# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Boom. You can't out tariff us. Period. This Trump knows.

## phill4paul

You sell to us five to one. This is a WAR they will not win. They know they can't. But, they had to try. Now it is a matter of allowing them to "save face" and renegotiate.




> Trump targets $200B more Chinese goods for tariffs
> 
> The Trump administration escalated a mounting trade war with China on Tuesday by publishing a list of $200 billion worth of Chinese goods that it proposes to hit with an additional 10 percent tariff.
> 
> Rather than address our legitimate concerns, China has begun to retaliate against U.S. products," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement. "There is no justification for such action."


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...tariffs-708707

----------


## oyarde

China does not make anything I want .

----------


## Danke

> China does not make anything I want .


https://www.knifecountryusa.com/stor...od-handle.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

> https://www.knifecountryusa.com/stor...od-handle.html


He can probably make his own.

----------


## Danke

> He can probably make his own.



I think he just "picks" them up from rightful owners.

----------


## oyarde

> https://www.knifecountryusa.com/stor...od-handle.html


Uh , yeah , I will pass on the imitation fur embellished handle . I bet that thing does not even have a hand drilled ( flint drill ) hole so you can smoke out of it .

----------


## oyarde

> I think he just "picks" them up from rightful owners.


I have a couple of those but they ( the departed ) were no longer using them .

----------


## Danke

> I have a couple of those but they ( the departed ) were no longer using them .



Civilized people wait for the estate sale.

----------


## TheTexan

Trade war?  Bring it on

----------


## fedupinmo

> China does not make anything I want .






I already have their shotguns.

----------


## EBounding

Trump imposes tariffs.  China can't retaliate because it doesn't import as much stuff which hurts the industries there.  China surrenders at some point, removes all trade barriers and Trump does the same.  Is that what's supposed to happen eventually?

----------


## devil21

> They don't have enough GOLD and their economy is put together with spit and bailing wire, bad as our economy is theirs is much worse due to communist central planning and rampant corruption.


They don't have enough gold for what?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> They don't have enough gold for what?


To back their currency or save them from collapse.

----------


## devil21

> To back their currency or save them from collapse.


If you truly think that the _amount_ of gold is what matters then you should definitely spend more time reading economic articles and less time posting Trump articles.

Theoretically, any amount of gold can be used as a gold backing.  It is the currency that is revalued to gold, not the amount of gold revalued to the currency.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Maybe spend less time posting Trump junk and spend more time reading economic articles.


Maybe you should do more research on how bad China's economy is instead of just hating America first and cheering for America's enemies.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If you truly think that the _amount_ of gold is what matters then you should definitely spend more time reading economic articles and less time posting Trump articles.
> 
> Theoretically, any amount of gold can be used as a gold backing.  It is the currency that is revalued to gold, not the amount of gold revalued to the currency.


Gold is not magic, the amount very much matters, I can't start a new currency backed by my mother's wedding ring.

----------


## devil21

> Maybe you should do more research on how bad China's economy is instead of just hating America first and cheering for America's enemies.


LOL@hating America.  The last refuge of a failed argument.  

I work with Chinese suppliers through alibaba.  Have you even spoken to an actual Chinese person in real life?




> Gold is not magic, the amount very much matters, I can't start a new currency backed by my mother's wedding ring.


Theoretically you could.  It would be one hella valuable ring but it is possible.  But regarding the amounts, China (and Russia) ban practically all gold exports and have been amassing tonnage off the books for years.  20,000 tons seems to be the general consensus by those that are very in tune with PM markets.  They've surely bought a lot of gold with the trillions of dollars they've received from us over the years and they don't export practically any of the gold they've mined.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL@hating America.  The last refuge of a failed argument.  
> 
> I work with Chinese suppliers through alibaba.  Have you even spoken to an actual Chinese person in real life?


That fallacy isn't worth a rebuttal.

----------


## devil21

> That fallacy isn't worth a rebuttal.


Didn't think so.  You let the media form your perception of the rest of the world and what their conditions are.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Didn't think so.  You let the media form your perception of the rest of the world and what their conditions are.


Actually it is the MSM that would have us believe that China's economy is strong.
Your perceptions are apparently formed on personal relationships and wishful thinking.

----------


## devil21

> Actually it is the MSM that would have us believe that China's economy is strong.
> Your perceptions are apparently formed on personal relationships and wishful thinking.


Yeah, personal relationships.  You know, that lame "on the ground' stuff.  Maybe I should let the 5 major media companies (and getting fewer by the day) form my perceptions and opinions instead.  Perhaps then I shall be as enlightened as you.

eta:  Btw, if you admit that the media lies, why post so much of their drivel?

