First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Should we implement the same trade restrictions on China that they put on US?
21890 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 3/10/18 , edited 3/10/18
Yes, if a country takes part in dumping (i.e. artificially flooding the market place with goods below the cost of production to unfairly gain market share) slap them on. Also I agree, while I am fine with opening market access it needs to be a 2 way street. If we open our markets than our trading markets must treat our companies operating in their country the same.

If we allow a foreign country to open firms in our nation with 100% foreign ownership but they restrict foreigners having companies in their territory to only have a minority stake we should return the favor and apply the same criteria to their companies in the US, only fair after all.

Trading can be beneficial if both partners operating in good faith and on an even playing field. Both US political parties' establishments have practiced what I call roll over and play dead trade policy where trade partners can cheat us essentially without meaningful consequences. Can't blame other nations for doing this if our lawmakers' incompetence works in their benefit .


Rujikin wrote:


Democraticsocialist09 wrote:

No. Two wrongs don't make a right.


These are tariff policies not criminal policies. There really isn't right or wrong here. Neither 0% nor 100% tariff is wrong nor anything in between. You could argue about economic efficiency all day but neither situation is wrong its just a situation.

Now you could say something about fairness.


In complete agreement, we are a sovereign nation after all and have the right to decide our trade policy with external partners. We can argue all day about what is the best way to approach international trade, but saying that our trade policy is criminal simply because some may disagree with it is over-reactionary.
Posted 3/10/18 , edited 3/10/18

kevz_210 wrote:

Yes, if a country takes part in dumping (i.e. artificially flooding the market place with goods below the cost of production to unfairly gain market share) slap them on. Also I agree, while I am fine with opening market access it needs to be a 2 way street. If we open our markets than our trading markets must treat our companies operating in their country the same.

If we allow a foreign country to open firms in our nation with 100% foreign ownership but they restrict foreigners having companies in their territory to only have a minority stake we should return the favor and apply the same criteria to their companies in the US, only fair after all.

Trading can be beneficial if both partners operating in good faith and on an even playing field. Both US political parties' establishments have practiced what I call roll over and play dead trade policy where trade partners can cheat us essentially without meaningful consequences. Can't blame other nations for doing this if our lawmakers' incompetence works in their benefit .


Rujikin wrote:


Democraticsocialist09 wrote:

No. Two wrongs don't make a right.


These are tariff policies not criminal policies. There really isn't right or wrong here. Neither 0% nor 100% tariff is wrong nor anything in between. You could argue about economic efficiency all day but neither situation is wrong its just a situation.

Now you could say something about fairness.


In complete agreement, we are a sovereign nation after all and have the right to decide our trade policy with external partners. We can argue all day about what is the best way to approach international trade, but saying that our trade policy is criminal simply because some may disagree with it is over-reactionary.

But is that so insightive beneath the surface though?
But can America afford to lose China as a trading partner? It may not be an equitable loss since they aren't as dependent on our imports. Careful now not to shoot yourself in the foot with such nationalistic sentiment. As others have said it may not end as you think. Attempting to "force" others to buy American or not get to sell , esp. when your populace has an unequivocal. over -dependence on their product like its meth, sounds as uber reactionary as an "those darn foreigners are taking over our economy" narrative .
Vahvi 
7890 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 /❓/ ⚤ / Nearby
Offline
Posted 3/10/18 , edited 3/11/18

Democraticsocialist09 wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:

Yes, if a country takes part in dumping (i.e. artificially flooding the market place with goods below the cost of production to unfairly gain market share) slap them on. Also I agree, while I am fine with opening market access it needs to be a 2 way street. If we open our markets than our trading markets must treat our companies operating in their country the same.

If we allow a foreign country to open firms in our nation with 100% foreign ownership but they restrict foreigners having companies in their territory to only have a minority stake we should return the favor and apply the same criteria to their companies in the US, only fair after all.

Trading can be beneficial if both partners operating in good faith and on an even playing field. Both US political parties' establishments have practiced what I call roll over and play dead trade policy where trade partners can cheat us essentially without meaningful consequences. Can't blame other nations for doing this if our lawmakers' incompetence works in their benefit .


Rujikin wrote:


Democraticsocialist09 wrote:

No. Two wrongs don't make a right.


These are tariff policies not criminal policies. There really isn't right or wrong here. Neither 0% nor 100% tariff is wrong nor anything in between. You could argue about economic efficiency all day but neither situation is wrong its just a situation.

