UN China and US fight with tariffs as they go into effect today

  • 🚨 Networking issue that cannot be addressed until later today.
https://archive.fo/Lmbwz

As the day dawned across the U.S. on Friday, a new economic reality dawned with it: The tariffs long threatened against billions of dollars in Chinese goods took effect just at midnight ET while many Americans were sleeping — but Beijing was ready immediately with a wake-up call of its own.

The new trade regulations imposed by the Trump administration, which levy a 25 percent tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports to the U.S., have "violated [World Trade Organization] rules and launched the largest trade war in economic history to date," China's Ministry of Commerce declared in a statement Friday.

Chinese authorities quickly retaliated with equivalent tariffs on $34 billion worth of imported U.S. goods — previously promised as ranging from vehicles to soybeans, beef and other agricultural products.

The rapid tit for tat follows weeks of anxious anticipation over the "trade remedies" President Trump vowed last month to implement. At the time he announced the tariffs, back in mid-June, Trump said the current U.S.-China economic relationship had grown to be "no longer sustainable."

"Trade between our nations," he explained, "has been very unfair, for a very long time."

And he has promised that Friday's package of economic penalties will not be the last. On Thursday aboard Air Force One, the president vowed to implement tariffs on an additional $16 billion worth of imported Chinese goods within the month.

China, for its part, has promised at each step of the way to retaliate in kind. "China is forced to strike back to safeguard core national interests and the interests of its people," its commerce ministry declared.

The two countries have engaged increasingly in verbal sparring in recent months, but Friday's pair of haymakers has dramatically escalated the trade dispute — and that has investors across the world worries about what comes next.

"What we can expect is disruption in supply chains. We can expect job losses and a decline in investor and consumer confidence," longtime Beijing-based attorney James Zimmerman tells NPR's Rob Schmitz. "And that's going to impact the stock market. And the impact on U.S. business, in my estimation, will be substantial."

Substantial they may be, but the average U.S. consumer will likely not see these impacts directly for a little while. Mary Lovely, economics professor at Syracuse University, says that roughly 60 percent of U.S.-China trade involves parts and supplies, rather than final goods — so the most immediate effect will be felt by the companies making the products, not the consumers finding them on store shelves.

But eventually those costs will take their toll on the average wallet, and it likely won't be simply because of these tariffs. Jeremy Haft, author of Unmade in China, tells NPR's Noel King that Beijing has a number of arrows in its economic quiver and that it is "already using these weapons."

"China can make it much more difficult to operate on the mainland," Haft says. "For example, they can quarantine [U.S.] products for a long time. They can make products difficult to clear customs."

He explains that he has already seen the effects in the pork industry.

"Normally, if your papers are in order, the pork proceeds smoothly through customs and into the country," he says. "But what's happened increasingly, is suddenly it became much, much more difficult for pork to clear customs and that becomes very expensive — especially with a perishable product, which can spoil in the port if its not kept in the right refrigeration condition."

The White House, however, has cast its volley of tariffs as a long overdue move to rectify a longstanding imbalance in trade between the countries — particularly, as Trump has said, in China's "unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology."

But China is not the only country to find itself in Washington's crosshairs lately when it comes to trade.

The Trump administration engaged in a similar tit for tat last month with the European Union, Mexico and Canada.

In the weeks since the U.S. leveled tariffs on steel and aluminum — which the EU called illegal — Mexico retaliated with levies of 15 percent to 25 percent on U.S. agricultural products; Canada imposed tariffs on nearly $13 billion of U.S. goods; and the EU hit back with its own 25 percent tariff on distinctively American products ranging from bourbon to Harley-Davidson motorcycles.

Just days after the EU retaliation, Harley-Davidson said it plans to move its production of the motorcycles it sells in Europe overseas. The company said in a Securities and Exchange commission filing that the tariffs "would have an immediate and lasting detrimental impact to its business in the region."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has come out against the Trump administration's trade policy, published a state-by-state analysis of what it says the effects of that policy will be. The organization says some states — such as Alabama, Texas and Wisconsin, where Harley-Davidson is based — are likely to see upward of $1 billion in state exports threatened by a trade war with multiple fronts.

Still, the Trump administration sees the negative impacts as short-term "hiccups" on the path to more permanent solutions.

"The president is trying to fix long-term problems that should have been dealt with long time ago [and] weren't," Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said earlier this week, "and there obviously is going to be some pulling and tugging as we try to deal with very serious problems."
 
