Tariffs
- Thread starter grandhavendiddy
- Start date
Sure seems like things really took off around 2002.
Five charts that explain the US-China trade relationship
In 2024, Washington’s deficit with Beijing reached nearly $300 billion, highlighting a persistent imbalance and America’s reliance on key products from the Asian giant
english.elpais.com
Nothing in macroeconomics is single factor, but the US being open to getting fleeced by China in exchange for lower prices at Wal-Mart is a big factor in the US losing it's manufacturing base.
Now up 1,000 points, yesterday's losses erased. Notice which two posters haven't checked in.
Bessent made the point in his Tucker interview that the US had too many consumers and not enough manufacturing. And that China had more manufacturing that it needed and not enough consumers. He seemed to be suggesting that the ultimate trade deal with China would address both issues though I have no idea what that would look like.Sure seems like things really took off around 2002.
Five charts that explain the US-China trade relationship
In 2024, Washington’s deficit with Beijing reached nearly $300 billion, highlighting a persistent imbalance and America’s reliance on key products from the Asian giantenglish.elpais.com
Nothing in macroeconomics is single factor, but the US being open to getting fleeced by China in exchange for lower prices at Wal-Mart is a big factor in the US losing it's manufacturing base.
They didn’t care about lower prices at Walmart, that’s just the bait. What they cared about is higher corporate profits and stock prices.Sure seems like things really took off around 2002.
Five charts that explain the US-China trade relationship
In 2024, Washington’s deficit with Beijing reached nearly $300 billion, highlighting a persistent imbalance and America’s reliance on key products from the Asian giantenglish.elpais.com
Nothing in macroeconomics is single factor, but the US being open to getting fleeced by China in exchange for lower prices at Wal-Mart is a big factor in the US losing it's manufacturing base.
A trade war with China can't go on forever?
Whoa, I had no idea!
BTW this is the media spin. I was watching the CNBC article on today's stocks and they were updating the spin in real time.
When dow was up 600, they said it was cause of 'uncertainty' in market.
When dow was up 700, they said investors were worried about Trump's comments toward Powell.
When dow was up 800, they said Trump was ATTACKING Powell.
When dow was up 1,000, spin completely flipped to it was all due to Bessent. Trump's 'attacks' removed.
They went from Trump gets the BLAME for big stock rally, to now Bessent gets credit for it.
Not enough consumers? They have 2 billion people. They just don’t go into usurious debt to buy complete crap.
It’s been like a week and a half. Lol. What was my prediction? That we’d fold immediately and announce an unenforceable trade deal where they commit to buy however much annually? Just like they did in 2018 and just completely disregarded it?
Let’s watch!
It's all part of the same equation.
Cheaper products was just the hook for the people who cast votes.
The imbalance between manufacturing capacity and domestic consumers doesn't solely rely on how many consumers you have.
And household debt is about 60% of China's GDP, which the same as ours.
Closed door rumors from a liberal media source written with a vague headline (de-escalating an unsustainable situation doesn't directly say we're folding) with bad news about Orange Man Bad.
Where have we seen this before?
So to review:
When the market goes down, Trump did that.
When the market goes up, Trump caved.
That will continue until you get tired of having to say 'Trump caved' every day and the dow cracks 50k. And then you leave for another 2 years.
I was with you until the last graf.
You’re correct. The market was already at alltime highs when Trump announced the tariffs. Still at 43k on “Independence Day” or whatever.
Now it’s at 38k. This has been the worst market rundown in the first 6 months of a presidency since the Great Depression.
So question is: what did we buy with the $10 trillion that we just disappeared? We’ll see.
Does anyone familiar with “the Art of the Deal” know what chapter talks about admitting that your path is unsustainable and you’re desperate for a deal? Seems counterintuitive.
Smart people would invest now, and quit bitching. This is what many should be doing. I have not heard of any alternative to what we are trying to accomplish. If you disagree with tariffs....I want to know WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST we do then? Keep on doing what we are doing?
It'll interesting to think about.
I've been in business roles since 2002, and I've worked with all sorts of vendors and customers in many different countries.
One thing has held true throughout - if a business arrangement isn't mutually beneficial it typically doesn't last very long.
Nothing has disappeared until the losses are realized.
And nothing is going to make you look more like a pearl clutching TDS patient more than saying that.
His posts are very telling. The TDS is strong, and a 3rd grader could see it. And that is his right. Just be honest about it.
I'm in support of what Trump's trying to do but I have no freaking clue if he's going about it the right way, and neither does anyone else.
We are in full on uncharted territory here, but that's also true of our trade imbalances, loss of self-sufficiency and debt load.
So crazy situations perhaps call for crazy solutions. But acting like you can draw any conclusions is biased and partisan.