----------


## H_H

> I think China would be better off not "trading" with us at all.


That is why China did not put you in charge of long term planning.

----------


## EBounding

Best case scenario is that China "surrenders", removes all it's trade barriers, and the US does the same. The costs from the tariffs get recouped in the long run through "free and fair" trade.

I think it's fantasy though.  I think the most likely scenario is both sides keep their tariffs, at least until Trump is no longer president.  Either way, consumers end up worse off in both countries.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I mean we no longer have the capacity to make the things we need for ourselves and are therefore susceptible to blackmail.
> It is the same situation the government creates in welfare communities, if you need them to supply your needs they get to dictate how you live.


And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the essence of the neocon central-planning argument.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yeah, YOU just want to be the one directing where the wealth should go.  You are much more benevolent than they!


Nope, I want to level the playing field and let the market take care of the details, I would shift the government to tariffs to support the vastly reduced spending I would implement and that would take care of any little bit of protection necessary for strategic industries.





> Da fuq???  We have a myriad of regulations and barriers in place that _prevent_ efficiency!  Hell, we've both given Trump credit in other threads about reducing some of those.  But now you want to increase barriers because the world is too efficient?!  Are you a moron or just confused?


And all the manufacturing is being shifted to China where they don't have many regulations and we import their "efficient" production, we can retain much of the efficiency and regain stability by cutting regulations and defending ourselves in the trade war.




> So, your plan to "correct" it is to use more government controls?!  Are you even reading your posts??


No, my plan is to defend ourselves in the trade war they are waging against us and then negotiate reduced government interference while reducing government controls at home.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the essence of the neocon central-planning argument.


The central planning neocons are the ones who want the power to dictate how we live by reducing us to dependence.

----------


## CaptUSA

> The central planning neocons are the ones who want the power to dictate how we live by reducing us to dependence.


Yes.  How dare they allow us to purchase cheaper goods!  The scoundrels.

(By the way, neocons are not about free trade - they are VERY protectionist in nature.  In fact, they like to escalate trade wars into real wars.  I believe a wise man once said, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers will."  Maybe you want to consider which side you're supporting??)

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes.  How dare they allow us to purchase cheaper goods!  The scoundrels.


They subsidize foreign production while suppressing ours to enrich themselves and gain power over us, that is behavior I would expect from scoundrels.




> (By the way, neocons are not about free trade - they are VERY protectionist in nature.  In fact, they like to escalate trade wars into real wars.  I believe a wise man once said, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers will."  Maybe you want to consider which side you're supporting??)


Excuse me but you seem to be ignoring who has been creating all of the "free trade" deals that have resulted in unfree and unfair trade.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The US doesn't manufacture anything anymore. (adjusted for inflation)

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The US doesn't manufacture anything anymore.


Manipulated numbers, even if they were real it ignores which things we make and which we don't, we have been losing important industries entirely.

----------


## TheCount

> They subsidize foreign production


Not taxing is now subsidizing.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Not taxing is now subsidizing.


No, they actually subsidize foreign production.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> No, they actually *subsidize foreign production*.


They pay foreign countries to produce goods?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> They pay foreign countries to produce goods?


Yes, we subsidize many foreign countries in many ways, NATO for instance.

----------


## TheCount

> No, they actually subsidize foreign production.


By not taxing it.

----------


## timosman

> By not taxing it.


I guess you don't like competing with people who can live on 1/10 of what you are making?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> By not taxing it.

----------


## TheCount

> 


You're going to have to be a big boy and use your words if you want people to understand what you're trying to say.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You're going to have to be a big boy and use your words if you want people to understand what you're trying to say.


When you say something worthy of a verbal response you might get one.

----------


## devil21

> Yeah, YOU just want to be the one directing where the wealth should go.  You are much more benevolent than they!


The irony is that there is no wealth.  There are those on both sides that extract the labor of the slaves and transmute it into real assets.  That is the wealth you refer to.  Everything else is illusion of wealth.  Chinese people are no less brainwashed than American counterparts.

(eta:  the true wealth is knowing that there is no wealth.  ponder that $#@! for a moment.  wealth is a fleeting projection of enhanced freedom during a very short lfespan.)

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The irony is that there is no wealth.  There are those on both sides that extract the labor of the slaves and transmute it into real assets.  That is the wealth you refer to.  Everything else is illusion of wealth.  Chinese people are no less brainwashed than American counterparts.
> 
> (eta:  the true wealth is knowing that there is no wealth.  ponder that $#@! for a moment.  wealth is a fleeting projection of enhanced freedom during a very short lfespan.)


What do you consider "wealth"?

----------


## devil21

> What do you consider "wealth"?


