First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Should we implement the same trade restrictions on China that they put on US?
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 3/8/18 , edited 3/9/18
Elon musk has a pretty good point here. They can sell to us with very little tariffs but when we sell to them we get a huge tariff. Do you think we should have the same import dutys on China that they put on US goods?

It's pretty unfair to our companies to be giving China this huge advantage while they treat our goods like they are plague ridden, when they have far less lead than Chinese products.


4135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 3/8/18 , edited 3/8/18
no because even with all its problems, the Middle Kingdom is still better then the USA, and a more powerful Middle Kingdom can pressure the USA to improve its human rights record by honoring Indian Treaties.
Also Chinese manufacturing then can move to Indian reservations.
12416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/8/18 , edited 3/9/18

Koji_Protolight wrote:

no because even with all its problems, the Middle Kingdom is still better then the USA, and a more powerful Middle Kingdom can pressure the USA to improve its human rights record by honoring Indian Treaties.
Also Chinese manufacturing then can move to Indian reservations.


this is hilarious. It's like self-parody or something.
4135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 3/8/18 , edited 3/8/18

karatecowboy wrote:


Koji_Protolight wrote:

no because even with all its problems, the Middle Kingdom is still better then the USA, and a more powerful Middle Kingdom can pressure the USA to improve its human rights record by honoring Indian Treaties.
Also Chinese manufacturing then can move to Indian reservations.


this is hilarious. It's like self-parody or something.


actually their are already some Native American Tribes that have manufactured armour weapons and tools for the U.S. Army and one Individual is involved with autopart manufacturing
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rush-group-and-faurecia-announce-joint-automotive-manufacturing-venture-in-detroit-149978445.html
http://www.choctawdefense.com/
http://www.siouxmanufacturing.com/


EDIT: adding Native American manufacturing cheap solar arrays at about only 20% the cost of normal solar arrays while heating an entire home during the winter
https://psmag.com/environment/bringing-solar-power-to-the-native-people
77 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Why you wanna know?
Offline
Posted 3/8/18 , edited 3/8/18
I don’t think so, let the two big countries decide. It just depends on what it is and what’s its worth to the two countries. By the way, I don’t mean to sound rude, but I swear China has more human rights violations than the America does.
runec 
41934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 3/8/18 , edited 3/12/18

Koji_Protolight wrote:

no because even with all its problems, the Middle Kingdom is still better then the USA, and a more powerful Middle Kingdom can pressure the USA to improve its human rights record by honoring Indian Treaties.
Also Chinese manufacturing then can move to Indian reservations.


Humms 
14297 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 3/9/18 , edited 3/9/18
You upset China watch what happens

Elon musk can fuck off. What does he have to even worry about

How many times did America and Canada basically get China to run companies for them? How many times did America and Canada fuck their own people over just to save money?

Too many!

So Elon musk can stop talking. The millions he has, and still not good enough. Makes me sick
6095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 3/9/18 , edited 3/9/18
I don't believe it should be so large that countries stop doing trades with the states, but it should be presentable enough that it still encourages trades and doing international businesses and so forth. it's unfair yes, but that's how countries are. a country doesn't have to trade, it chooses to. another country can boycott another, and come to agreements, blah blah. but, as long as a country doesn't agree with what another country is doing, then there's really nothing one can do about it. and giving one country a slide and charging another one more, is unfair, but, as far as I know isn't against some international law or something. at least, I'm too tired to look that one up at the moment.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 3/9/18 , edited 3/10/18

niotabunny wrote:

I don't believe it should be so large that countries stop doing trades with the states, but it should be presentable enough that it still encourages trades and doing international businesses and so forth. it's unfair yes, but that's how countries are. a country doesn't have to trade, it chooses to. another country can boycott another, and come to agreements, blah blah. but, as long as a country doesn't agree with what another country is doing, then there's really nothing one can do about it. and giving one country a slide and charging another one more, is unfair, but, as far as I know isn't against some international law or something. at least, I'm too tired to look that one up at the moment.


The big point here is they have a high tariff on us. Should we match that tariff right back to the country that implements it on us? So China has a 25% tariff should we set ours to 25% towards China?
4135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 3/9/18 , edited 3/10/18

Rujikin wrote:


niotabunny wrote:

I don't believe it should be so large that countries stop doing trades with the states, but it should be presentable enough that it still encourages trades and doing international businesses and so forth. it's unfair yes, but that's how countries are. a country doesn't have to trade, it chooses to. another country can boycott another, and come to agreements, blah blah. but, as long as a country doesn't agree with what another country is doing, then there's really nothing one can do about it. and giving one country a slide and charging another one more, is unfair, but, as far as I know isn't against some international law or something. at least, I'm too tired to look that one up at the moment.


The big point here is they have a high tariff on us. Should we match that tariff right back to the country that implements it on us? So China has a 25% tariff should we set ours to 25% towards China?


the Great Middle Kingdom will only retaliate and make it worse for united states companies to operate in the world's largest kuruma (car) market
Posted 3/9/18 , edited 3/10/18
No. Two wrongs don't make a right.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 3/9/18 , edited 3/10/18

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.
Posted 3/10/18 , edited 3/10/18

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.


Being a selfish tightwad is wrong, watch "A Christmas Carol" and learn why. So if guy down the street was flashing himself at your family, doesn't mean you should his, or whatever. You may feel the need for retribution in kind, or just to set an example, but in this case are you going to punish Xi Jinping or those under him , and look at it this way... China is overcrowded, you'd be helping Xi by harming peasantry. Because the state cap elite of China doesn't get hit. In this case swallowing pride and turning the other cheek would be leading by example.

Being a selfish tightwad is wrong, the bigger the scale, the greater the consequence, what goes around comes around

so we have all of this "Billionaire guilt" in america, the need for them to say, "look at the millions I gave to such and such" to make living with their gilded luxuries more inwardly bearable and get some sleep at night ( when charity is a cheap way to be forgiven for keeping on generations of inequality, where Kardashians are born in wealth without earning a penny "oh my daddums made my keep so )

When Economics is starvation and a rich man's gambling game It is all wrong, here or not or later, esp when we dont know who is paying
qwueri 
25790 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 3/10/18 , edited 3/10/18
Treating trade deficits as a zero-sum game...

24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 3/10/18 , edited 3/10/18

Democraticsocialist09 wrote:


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.


Being a selfish tightwad is wrong, watch "A Christmas Carol" and learn why. So if guy down the street was flashing himself at your family, doesn't mean you should his, or whatever. You may feel the need for retribution in kind, or just to set an example, but in this case are you going to punish Xi Jinping or those under him , and look at it this way... China is overcrowded, you'd be helping Xi by harming peasantry. Because the state cap elite of China doesn't get hit. In this case swallowing pride and turning the other cheek would be leading by example.

Being a selfish tightwad is wrong, the bigger the scale, the greater the consequence, what goes around comes around

so we have all of this "Billionaire guilt" in america, the need for them to say, "look at the millions I gave to such and such" to make living with their gilded luxuries more inwardly bearable and get some sleep at night ( when charity is a cheap way to be forgiven for keeping on generations of inequality, where Kardashians are born in wealth without earning a penny "oh my daddums made my keep so )

When Economics is starvation and a rich man's gambling game It is all wrong, here or not or later, esp when we dont know who is paying




That time when a liberal uses a Christmas movie for the basis of their international trade policy.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.