What do you mean no alternatives? I said it. Go to the companies driving the offshoring, and which are under the tax and legal authority of the United States and tell them the party’s over. Take some of the trillions you made selling our jobs and plow it into infrastructure, training and domestic manufacturing.
We all realize the trade deficit with China is driven largely by American companies, correct?
Every IPhone sold in the US costs us about $400 in trade deficit. Is that China’s fault or Apple’s?
Oh yeah, and as another alternative I said that if you’re trying to construct a global trade alliance to counter China, maybe don’t spend the prior 2 months alienating the leadership of most of the countries you’re looking to deal with.
So there are two pretty solid alternatives in my opinion.
Do you seriously think that manufacturing work is still desired in America?Sure seems like things really took off around 2002.
Five charts that explain the US-China trade relationship
In 2024, Washington’s deficit with Beijing reached nearly $300 billion, highlighting a persistent imbalance and America’s reliance on key products from the Asian giantenglish.elpais.com
Nothing in macroeconomics is single factor, but the US being open to getting fleeced by China in exchange for lower prices at Wal-Mart is a big factor in the US losing it's manufacturing base.
It's in the Introduction, right after he explains what an 'unrealized loss' is.
The funniest part is just when bradley proves that he doesn't even understand basic economic terms like 'unrealized loss', it's at that moment that @kalimgoodman shows up and decides 'Hey this @bradleygator guy is making good sense here!"
Look past your nose.
Why is China so much cheaper than the US? The raw materials cost the same. Energy usage is similar.
China used Capitalism against us. Once US companies figured out offshoring lowered both fixed and variable cost, but didn’t drive prices down at the same rate they chased higher profits and manufacturing capabilities dried up.
China artificially subsidizes input and production costs, and manipulates its currency to create advantages. Much easier to do under Communism.
How would you suggest the US level that playing field?
Exactly.
Our gov’t took the easy path.
Now the guy who’s trying to fix it is the antichrist.
People manufacture over there because it makes economic sense right? So make it not make economic sense. Tax the companies. Tell them you get the legal protection and security of the United States and you’re going to pay for it. Make them pay for US labor.
It doesn’t matter now because Trump just completely folded. As I said earlier, back to the status quo but now you guys will be high fiving over it because it’s stamped Trump approved.
What you’re describing is a tariff. There’s no way to force them to pay US labor without leveling the playing field.
So what’s the new tariff on China?
LMAO!
Stock market update: Dow up 1,000 points today, futures up over 400 points in after hours trading. @G8trDad3 currently shopping for his retirement yacht.
Trump caved!
You don’t tariff companies. You tax them. You say if you’re going to make billions paying $10/day for labor and then sell in our market, you’re going to pay for it.
if he had done it my way, he wouldn’t have got chewed up and spit out by Xi in a week.
He did cave. Thats why the markets are back up because he’s announcing he’s backing off this silliness.
What happened to the long hard slog and Wall Street was going to suffer but it would be better for Main Street? They got that all worked out in a week?
Like I said, back to the status quo but now you love it.
LOLOLOL So let me get this straght...you know more than the multi billionaire?? LOLOLOL I will bet a dime against a dollar you do not. And the other guy laid this plan out before the election, and got 77 million votes, and crushed a former powerhouse party to almost non existence. What have you accomplished in comparison? Maybe if that is equal, we run you in 28? Lets hear it!
I dunno what's funnier, that bradley doesn't realize he's describing a tariff, or that he's saying Trump should be doing HIS idea....not the tariffs LOL
Stock futures up 750. @G8trDad3 will be able to afford a fleet of retirement yachts if we have a few more days like yesterday.
A tariff is exactly that - it's an artificial method of increasing the cost to access a market. I'm not sure you understand how tariffs actually work.
The manufacturer, broker, distributor and retailer all take a hit because the tariff blocks (or increases the cost to access the market). The consumer does too, to a lesser extent. As the costs increase and the sell price can't keep up due to elasticity of demand, efficient supply chains look for better options. Moving manufacturing to a lower tariffed country, changing sourcing or supply chain strategies, etc, are all on the table. But it takes time for these changes to happen.
The only way the US can tax a foreign company is if they have significant interests or operations in the US. But taxes are almost always passed on because they only apply to the finished good that's already stateside (not the entire supply chain), so if you really want to hose the consumer, hit Apple with a 125% tax. That would have a terrible impact on the economy. AND - you have to do it by company or category.
To make it as simple as possible:
Taxes apply to finished goods, so there's only one person to pay that price, the consumer. Apple is not going to reduce their MSRP due to a tax.
Tariffs block the access to a market, and therefore hit all levels of the supply chain, reducing the impact to the consumer but increasing incentives for companies to find alternative strategies.
I have worked in Product Management for two companies over the last 23 years - one imported 95% of what they sold and one is a domestic manufacturer that imports 30% of product sold.
Similar threads