Knowledge.

And then there's this:

----------


## TheCount

> When you say something worthy of a verbal response you might get one.


You just won't answer because doing so would expose your _actual_ political beliefs.  Which is, apparently, that _allowing_ Americans to purchase foreign products is a treasonous subsidy of foreign production.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You just won't answer because doing so would expose your _actual_ political beliefs.  Which is, apparently, that _allowing_ Americans to purchase foreign products is a treasonous subsidy of foreign production.


I already did answer and you missed it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> You just won't answer because doing so would expose your _actual_ political beliefs.



You don't answer much of anything at all about your political beliefs.  Care to share your presidential voting choices the past three elections?  Who were your South Carolina voting choices for senate and governor?

----------


## nbhadja

> Yes.  How dare they allow us to purchase cheaper goods!  The scoundrels.
> 
> (By the way, neocons are not about free trade - they are VERY protectionist in nature.  In fact, they like to escalate trade wars into real wars.  I believe a wise man once said, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers will."  Maybe you want to consider which side you're supporting??)


The neo-cons are globalists hell bent on destroying America. They are the opposite of protectionists. Most of them strongly oppose Trump's economic agenda on trades. Most of them want to continue the massive trade imbalance we have with the world and they support the "free trade" deals like NAFTA.

----------


## Madison320

> I guess you don't like competing with people who can live on 1/10 of what you are making?


What if instead of doubling down on socialism we try capitalism? Maybe then we can compete.

----------


## AuH20

We need 'protectionism' until we can remedy the Federal Reserve. Funny money has distorted the entire economic landscape.

----------


## CaptUSA

> We need 'protectionism' until we can remedy the Federal Reserve. Funny money has distorted the entire economic landscape.


Ah yes, the "we need MOAR government until we get less government" philosophy...

We need to end the drug war, but until then we need walls, violations of liberty, and bigger prisons.
We need to wind down our foreign entanglements, but until then we need more military spending.
We need fewer regulations, but until then we need tougher regulations on industries we don't like.

I'm wondering at which point we get enough government to actually reduce government?

----------


## shakey1



----------


## Madison320

> We need 'protectionism' until we can remedy the Federal Reserve. Funny money has distorted the entire economic landscape.


The problem is that Trump is getting an "F" in that department. Remember that he nominated dovish Jerome Powell as chairman. Not to mention the fact that Trump is pushing for more spending and signed a huge spending increase.

----------


## Ender

> Ah yes, the "we need MOAR government until we get less government" philosophy...
> 
> We need to end the drug war, but until then we need walls, violations of liberty, and bigger prisons.
> We need to wind down our foreign entanglements, but until then we need more military spending.
> We need fewer regulations, but until then we need tougher regulations on industries we don't like.
> 
> I'm wondering at which point we get enough government to actually reduce government?


Pretty much what I've been asking for years.

----------


## EBounding

> The problem is that Trump is getting an "F" in that department. Remember that he nominated dovish Jerome Powell as chairman. Not to mention the fact that Trump is pushing for more spending and signed a huge spending increase.


Sounds like you need to #TrustThePlan.

----------


## Swordsmyth

We need to reduce government at home and use defensive tariffs to negotiate fair trade with low tariffs and barriers.

----------


## FvS

The question is, does China want these tariffs to exist?  I think we can  safely say no.  In my opinion, a trade war is like chemotherapy.  It is  a way to try and kill a cancer, but you have to hurt yourself in the  process.  So, if China is doing things the U.S. government is not in  favor of, this could be a way to alter their policy or at least add a  potential bargaining chip.  For libertarians, questions abound.  Why  should we care what China is doing as long as they aren't attacking the  U.S.?  What of North Korea and the South China Sea?  If China's  Keynesian monstrosity of an economy came crashing down, is this  desirable?  Many may starve.  If they were forced to adopt some sort of  gold standard, would this be a good thing?  It would add constraints to  their government's spending.  How long would they stay on it before  starting all over again?

If the whole thing is to just bring back  select manufacturing jobs, it is important to remember that those jobs  would likely only be possible if many other industries are made to  suffer.

----------


## TheCount

> If the whole thing is to just bring back  select manufacturing jobs, it is important to remember that those jobs  would likely only be possible if many other industries are made to  suffer.


To the administration, that's a feature, not a bug.