Now you could say something about fairness.


In complete agreement, we are a sovereign nation after all and have the right to decide our trade policy with external partners. We can argue all day about what is the best way to approach international trade, but saying that our trade policy is criminal simply because some may disagree with it is over-reactionary.

But is that so insightive beneath the surface though?
But can America afford to lose China as a trading partner? It may not be an equitable loss since they aren't as dependent on our imports. Careful now not to shoot yourself in the foot with such nationalistic sentiment. As others have said it may not end as you think. Attempting to "force" others to buy American or not get to sell , esp. when your populace has an unequivocal. over -dependence on their product like its meth, sounds as uber reactionary as an "those darn foreigners are taking over our economy" narrative .


Are you saying the Dollar Stores will go out of business and I won't be able to buy sub-par knockoffs on amazon anymore
runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/10/18 , edited 3/10/18

kevz_210 wrote:
In complete agreement, we are a sovereign nation after all and have the right to decide our trade policy with external partners. We can argue all day about what is the best way to approach international trade, but saying that our trade policy is criminal simply because some may disagree with it is over-reactionary.


As a point of clarification here: While "criminal" isn't the right word trade policies can be ruled illegal by the WTO which the US *is* a member of and has agreed to the rules of. There's a reason Trump is using a back door method ( a national security trade provision from 1962 ) to invoke these tariffs. The last time the US tried to invoke steel tariffs they were ruled illegal because the US was unable to prove that foreign steel was unfairly damaging domestic industries.

Since that ruling, US steel production has actually increased somewhat. So I doubt any WTO ruling would go in the US's favour on that basis alone. Which leaves the national security argument which in itself is an interpretation of what "national security" means in the trade provision by the administration. One that not many people outside of Trump's office agree with even among his own party.

It's also a moot argument as well. Damaging relationships with allies via a trade war is a bigger threat to national security than anything to do with steel or aluminum.

As an added note your point about foreign ownership is worth mentioning in the light of Trump's main target here: China. China joined the WTO under a *lot* of conditions. Which included opening the Chinese economy up to foreign ownership. Since then, China has been slowly opening up more to foreign ownership at the urging of the US and the EU. Something I doubt they're going to continue to do if the US picks a trade war with them.

I mean, Trump already willingly threw away the economy opportunity of the TPP and ceded market power to China in the Asia-Pacific. Picking a losing fight with the WTO in the middle would go poorly. If Trump refuses to acknowledge a WTO ruling ( which, lets face it, he probably will ) then China isn't under any obligation to abide by conditions of foreign ownership and intellectual property it agreed to with the US over the WTO.

Then this shit escalates even further and benefits absolutely no one.
21890 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 3/11/18 , edited 3/11/18

runec wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:
In complete agreement, we are a sovereign nation after all and have the right to decide our trade policy with external partners. We can argue all day about what is the best way to approach international trade, but saying that our trade policy is criminal simply because some may disagree with it is over-reactionary.


As a point of clarification here: While "criminal" isn't the right word trade policies can be ruled illegal by the WTO which the US *is* a member of and has agreed to the rules of. There's a reason Trump is using a back door method ( a national security trade provision from 1962 ) to invoke these tariffs. The last time the US tried to invoke steel tariffs they were ruled illegal because the US was unable to prove that foreign steel was unfairly damaging domestic industries.

Since that ruling, US steel production has actually increased somewhat. So I doubt any WTO ruling would go in the US's favour on that basis alone. Which leaves the national security argument which in itself is an interpretation of what "national security" means in the trade provision by the administration. One that not many people outside of Trump's office agree with even among his own party.

It's also a moot argument as well. Damaging relationships with allies via a trade war is a bigger threat to national security than anything to do with steel or aluminum.

As an added note your point about foreign ownership is worth mentioning in the light of Trump's main target here: China. China joined the WTO under a *lot* of conditions. Which included opening the Chinese economy up to foreign ownership. Since then, China has been slowly opening up more to foreign ownership at the urging of the US and the EU. Something I doubt they're going to continue to do if the US picks a trade war with them.

I mean, Trump already willingly threw away the economy opportunity of the TPP and ceded market power to China in the Asia-Pacific. Picking a losing fight with the WTO in the middle would go poorly. If Trump refuses to acknowledge a WTO ruling ( which, lets face it, he probably will ) then China isn't under any obligation to abide by conditions of foreign ownership and intellectual property it agreed to with the US over the WTO.