Supply and demand are laws much like gravity, you can play with it create ways it's effected differently but they exisit and are real. Things will adjust and adapt. This isn't the end of the world people.

t. - econ dork.

Guess we'll have to build/grow shit ourselves again. You know? Like we used to do BEFORE we shipped it all to them for the cheap labor and zero-fucks pollution laws that makes their air chewable on bad days? I fail to see the problem if this means it's now cheaper to do it at home.

Weather the initial downturn and long term this could be great for the American worker.

I
 
Guess we'll have to build/grow shit ourselves again. You know? Like we used to do BEFORE we shipped it all to them for the cheap labor and zero-fucks pollution laws that makes their air chewable on bad days? I fail to see the problem if this means it's now cheaper to do it at home.

Weather the initial downturn and long term this could be great for the American worker.

This is what I was most excited for when Trump claimed presidency and I'm really eager to see this succeed. I'm pretty excited it's really happening.
 
The entire post world war 2 global economic order was designed so America could bribe different countries to not go commie. This proved very beneficial to all involved, except of course America. Our economic interests in the trading scheme were secondary to the political concerns. US companies however discovered that the third world was great for cheap labor and over the last 40 years the US increasingly became an import economy while the things we exported were essentially food and services.

This is not a necessary state of affairs however. The size of the US economy means it can function much like China's in the 16th century. Largely self sufficient with minimal outside involvement. The US will face little long term consequences for closing its economy, at least on the economic front. Politically this will be bad as the European Union and China, whose economic models are dependent on easy access to America are going to get hammered hard which will in turn lead to political consequences.
 
The entire post world war 2 global economic order was designed so America could bribe different countries to not go commie. This proved very beneficial to all involved, except of course America. Our economic interests in the trading scheme were secondary to the political concerns. US companies however discovered that the third world was great for cheap labor and over the last 40 years the US increasingly became an import economy while the things we exported were essentially food and services.

This is not a necessary state of affairs however. The size of the US economy means it can function much like China's in the 16th century. Largely self sufficient with minimal outside involvement. The US will face little long term consequences for closing its economy, at least on the economic front. Politically this will be bad as the European Union and China, whose economic models are dependent on easy access to America are going to get hammered hard which will in turn lead to political consequences.
There's a reason why markets are globally intertwined and why that even was the case during the height of the cold war. If closing down one's own market was such a great idea, they wouldn't be open in the first place. In case of domestic production, yeah that would create more jobs, but that can take quite some time and needs a shitton of investment that some companies might not just be willing to do for a closed market. Meanwhile, no matter what happens, products will become more expensive or the quality will drop.

In a trade war such as this, neither side wins and it's all about making the other side suffer, hoping that they'll get buttfucked harder than oneself and eventually stop whatever it is that annoys you (in that regard, it's a lot like a "hot" war, where you waste resources and manpower to destroy the other side's infrastructure).

Then there's the political side of things. Engaging in a trade war with China is a rather bad idea, but it's outright ridiculous with the EU - the US' closest ally. While the trade war might just be a short lived economical issue, the political problems and trust issues that come from this could have lasting effects to the US' detriment.
 
Then there's the political side of things. Engaging in a trade war with China is a rather bad idea, but it's outright ridiculous with the EU - the US' closest ally. While the trade war might just be a short lived economical issue, the political problems and trust issues that come from this could have lasting effects to the US' detriment.

I honestly think Trump does not see the EU as an ally. He views them as an adversary or a potential one. He views the world in terms of transactional arrangements, and from that lens the EU has been getting a good deal from the US for decades, but has not reciprocated transactionally. They have politically and diplomatically, but Trump does not care to understand those things. Made all the worse over how his political enemies jizz themselves over Merkel. Apparently the Trump/Merkel relationship is very bad. Since Trump also values interpersonal relationships highly I think the EU and Merkel are interchangeable terms in his head.
 
I honestly think Trump does not see the EU as an ally. He views them as an adversary or a potential one.
That's what confuses me. Economically, the EU is a huge competitor for the USA, since the combined GDP of the EU is pretty damn close to that of the USA and the EU has a lot of cultural and economical links spread out over the globe - but they are tightly linked to the US and willfully so. So you'd think the US should do their best to keep the links to the EU as tight as possible...
Otherwise, they could become pesky, but what would keep the EU in check is the US retaining the military upper hand in Europe.