----------


## Swordsmyth

President  Donald Trump has indicated that he’s willing to hit every product  imported from China with tariffs, sending U.S. markets sliding before  the opening bell Friday.
In  a taped interview with the business channel CNBC, Trump said “I’m  willing to go to 500,” referring roughly to the $505.5 billion in goods  imported last year from China.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/president...142646224.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

Confirming the President's concerns, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven* Mnuchin issued a warning to China over the recent weakness of its yuan currency on Friday*, telling Reuters  that the Treasury is *closely monitoring the yuan for signs of manipulation*.

  in an interview in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Mnuchin said:
 *“There’s no question that the weakening of the currency creates an unfair advantage for them*," adding that *"we’re going to very carefully review whether they have manipulated the currency."*While we have been hammering on the weakness in global FX (Yuan and  Euro specifically) for weeks, this is a story that’s been under the  radar but suddenly blew up in the last 24 hours.

  It is key because, if Trump puts a 25% tariff on Chinese imports but  China then devalues its currency 25%, then the net effect is zero. *The impact of the devaluation offsets the impact of the tariff and then you’re back where you started.*

*This new currency war seems to be happening.*
  Now that Trump is focused on this, he’s likely to be infuriated and  retaliate against China in the currency war and take steps to penalize  China for currency manipulation over and above the existing tariffs and  penalties for theft of intellectual property.
*The crucial reason why this is important is because a critical date looms ahead of the midterms.*
_As James Rickards recently warned_, *this has a hard date of Oct. 15, 2018.*
  That’s the date of the U.S. Treasury’s semiannual report on  Macroeconomic and Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of  the United States.
*That report is the formal mechanism for labeling a trading  partner such as China a “currency manipulator” with severe  consequences.* Oct. 15, 2018, is just three weeks before the  midterm elections, so it could be a highly popular political move in  addition to being economically important.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...rumps-concerns

----------


## devil21

All scripted to remove global FRN standard^^^

----------


## Zippyjuan

If the US economy grows, then other countries want to invest in it- financially as well as investing in businesses.  That means a higher demand for dollars which raises the value of the dollar relative to  other currencies.  That in turn makes our exports to other countries more expensive and our imports from them cheaper.  That means higher trade deficit and a weaker yuan. Even if a country like China does nothing.

If you have the strongest economy in the world, you will have the highest priced currency.

----------


## Swordsmyth

The CEO of toymaker Hasbro said during a  post-earnings conference call  Monday that the company will move more production outside of China as a  result of potential tariffs.

According to the company’s website, most of its third-party vendors and  factories are located in China, but Hasbro said it started expanding  production outside of China and will “continue to diversify our  third-party factory base globally.”

More at: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...due-to-tariffs

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The CEO of toymaker Hasbro said during a  post-earnings conference call  Monday that the company will move more production outside of China as a  result of potential tariffs.
> 
> According to the company’s website, most of its third-party vendors and  factories are located in China, but Hasbro said it started expanding  production outside of China and will “continue to diversify our  third-party factory base globally.”
> 
> More at: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...due-to-tariffs


But not to the US. Won't be saving or adding USA jobs.  List of Third Party manufacturers and their locations: https://csr.hasbro.com/downloads/Hasbro_factories.pdf

----------


## Swordsmyth

> But not to the US. Won't be saving or adding USA jobs.  List of Third Party manufacturers and their locations: https://csr.hasbro.com/downloads/Hasbro_factories.pdf


Trump will get around to other countries soon enough.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> But not to the US. Won't be saving or adding USA jobs.  List of Third Party manufacturers and their locations: https://csr.hasbro.com/downloads/Hasbro_factories.pdf


Cartamundi
Cartamundi Dallas, Inc.
5101 Highland Place Dr., Dallas, TX 
75236
United States

Cartamundi
Cartamundi East Longmeadow 
LLC
443 Shaker Rd, East Longmeadow, 
MA 01028
United States

PBM Graphics, Inc.
PBM Graphics, Inc. (Durham)
3700 S. Miami Blvd., Durham, NC 
27703
United States

PBM Graphics, Inc.
PBM Graphcis, Inc. (Howard)
604 W Highway 34, Howard, SD 
57349
United States

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Cartamundi
> Cartamundi Dallas, Inc.
> 5101 Highland Place Dr., Dallas, TX 
> 75236
> United States
> 
> Cartamundi
> Cartamundi East Longmeadow 
> LLC
> ...


Congratulations. Four out of eighty companies.  Cartamundi is a Belgian based company with 2,200 employees spread out over eleven factories (about 200 each) in the world. They mainly produce playing cards and have 92 employees in Texas. http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Car...c-214-330-7761

PBM Graphics has 60 employees. https://www.owler.com/company/pbmgraphics

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Congratulations. Four out of eighty companies.  Cartamundi is a Belgian based company with 2,200 employees spread out over eleven factories (about 200 each) in the world. They mainly produce playing cards. 
> 
> PBM Graphics has 60 employees. https://www.owler.com/company/pbmgraphics


It will change to a higher number.
If it doesn't other companies will take the opportunity.
Or maybe the other countries will agree to play fair and it won't change but other industries will grow as they gain equal access to foreign markets.