Then this shit escalates even further and benefits absolutely no one.


I agree that affecting allies via a trade war is a bad idea, I will continue to disagree that not slapping tariffs on countries that practice dumping and do not give us fair market access is bad policy. China needs our export market, we have leverage come negotiations hopefully they come to their senses and start treating us as equals. The status quo where their domestic firms can ignore environmental and labor norms, have a complete monopoly of majority company ownership of companies and subsidies operating in their borders, and can sell products at below market prices (via dumping) must come to an end. If some short term pain is needed to get those results so be it.

As for the TPP, it gave way too much power to multinational corporations. I am sorry, but a company is not and should never be equivalent to a nation-station. Their corporate boards are not elected officials and the idea that they can have stack courts to sue national governments with policies that vaguely affect their profits is complete crap.

I'm all for free trade if all parties participate by the same set of rules and multinational corporations do not gain ridiculous about of additional power. TPP would have also screwed over our trade partners' citizens and would have given their citizens to some of our outrageous prescription drug prices so its death was not the end of the world.
Hopefully better trade agreements that have citizen input, transparency and actually do something to address resulting unemployment will be proposed in the future and would be something I could actually support.




Democraticsocialist09 wrote:

But is that so insightive beneath the surface though?
But can America afford to lose China as a trading partner? It may not be an equitable loss since they aren't as dependent on our imports. Careful now not to shoot yourself in the foot with such nationalistic sentiment. As others have said it may not end as you think. Attempting to "force" others to buy American or not get to sell , esp. when your populace has an unequivocal. over -dependence on their product like its meth, sounds as uber reactionary as an "those darn foreigners are taking over our economy" narrative .


Could the US survive without them sure, would it damage our economy most definitely. You are right that they are dependent on our export market more than we are dependent on their imports more of a reason for them to treat us as an equal trade partner.
Forcing others to buy American was not my point, my point is if somebody is cheating us on trade via dumping or one sided laws that benefit their own goods over ours we need to respond in turn to punish those actions. I disagree with Trump on blanket tariffs that adversely affect those that play by the rules, but I have no problem and completely support his actions against the countries that practice dumping and unfair government subsidies policies that hurt domestic firms.


runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/11/18 , edited 3/12/18

kevz_210 wrote:
I agree that affecting allies via a trade war is a bad idea, I will continue to disagree that not slapping tariffs on countries that practice dumping and do not give us fair market access is bad policy. China needs our export market, we have leverage come negotiations hopefully they come to their senses and start treating us as equals. The status quo where their domestic firms can ignore environmental and labor norms, have a complete monopoly of majority company ownership of companies and subsidies operating in their borders, and can sell products at below market prices (via dumping) must come to an end. If some short term pain is needed to get those results so be it.


And that sort of angle would be a good argument to bring as leverage to any trade dispute ( and it was one the US brought to the WTO as a condition of China's membership that resulting in the prying open of China's markets to begin with ). But that would require a President that was not economically illiterate backed up by an actual team of the Best People(tm) to handle the nuances and complexities. Instead, what we have is a President whose "negotiating" style is essentially "I'm going to take a shit on your lawn. What are you going to do to convince me to stop?" without realizing he's squatting in a public park he has to use to.

That sort of simplistic bully tactic might work when you're trying to push around low rung real estate agents in NYC but it sure as fark isn't going to work in international trade. If the economy is disrupted between major markets we *all* suffer the consequences.



kevz_210 wrote:As for the TPP, it gave way too much power to multinational corporations. I am sorry, but a company is not and should never be equivalent to a nation-station. Their corporate boards are not elected officials and the idea that they can have stack courts to sue national governments with policies that vaguely affect their profits is complete crap.


No, they shouldn't. But by walking away from the table the US gave up any say or control over that problem and ceded it to China as the dominant power. As well as giving up what would have been an economically beneficial position in one of the most potent emerging markets on the planet. The US took it's ball and went home expecting the other kids to come to it's door and beg it to come back. But the other kid's are shrugging and playing something else that doesn't require the US's ball in the first place.

The US backing out of TPP didn't stop TPP or make TPP go away. All it did was let another country take the helm with worse ideals than the US. That doesn't help anyone you're professing to be concerned about.



