3 ms·
Under normal circumstances retaliatory tariffs may be important, but I think because of the relatively asymmetric nature of US-China trade (the US's massive tra
by rm2889 8y ago
Under normal circumstances retaliatory tariffs may be important, but I think because of the relatively asymmetric nature of US-China trade (the US's massive trade deficit to China), I'm definitely more interested in how the tariffs are affecting the Chinese manufacturers and American consumers. But yes a more complete analysis should look at both sides.
- mc32 8y agoI’ve often wondered why given our position vis a vis China, economically, previous presidents have been reluctant and unwilling to take these steps. Before Obama and Busch, it was Reagan and Busch senior who were reluctant to tske steps against Japan. We had the upper hand and also had logic and trade law on our side, but other than token measures were weak in this regard. Were they just too deferential to short term concerns and or offshoring interests?
- ryanwaggoner 8y agoIt’s “Bush”, on the off chance that you didn’t know that.
- bluGill 8y agoReagan and Bush believed in free trade - maybe not completely, but it was something like believed would turn out better for the long run. Note that nobody worries about Japan taking our jobs anymore. Since we don't have parallel universes to play with we can never experiment to see which approach is better.
- mc32 8y agoBy all means fair trade. But what Japan was doing wasn’t fair trade. We’d open markets but they’d put up all kinds of reasons and non tariff barriers to exporters, up to ridiculous extremes such as saying Rossignol (French) was unfit for Japanse snow. I mean even if this outrageous claim were true, let the buyers decide. Sure, Japan now is not overly unfair, but in the mean time over 20 years US workers had unfsir competition. Same was happening with China, but now someone is finally willing to call things out snd say “enough”.