----------


## phill4paul

> If the US economy grows, then other countries want to invest in it- financially as well as investing in businesses.  That means a higher demand for dollars which raises the value of the dollar relative to  other currencies.  That in turn makes our exports to other countries more expensive and our imports from them cheaper.  That means higher trade deficit and a weaker yuan. Even if a country like China does nothing.
> 
> If you have the strongest economy in the world, you will have the highest priced currency.


   Other companies investing in U.S. corporations is a security threat. Dollar demand does not raise value. Only allows the Fed/Reserve to weaken it yet again. Quit listening to your global economic analcysts.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *Other companies investing in U.S. corporations is a security threat*. Dollar demand does not raise value. Only allows the Fed/Reserve to weaken it yet again. Quit listening to your global economic analcysts.


So if Sony wants to make a TV plant in Chicago, that is a danger to the US?   How dare they employ Americans! Maybe it would be better if they made TVs in China and sent them to us.  




> Dollar demand does not raise value.


It changes the value relative to other currencies.  If Chinese want to buy things from us, they convert their own currency to dollars so they have the proper currency to use.  The more they want to exchange, the more it increases the demand for dollars and increases the price of dollars in yuan (basic supply/ demand stuff). 

 If we buy stuff from them, then we trade our dollars for yuan and it moves the other way.  If dollars are expensive in terms of yuan, that means that US goods will cost them more (of their money) to buy.  Higher prices- they will buy less.  But that makes Chinese goods cheaper for us to spend dollars on so we buy more Chinese goods.   That adds to the trade deficit- they buying more of our stuff and we buy less of theirs.  Thus a strong dollar can increase our trade deficit.

----------


## EBounding



----------


## CaptUSA

> It could have a huge effect on US farmers.


Here ya go, Zip.  It's a freebie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Here ya go, Zip.  It's a freebie.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good


So the US should buy more Pepsi instead of Coke?  What sort of "substitution' are you suggesting?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Does this also apply to all of the tariffs that the US enacts?


It depends on the products targeted.
Not all products are so interchangeable.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It could have a huge effect on US farmers. If China buys less, who will buy more from us to make up the difference?   China buys more than a third of US soybeans.  But maybe the Netherlands will buy more? 
> 
> Soybean export destinations, bushels  week ended April 13USDA
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-soybean-tariff/


The same people who would have bought the soybeans China bought instead of ours.

----------


## phill4paul

Idea: Let the Fed/Gov buy the soy and give a bushel to each welfare program recipient instead of debit cards. Win/win.

----------


## H_H

> Does this also apply to all of the tariffs that the US enacts?


Of course not. Pop quiz, Wonka: what _does_ this reasoning apply to?  Any guesses?

----------


## H_H

> It will so have a huge effect on US farmers.  Lookie this pie. Colors! Lookie these words I paste.


See, this is the problem with conversing with midwits, people with IQs of 105-120 who are smart enough to see pretty clearly they are more sophisticated than many simpleminded conservatives, but not quite smart enough to take it to the next level. To ever truly understand a subject. Or even a message board post!  Nor do they have any interest in doing so. Nor, in truth, do they have any reason to. No incentive. So I can't really blame them.

Well, I can. I do. But I can also understand them. Far better than they understand themselves, at that. 

Here Juan-o swoops in and makes a post and he really thinks it is decisive. Truly. He thinks "well this post is absolutely devastating; look at all the Solid, Irrefutable, Numeric evidence and also Respectable and Acceptable sources that all points to the same conclusion I make. I'm right.   No question."  And he thinks that any honest reader should be able to see that and change his opinion accordingly.

Meanwhile he actually has understood precisely zero of my post. He has addressed precisely zero. He's just on a totally different level.

This is why so many people get frustrated with Juan and his fellow garbage-libs. It's annoying. For me, at first he was interestingly novel, and then irritating for a short time, and now just boring. You see it in this very post: I always have to go up (or down) a metalevel or just completely change the subject in order to have any hope of making a halfway interesting reply. No-effort-investment midwits are just boring.

Booooorring

----------


## CaptUSA

> So the US should buy more Pepsi instead of Coke?  What sort of "substitution' are you suggesting?


I was giving you free ammo for your argument. When the costs of one product go up or the availability goes down, people will find substitute goods.

----------


## TheCount

> Of course not. Pop quiz, Wonka: what _does_ this reasoning apply to?  Any guesses?


Arbitrary cases based on political convenience.

----------


## Madison320

> Well then, if it's lots, you should be able to point some out rather easily.