Yet Trump insists that the NATO-nations should make true on their promise to spend 2% of their GDP on their military to allow the USA to save money or use their troops differently. But that directly results in a less firm grip on the EU. The EU had been dependend on US projection of force to counteract the USSR, but without them and a huge army of their own, they can just slowly decide to slip out from the US' fingers.
If that (ever) happened, they would be free to follow up on their own agendas more freely.

It used to be that smaller countries in Europe were eager to be part of the US sphere of influence, Realpolitik demanded as much, on the other hand the US used a tremendeous amount of their resources (both strategic and economic) to stay on top of these nations. The smaller nations give up part of their independence in exchange for protection. The larger nation gives up part of their overwhelming riches in order to get more power (which gives them access to more resources, more markets, more stability, etc.) Yeah, it's expensive for the larger nation, but it's not like they don't get anything in return.

Trump wants to retain this top position, but without paying the price that this would come with.
He's criticizing NATO for taking advantage of the US when it's in fact the US' biggest asset in terms of exerting global power.
Saving money is one thing, but the way I see it, this directly puts into question what merit the EU has from cozying up with the US.

He views the world in terms of transactional arrangements, and from that lens the EU has been getting a good deal from the US for decades, but has not reciprocated transactionally. They have politically and diplomatically, but Trump does not care to understand those things.
The EU is really eager to support the US wherever they can (at least they had been in the past). Be it the absolutely ridiculous attack against the Iraq, sanctions against a shitton of nations or even just bending over and letting US secret services have their way with EU citizens.
If Trump doesn't see (and value) that... well, it's up to him, but I doubt that strengthens the US' position in the EU in the long run, even after Trump leaves office. Especially his fickleness when it comes to international treaties is dangerous. Sure, they can reinstated by the next President as quickly as they have been abondoned... but what trust can anyone have in such treaties if the guy after that can just go "lolno" and shitcan them again within weeks of becoming president?

But this is sort of getting off topic...

China is currently hiding its claws, but they are driven by a weird mix of a massive inferiority complex and megalomania - just like Japan in the Meiji period.
And China has been willing to play the long game for the better part of the past century.
Pissing off China and the EU could backfire like crazy is all I'm saying.

What I would like to know is how well positioned China would be to flood the international market with cheap dollars and use their hold on US debts. I feel they could fuck with the US quite terribly, but not without losing much in the process themselves.
As they say, there's no winner in a trade war, but such a scenario looks like it would fuck over pretty much everyone.
 
The entire post world war 2 global economic order was designed so America could bribe different countries to not go commie. This proved very beneficial to all involved, except of course America. Our economic interests in the trading scheme were secondary to the political concerns. US companies however discovered that the third world was great for cheap labor and over the last 40 years the US increasingly became an import economy while the things we exported were essentially food and services.

This is not a necessary state of affairs however. The size of the US economy means it can function much like China's in the 16th century. Largely self sufficient with minimal outside involvement. The US will face little long term consequences for closing its economy, at least on the economic front. Politically this will be bad as the European Union and China, whose economic models are dependent on easy access to America are going to get hammered hard which will in turn lead to political consequences.

That's pretty optimistic considering American debt is basically financed by the rest of the world. It's self destructive but China has the ability to take the US down with it if they were to ubwind their treasury position and stop buying, especially now with trumps tax cuts and proposed increase in spending.

Another thing people don't realize is that while the US is probably on the "losing" end of these trade deals, it's in the countries ultimate favor because they get global influence. Heck, the US basically cemented itself as a world influence by giving free money to Europe and South America. America slowing trade means China gets pushed closer to Russia and deepens economic ties with South America and the rest of the world. Damaged EU relations means that the next time the country decides to do something like invade Iraq, it'll have less global support. That's gonna screw us over in the long run.
 
The US debt thing is a bit of a meme. While the world does hold alot of it, the vast majority of US debt is owned by US Banks, citizens and the Federal reserve. As a medium of exchange, US treasury notes are also stable and better even then gold. It was never Americas plan for so many countries to want our debt, it just happened that way. Trying to weaponize them would hurt the users more then America.
 
Idk, do people who voted for Trump really care about holding influence over other nations? What has it brought them? All this talk sounds globalist, and isn't that what the US as a whole voted against?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Fool
Back