese government.
  - Theodores 8y ago
    Those of us in the rest of the world view U.S. agricultural products as subsidised and dumped on the world market. Look at the history of the Chicken Tax to see the long history of this. The rest of the world would actually prefer jobs for our own farmers and we would also prefer to not be eating genetically modified junk from America. It is theoretically possible to live without a Harley Davidson motorbike and whatever else America actually makes these days, as for food, that is vital. Therefore in places like Japan rice is given special protection. I hope the Chinese respond by selling off the many trillions of US bonds/debt they have been buying over the years. I also hope that the petro-dollar is no more and that the world can move to an era of genuine fair trade.
  - ojbyrne 8y ago
    Nobody votes in China. There is an election coming up in this country.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Sure, I didn't mean it that way. I was referring to what I assume the down voters were thinking, but I wasn't very clear.
debt 8y ago
Not every single Chinese tech firm does these things. It's possible to develop a more nuanced view of China other than "China bad tariff good". Why not investigate which firms committed which crimes and punish those specific firms? It's a smarter approach that helps our justice system and China's. But "smarter" isn't part of this administrations playbook.
- jandrese 8y ago
  While I agree that you could find firms that have not stolen IP to make their product, trying to nail down the sanctions to individual businesses would never work. The number of entities you would need to track and audit is enormous and it's way too easy for someone to launder the information around to supposedly "good" businesses. You're talking about the entire supply chain, so you would end up punishing firms that are otherwise innocent because unbeknownst to them they bought resisters or capacitors or silicon plates from a bad actor. A smart approach is just not feasible at this scale.
  - debt 8y ago
    "so you would end up punishing firms that are otherwise innocent" That's exactly what the current tariffs do. So I guess if it's too much work to vet individual firms, we just lazily start a trade war? Again, for this administration, sounds about right.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      Yes. You can either punish innocent firms, or punish innocent firms plus lots of extra paperwork.
- sremani 8y ago
  When two elephants fight, many ants die. There is no precision guided ammo in trade wars. Its brute force!
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Sure, but I don't think that's a practical solution. Also, tariffs like this aren't intended to harm individual businesses; the intent is to pressure the Chinese government, a government which directly supports and plays a role in IP theft and market manipulation. Why would the US spend an insane amount of resources to lessen the effect when the effect is exactly what they're after?
pjc50 8y ago
Whereas the US has always played fair in the global market and never used its dollar position, tarriffs, sanction, invasions etc for market advantage?
- merpnderp 8y ago
  You're comparing apples and oranges. When has the US government stolen trade secrets from foreign companies and then bootstrapped new domestic companies to compete against them? China has surely done all the things you're accusing the US of, but they aren't being punished for that.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/news/airbus-germany-nsa-spying/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/news/airbus-germany-nsa-spyi... (I'm not sure anything has been proven definitively in the open, but I'm not sure that applies to all these China allegations either)
    - merpnderp 8y ago
      So you would have had a problem with the EU retaliating if they’d felt they had enough proof for a case?
  - tomarr 8y ago
    The US actually did this extensively during its own industrialisation, stealing IP from Britain and shielding its own fledgling domestic industries (textiles was the tech sector of the day). Britain took steps as extensive as banning skilled people from travelling to the USA. All this is just historic and doesn't necessarily feed into what should be done in the present situation, but it is useful to note that this is a common path that developed countries have followed in the past: - ignore/steal IP - protect and subsidise domestic equivalents - upon domestic industry being competitive, reciprocally lower tariffs - once fully developed, lobby for free trade and strong IP protection
- azinman2 8y ago
s2g 8y ago
I would have downvoted for the "general national security" bit. Everything else, sure. But national security, especially expressed like that, is just another "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
Spooky23 8y ago
Be careful. The US doesn’t exactly “play fair” either.

tehbeard 8y ago

GP never said China was a victim, just that a tariff screws over US companies, not China.