I've done that many times. 

Second try:

Prove me wrong by answering these simple questions:

Are you against the minimum wage.

Are you against anti-trust laws

Are you against discrimination laws.

Are you against progressive taxation (not taxation in general but the fact that it's progressive)?

Are you in favor of a gold standard?

----------


## Ender

Completely agree with DiLorenzo on this:




> *Fake Populism*
> By Thomas DiLorenzo
> 
> July 26, 2018
> 
> President Trump is known as a populist president who was elected by appealing to the forgotten man (and woman)  the hard-working, taxed-to-death middle class people whose interests are usually diametrically opposed to the political elites of both parties.  The label of populism seems especially appropriate with regard to his foreign policy of pursuing peace with Russia and North Korea, judging by the vicious and apoplectic reaction to it by the deep state elite, some of whom have called for the presidents execution for treason.  You know an American president is doing the right thing when he is so viciously attacked by the James Gang  Clapper and Comey.
> 
> But the lynchpin of President Trumps economic policy  protectionist tariffs on steel, aluminum, solar panels (Huh?), and washing machines, among other things, is quintessentially non-populist.  It is the exact opposite of populism, as protectionism always is and always has been, because it benefits a few politically well connected corporations and their employees and shareholders by plundering the masses with government-mandated price increases.  The lack of competition caused by protection also usually leads to lower-quality products.
> More than 60 percent of the average automobile consists of steel and aluminum.  Consequently, the presidents tariffs on steel and aluminum will increase American car prices, rendering American automakers less competitive in international competition.  There will be a decline of American jobs, profits, and shareholder wealth.  The same is true of all other products made of steel and aluminum.  Its hard to imagine any economic policy that is more anti-populist than that.
> ...

----------


## TheCount

> I've done that many times.


Still no links.




> Second try:
> 
> Prove me wrong by answering these simple questions:
> 
> Are you against the minimum wage.
> 
> Are you against anti-trust laws
> 
> Are you against discrimination laws.
> ...


When I see inquisition lists of questions like this, it just reminds me of the dozens of times that i attempted to talk to other autists, only to discover that felt they had determined my political opinions based on my lack of purity on some other, completely unrelated issue, and that any answers that I gave were deemed insufficient and/or false.  Are you asking because you care, and the answers could actually change your mind, or because you're hoping that, when confronted by direct questions, the magic power of vbulletin will force me to tell some dark truth that I don't want to reveal?

----------


## EBounding

Could it actually work?

U.S., Europeans Agree to Iron Out Trade Differences
Trump, Juncker agree to hold off on further tariffs as they work to reduce trade barriers

----------


## timosman

> It's a hypothetical scenario but a scenario the media could run with if instructed to.  
> 
> It's rumored that, in reality, the Chinese have put their Treasury holdings up as collateral for cash loans and have no intention of paying the loans back.  That would explain why the yuan is being devalued and dollar demand has been rising and Chinese have quietly been buying up everything in the US that's not nailed down.  Instead, the banks that made the loans will quietly take the collateral Treasuries and send them back to the Fed via reverse repo operations.  Financial engineering at its finest.


How did they get the cash loans?

----------


## timosman

> How did they get the cash loans?


They sold them on the junk market. 10c/dollar.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> OK, I'm game.  Explain to me how/why the amount of gold matters in order to peg a currency to gold.


Because if you have not enough gold you will either have a currency with very little value or you will run out of gold when people redeem your currency.

----------


## devil21

> How did they get the cash loans?


Treasuries are acceptable collateral in the Federal Reserve System.




> Because if you have not enough gold you will either have a currency with very little value or you will run out of gold when people redeem your currency.


That supposes that people are legally allowed to redeem the currency for gold, instead of it being a centrally controlled gold peg, and also that no further gold can be obtained even if they are allowed to redeem.  In a communist country like China, redemption by the people would be either flatly banned or highly discouraged.  China also does not export practically any gold they mine so a continual supply is guaranteed.

More to my point, the currency value can be revalued to reflect the amount of gold that it is pegged to.  As I explained before in this thread, the amount of outstanding currency is valued based on the amount of gold, instead of valuing the amount of gold to the value of the currency.

(eta:  China is basically going to start where the US was back when the Fed was created.  The cycles are repeated over and over.  We had a gold standard in 1913, then gold was banned from possession by the people in 1933, then eventually foreign redemptions were cut off in 1971.  China is in 1913 of the same cycle, approximately.)

----------


## thoughtomator

> The fact this argument is hardly even made here in the tariff discussion really says something.