714 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / cave
Offline
Posted 3/11/18 , edited 3/12/18
yes sure
21890 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 3/11/18 , edited 3/12/18

runec wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:
I agree that affecting allies via a trade war is a bad idea, I will continue to disagree that not slapping tariffs on countries that practice dumping and do not give us fair market access is bad policy. China needs our export market, we have leverage come negotiations hopefully they come to their senses and start treating us as equals. The status quo where their domestic firms can ignore environmental and labor norms, have a complete monopoly of majority company ownership of companies and subsidies operating in their borders, and can sell products at below market prices (via dumping) must come to an end. If some short term pain is needed to get those results so be it.


And that sort of angle would be a good argument to bring as leverage to any trade dispute ( and it was one the US brought to the WTO as a condition of China's membership that resulting in the prying open of China's markets to begin with ). But that would require a President that was not economically illiterate backed up by an actual team of the Best People(tm) to handle the nuances and complexities. Instead, what we have is a President whose "negotiating" style is essentially "I'm going to take a shit on your lawn. What are you going to do to convince me to stop?" without realizing he's squatting in a public park he has to use to.

That sort of simplistic bully tactic might work when you're trying to push around low rung real estate agents in NYC but it sure as fark isn't going to work in international trade. If the economy is disrupted between major markets we *all* suffer the consequences.



kevz_210 wrote:As for the TPP, it gave way too much power to multinational corporations. I am sorry, but a company is not and should never be equivalent to a nation-station. Their corporate boards are not elected officials and the idea that they can have stack courts to sue national governments with policies that vaguely affect their profits is complete crap.


No, they shouldn't. But by walking away from the table the US gave up any say or control over that problem and ceded it to China as the dominant power. As well as giving up what would have been an economically beneficial position in one of the most potent emerging markets on the planet. The US took it's ball and went home expecting the other kids to come to it's door and beg it to come back. But the other kid's are shrugging and playing something else that doesn't require the US's ball in the first place.

The US backing out of TPP didn't stop TPP or make TPP go away. All it did was let another country take the helm with worse ideals than the US. That doesn't help anyone you're professing to be concerned about.




Fair points, however one of the major criticisms of going through the WTO's dispute mechanisms is that it takes years and by then the jobs are already lost, millions are already raked in, the status quo isn't exactly working all that well, it's simply too damn slow.

In regards to the TPP ideally the thing should have been renegotiated, or a new agreement that was more inclusive of other stakeholders such as labor should have been brought to the table and the process should have open transparency. After all, if a trade deal is truly beneficial to all there should be no reason to be secretive about it, at least in the later stages. I still don't understand why everyone acted like the thing could not be drastically modified. Sure some governments would have to vote on it and sign it again big deal, but taking the additional time to propose something that would have been more universally supported would have made a heck of a lot more sense than rushing through that mess that many opposed which ultimately led to its death. We can't blame it solely on Trump, the Democratic base wanted nothing of it either, heck Clinton started giving mixed messages out of fear of losing votes in the General Election.

Yes, that really only leaves China to push a similar agreement. The EU is too fractured at the moment to agree on much of anything, and other countries' markets are too small to make a trade zone that would be noticeable. This so called TPP-13 won't matter much, really Japan and the US wanted access to each other's markets and to block China and with one of those 2 countries out of the agreement I expect it will go unnoticed. I still believe that no deal was a far better option than passing TPP in its then form, but I do agree that they should have gone back to the negotiation table even if it took quite a few years to fix it or scrap it and start over.
runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/11/18 , edited 3/12/18

kevz_210 wrote:
Fair points, however one of the major criticisms of going through the WTO's dispute mechanisms is that it takes years and by then the jobs are already lost, millions are already raked in, the status quo isn't exactly working all that well, it's simply too damn slow.


That could be said of basically every complex bureaucratic system on the planet, unfortunately. I don't think there's anyway to rush issues with such potential far reaching economic impacts.

Though again, as a niggling point, most of the jobs Trump is professing have been lost have not been lost due to foreign interference but to technology and market shifts. You can produce more steel now with fewer people than you could in the hey day these people are nostalgic for. Steel jobs have dropped almost 60% over the past couple decades while steel production has actually increased. The industry, and many like it that people are still clinging to, simply does not need as many people as it use to and nothing will change that.