anon23423532 8y ago
If manufacturing moves elsewhere and a few million already disgruntled Chinese are out of jobs, Chinese government has big problems. Their impotent threat towards the US ag industry is also laughable when we produce 40-50% of the worlds soybeans and corn. Increasing food prices for the millions of unemployed workers is surely a winning strategy Cheap labor is plentiful, there's only one US consumer market. China has no leverage here.
- elago 8y ago
  I'm curious how are you coming up with these economic projections? Are you running simulations? Reading reports? Are you an economist? What if China just sells to other customers? What is China subsidizes it's manufacturers, so they get paid and keep their production capacity whether or not they're actually producing? Exactly like soybean and corn farmers in the US are btw. The whole thing seems incredibly complex, and most of the economic opinions I read about don't say "markets are better when the goverment skims 25% off of all transactions". So I'm curious how you immediately come to the conclusion "USA Wins, China has no leverage, game over".
  - anon23423532 8y ago
    They can try selling to other customers, but US is still around 25% of global GDP and probably a larger percentage of the market for the components that have been tariffed. Chinese government would have to print a lot of money to make up for that, which causes it's own issues, especially when considering the amount of debt China has already racked up. The point isn't for the government to skim 25%, it's to get China to trade fairly or if worse comes to worse bring manufacturing back to the US. In the event of a trade war US has leverage because we have the market and a essential product, food. US consumers can live without another 42in tv, Chinese can't live without food and they are entirely dependent on importing that food.
    - mcphage 8y ago
      > if worse comes to worse bring manufacturing back to the US If these tariffs are on components and not manufactured goods, then it seems like it would push manufacturing into China, not bring it back to the US.
      - tridentlead 8y ago
        Not if the goal is to bring back component manufacturing.
        mcphage 8y ago
        Who’s going to buy the US-made components if the manufacturers that use those products have already moved to China because of the tariffs?
        yellowapple 8y ago
        Probably those same manufacturers, depending on whether the added labor premium is less than the cost of shipping finished goods across the Pacific.
        HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
        As a first-order approximation, transoceanic shipping is essentially free. A quick google gives me $5,000 to ship a container from China to a US port. Considering the volume that a 40' container can hold, yeah, that's pretty much free. Compare that to even cheap US labor rates and it's a no-brainer.
        systoll 8y ago
        The stated goal only matters insofar as it affects the policies that are created. In 2018, it's a whole lot easier to avoid doing any manufacturing in the US than it is to avoid using any components made in China; and both approaches avoid the tariff as written. If the goal is to bring back component manufacturing, they need to go back to the drawing board.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > and most of the economic opinions I read Have you read the economic opinion on income taxes? Hint: They also make markets less efficient. But nevertheless we think the trade off is worth it.
- xbmcuser 8y ago
  Isn't this playing into China's hands they want to move up value chain from providing components to whole devices. Now chinese made devices will be at least 25% cheaper on components alone they already have the advantage of cheap labour. In the last few years assembly plants were supposedly coming back to the US now that would less likely.
- chrisjc 8y ago
  I agree with you, although the thought of millions of nationalized, disgruntled, unemployed citizens within a highly industrialized country is rather terrifying in general, not just for the Chinese government.
- Theodores 8y ago
  Those of us in the rest of the world view U.S. agricultural products as subsidised and dumped on the world market. Look at the history of the Chicken Tax to see the long history of this. The rest of the world would actually prefer jobs for our own farmers and we would also prefer to not be eating genetically modified junk from America. It is theoretically possible to live without a Harley Davidson motorbike and whatever else America actually makes these days, as for food, that is vital. Therefore in places like Japan rice is given special protection. I hope the Chinese respond by selling off the many trillions of US bonds/debt they have been buying over the years. I also hope that the petro-dollar is no more and that the world can move to an era of genuine fair trade.
- ojbyrne 8y ago
  Nobody votes in China. There is an election coming up in this country.
EpicEng 8y ago
Sure, I didn't mean it that way. I was referring to what I assume the down voters were thinking, but I wasn't very clear.

debt 8y ago

Not every single Chinese tech firm does these things. It's possible to develop a more nuanced view of China other than "China bad tariff good". Why not investigate which firms committed which crimes and punish those specific firms? It's a smarter approach that helps our justice system and China's. But "smarter" isn't part of this administrations playbook.

jandrese 8y ago
While I agree that you could find firms that have not stolen IP to make their product, trying to nail down the sanctions to individual businesses would never work. The number of entities you would need to track and audit is enormous and it's way too easy for someone to launder the information around to supposedly "good" businesses. You're talking about the entire supply chain, so you would end up punishing firms that are otherwise innocent because unbeknownst to them they bought resisters or capacitors or silicon plates from a bad actor. A smart approach is just not feasible at this scale.
- debt 8y ago
  "so you would end up punishing firms that are otherwise innocent" That's exactly what the current tariffs do. So I guess if it's too much work to vet individual firms, we just lazily start a trade war? Again, for this administration, sounds about right.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    Yes. You can either punish innocent firms, or punish innocent firms plus lots of extra paperwork.
sremani 8y ago
When two elephants fight, many ants die. There is no precision guided ammo in trade wars. Its brute force!
EpicEng 8y ago
Sure, but I don't think that's a practical solution. Also, tariffs like this aren't intended to harm individual businesses; the intent is to pressure the Chinese government, a government which directly supports and plays a role in IP theft and market manipulation. Why would the US spend an insane amount of resources to lessen the effect when the effect is exactly what they're after?

pjc50 8y ago

Whereas the US has always played fair in the global market and never used its dollar position, tarriffs, sanction, invasions etc for market advantage?

merpnderp 8y ago
You're comparing apples and oranges. When has the US government stolen trade secrets from foreign companies and then bootstrapped new domestic companies to compete against them? China has surely done all the things you're accusing the US of, but they aren't being punished for that.
- pjc50 8y ago
  http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/news/airbus-germany-nsa-spying/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/30/news/airbus-germany-nsa-spyi... (I'm not sure anything has been proven definitively in the open, but I'm not sure that applies to all these China allegations either)
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    So you would have had a problem with the EU retaliating if they’d felt they had enough proof for a case?
- tomarr 8y ago
  The US actually did this extensively during its own industrialisation, stealing IP from Britain and shielding its own fledgling domestic industries (textiles was the tech sector of the day). Britain took steps as extensive as banning skilled people from travelling to the USA. All this is just historic and doesn't necessarily feed into what should be done in the present situation, but it is useful to note that this is a common path that developed countries have followed in the past: - ignore/steal IP - protect and subsidise domestic equivalents - upon domestic industry being competitive, reciprocally lower tariffs - once fully developed, lobby for free trade and strong IP protection
azinman2 8y ago

s2g 8y ago

I would have downvoted for the "general national security" bit. Everything else, sure. But national security, especially expressed like that, is just another "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

Spooky23 8y ago

Be careful. The US doesn’t exactly “play fair” either.