Ever hear the phrase "if you owe the bank a thousand dollars and can't pay it back, you have a problem; if you owe the bank a million dollars and can't pay it back, the bank has a problem"? This is that writ large. The Treasury situation puts both players in a prisoners' dilemma.

----------


## timosman

> Because if you have not enough gold you will either have a currency with very little value or you will run out of gold when people redeem your currency.


That's ok, only the local currency needs to be covered. Imagine the price of gold.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That's ok, only the local currency needs to be covered. Imagine the price of gold.


If foreigners can't redeem their currency for gold then nobody will want it.

----------


## timosman

> If foreigners can't redeem their currency for gold then nobody will want it.


They will be able to. They will have to only adjust their currency against other, non gold backed currencies.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That supposes that people are legally allowed to redeem the currency for gold, instead of it being a centrally controlled gold peg,


If you can't redeem it then it isn't gold backed and nobody will want it.




> and also that no further gold can be obtained even if they are allowed to redeem.  In a communist country like China, redemption would be either flatly banned or highly discouraged.  China also does not export practically any gold they mine so a continual supply is guaranteed.


A continual supply at what rate? If the redemptions outpace the new supply you will run out. 




> More to my point, the currency value can be revalued to reflect the amount of gold that it is pegged to.  As I explained before in this thread, the currency is valued based on the amount of gold, instead of valuing the amount of gold to the amount of outstanding currency.


If you don't have enough gold then as I said you will have a very low valued currency.

China can't just wave its magic wand and say "The yuan is worth X gold, trust us".

----------


## Swordsmyth

> They will be able to. They will have to only adjust their currency against other, non gold backed currencies.


Tell me more. 

You will still end up either running out of gold or with a very low value currency if you don't have enough gold.

----------


## timosman

> Tell me more. 
> 
> You will still end up either running out of gold or with a very low value currency if you don't have enough gold.


How do you know they don't have enough?

----------


## devil21

> If you can't redeem it then it isn't gold backed and nobody will want it.


See my "eta" in my previous post.  China is at the beginning of a gold standard cycle, not much different than the USA was in 1913.  I doubt the Chinese people will be able to redeem but foreigners will be able to through the SGE.




> A continual supply at what rate? If the redemptions outpace the new supply you will run out.


Eventually, perhaps, just like it did here in 1971.  It was a long time before that happened here.  Plus, China's official gold holding figures are bs.




> If you don't have enough gold then as I said you will have a very low valued currency.


What is "enough"?  Enough for who?




> China can't just wave its magic wand and say "The yuan is worth X gold, trust us".


Of course they can.  We did it, why can't they?  And you're still looking at it wrong.  It's "gold is worth X yuan", not "the yuan is worth X gold."

----------


## timosman

Will they be opening sweat shops in USA?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> How do you know they don't have enough?


I've read estimates.

Like every other country they have printed way too much money without the gold to back it, they have also spent way too much money on US Treasuries and not enough on gold

----------


## Swordsmyth

> See my "eta" in my previous post.  China is at the beginning of a gold standard cycle, not much different than the USA was in 1913.  I doubt the Chinese people will be able to redeem but foreigners will be able to through the SGE.


If foreigners can redeem it then they need to have enough or they will run out, Nixon closed the gold window because of that problem.






> Eventually, perhaps, just like it did here in 1971.  It was a long time before that happened here.  Plus, China's official gold holding figures are bs.


Which are they more likely to do? Inflate their gold holding figures or Deflate them?
They have printed too much currency and they don't have the gold to cover it.






> What is "enough"?  Enough for who?


Enough to back the currency at a rate that is significant, nobody will care if they back the Yuan with one molecule of gold.






> Of course they can.  We did it, why can't they?


Because people have to have a reason to believe them and want their currency before they will use it.




> And you're still looking at it wrong. It's "gold is worth X yuan", not "the yuan is worth X gold."


If Y gold is worth X Yuan then X Yuan is worth Y gold, it doesn't make any difference which way you state it.

----------


## devil21

> If foreigners can redeem it then they need to have enough or they will run out, Nixon closed the gold window because of that problem.


Yeah, like 60 years later!




> Which are they more likely to do? Inflate their gold holding figures or Deflate them?


Deflate.  No question.




> They have printed too much currency and they don't have the gold to cover it.


Are you trying to be obtuse???  THE YUAN/RMB CAN BE REVALUED TO COVER WHATEVER AMOUNT OF GOLD THEY POSSESS.  
_"Oops, we printed waaaay too much and our current 8,300 CNY/XAU price is way too low for gold backing.  Gold is now CNY16,000 per ounce to fix our error."_
Same as how FDR revalued the dollar to $35/oz after the 1933 confiscation.  In reality, he devalued the dollar, he did not change the value of gold.  He changed the value of the currency.  Get it yet???  