It's unfortunate that it continues to be used as a political prop by American politicians but until Trump no one accidentally drank their own Koolaid then got near the levers of power.




kevz_210 wrote:In regards to the TPP ideally the thing should have been renegotiated, or a new agreement that was more inclusive of other stakeholders such as labor should have been brought to the table and the process should have open transparency. After all, if a trade deal is truly beneficial to all there should be no reason to be secretive about it, at least in the later stages. I still don't understand why everyone acted like the thing could not be drastically modified. Sure some governments would have to vote on it and sign it again big deal, but taking the additional time to propose something that would have been more universally supported would have made a heck of a lot more sense than rushing through that mess that many opposed which ultimately led to its death. We can't blame it solely on Trump, the Democratic base wanted nothing of it either, heck Clinton started giving mixed messages out of fear of losing votes in the General Election.


We can blame it solely on Trump because, well, he's the President and much like the Paris Agreement he just walked away from the table with no knowledge of the agreement or the ramifications. Putting Clinton's pandering aside, TPP did have majority support among Democrats and Americans in general ( 60% ). I'm not sure using Clinton's changing sails is ever a good barometer for anything. >.>




37852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

runec wrote:

We can blame it solely on Trump because, well, he's the President and much like the Paris Agreement he just walked away from the table with no knowledge of the agreement or the ramifications. Putting Clinton's pandering aside, TPP did have majority support among Democrats and Americans in general ( 60% ). I'm not sure using Clinton's changing sails is ever a good barometer for anything. >.>


That's not really fair though. The Obama administration did a terrible job selling the TPP to the people. Most people knew nothing about what it would actually do. Consider this poll:https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/americans-say-tpp-who-228598

Seventy percent of those polled in a survey commissioned by POLITICO and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health said they hadn’t heard or read anything about the TPP, and among the 29 percent who had, views of the agreement were mainly negative: 63 percent of those respondents were against it, and 68 percent opposed a vote on its ratification in the lame-duck session of Congress.

Sanders was against it, and even Clinton was forced to publicly flip-flop against it. The TPP was dead in the water well before the primaries even ended. Clinton might have managed to delay it and pass it later when the heat died down I guess, but that's just speculation.
runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/14/18

kinga750 wrote:
That's not really fair though. The Obama administration did a terrible job selling the TPP to the people. Most people knew nothing about what it would actually do. Consider this poll:https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/americans-say-tpp-who-228598


It is fair though because again, Trump is the President and in the primaries it was Trump who shat all over quite literally everything the Obama administration did. Regardless of the facts of the matter. Trump doesn't understand TPP either and made no effort to learn. Ditto with the Iran deal, the Paris agreement, ACA and DACA. These things are not bad because of what they actually do or do not do, they are bad because Obama did them.

I would not blame any one President for the average America's intellectual disinterest though I do blame some Americans for electing someone that shares their intellectual disinterest. -.-

I mean, you have people who think ACA and Obamacare are different, who still believe Iraq and WMDS or even people who blame Obama for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. America's system of information ( news media ) is broken and it was broken at the behest of its greed and its politics.


35260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18

runec wrote:

It is fair though because again, Trump is the President and in the primaries it was Trump who shat all over quite literally everything the Obama administration did. Regardless of the facts of the matter. Trump doesn't understand TPP either and made no effort to learn. Ditto with the Iran deal, the Paris agreement, ACA and DACA. These things are not bad because of what they actually do or do not do, they are bad because Obama did them.

I would not blame any one President for the average America's intellectual disinterest though I do blame some Americans for electing someone that shares their intellectual disinterest. -.-

I mean, you have people who think ACA and Obamacare are different, who still believe Iraq and WMDS or even people who blame Obama for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. America's system of information ( news media ) is broken and it was broken at the behest of its greed and its politics.

Perfectly said.
56514 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/14/18
It will reduce the trade deficit which means that our country will receive fewer goods and services from other countries and will have to give more of our own goods and services to other countries. I like receiving goods and services, so I would prefer that the trade agreements remain as they are.
714 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / cave
Offline
Posted 3/14/18 , edited 3/14/18
yes china needs to pay up
3990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 3/14/18 , edited 3/14/18

May201m wrote:

yes china needs to pay up


it will hurt the United States more then it will hurt China though

Chinese exports to U.S. :$385,678 million

Chinese total exports :$2,097,637 million

Chinese imports :$1,587,921 million

If you subtract their exports to the US from their total exports you get: $1,711,959 million
this means that China is unstoppable because China will still be making an insane amount of money if exports to US stop.
also about 1/4 of all microchips made in US are sold in china, however they only make up about 4% of China's chip imports this means that if China blocks US made chips the US chip industry will be CRUSHED
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.