> Enough to back the currency at a rate that is significant, nobody will care if they back the Yuan with one molecule of gold.


Not worth bothering with.




> Because people have to have a reason to believe them and want their currency before they will use it.


It's a bit late to worry about that.  I hate Wiki but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...f_the_renminbi




> If Y gold is worth X Yuan then X Yuan is worth Y gold, it doesn't make any difference which way you state it.


If you're economically ignorant you might think there is no difference.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yeah, like 60 years later!


We had a better gold/currency ratio to start and we had a better economy than they do.






> Deflate.  No question.


I doubt that.






> Are you trying to be obtuse???  THE YUAN/RMB CAN BE REVALUED TO COVER WHATEVER AMOUNT OF GOLD THEY POSSESS.  
> _"Oops, we printed waaaay too much and our current 8,300 CNY/XAU price is way too low for gold backing.  Gold is now CNY16,000 per ounce to fix our error."_
> Same as how FDR revalued the dollar to $35/oz after the 1933 confiscation.  In reality, he devalued the dollar, he did not change the value of gold.  He changed the value of the currency.  Get it yet???


The amount of gold still matters, nobody will want a currency valued at too little gold or one that is constantly revalued.






> Not worth bothering with.


It's only the gaping hole in your theory.






> It's a bit late to worry about that.  I hate Wiki but:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...f_the_renminbi


People only want it when they need it to buy things from China, they don't want it as an asset, they will want it less when China's economy crashes.





> If you're economically ignorant you might think there is no difference.


There is no difference.

Enjoy your fantasies while you can, China's house of cards will come tumbling down soon enough.

----------


## devil21

Last post.  It's like arguing with Zippy but less informed.




> We had a better gold/currency ratio to start and we had a better economy than they do.


You are basing that on what, exactly?




> I doubt that.


You must not have read The Art of War.  Make the enemy think you are weak when you are strong.  They wrote the book, literally, on this stuff.




> The amount of gold still matters, nobody will want a currency valued at too little gold or one that is constantly revalued.


Constantly revalued?  One major currency revaluation is all we're talking about here.  If you believe the Chinese are telling the truth about their gold holdings then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.  Why you would believe their official figures escapes me, however.




> It's only the gaping hole in your theory.


No, it's because your statement was ridiculous and not worth bothering with.  Yes, China really will enact a gold yuan based on a molecule of gold...




> People only want it when they need it to buy things from China, they don't want it as an asset, they will want it less when China's economy crashes.


You're avoiding my statement.




> There is no difference.


The difference is that gold never changes value.  It is the constant.  Only currencies change the price of the valuable constant.




> Enjoy your fantasies while you can, China's house of cards will come tumbling down soon enough.


I'm sure you and the media will be here to shape the narrative for us, with Trump leading the charge on his white stallion.

----------


## timosman

The possibility of a Chinese coup should not be underestimated given the levels of stupidity displayed by the previous administration. Hillary probably also worked for them. Chinagate anyone?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You are basing that on what, exactly?


The shocking levels of waste and corruption in their economy and the fact that they are starting with an over printed fiat system and relatively little gold.





> You must not have read The Art of War.  Make the enemy think you are weak when you are strong.  They wrote the book, literally, on this stuff.


You must not have read the whole thing, it also says to make the enemy think you are strong when you are weak, they do a lot of that.






> Constantly revalued?  One major currency revaluation is all we're talking about here.


I gave two options, if they start the valuation too high they will have revalue it as their reserves are tapped to try to delay the day it runs out.




> If you believe the Chinese are telling the truth about their gold holdings then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.  Why you would believe their official figures escapes me, however.


I believe they are overstating their holdings.






> No, it's because your statement was ridiculous and not worth bothering with.  Yes, China really will enact a gold yuan based on a molecule of gold...


The molecule was an extreme example, the amount of gold very much matters.






> You're avoiding my statement.


What statement? You linked to a Wikipedia article.






> The difference is that gold never changes value.  It is the constant.  Only currencies change the price of the valuable constant.


All value in life is relative, the universe doesn't have a universal value point system, how many Yuan you can get in exchange for an ounce of gold will vary based on the amount of gold in circulation, the amount of Yuan in circulation, the demand for gold and the demand for Yuan unless the Yuan is fully backed by a specific amount of gold, if it is fully backed then X Yuan becomes the same as Y gold and Y gold becomes the same as X Yuan, in any case at any given time there is no difference between saying how many Yuan an ounce of gold is worth and saying how much gold a single Yuan is worth, the ratio is the same either way.






> I'm sure you and the media will be here to shape the narrative for us, with Trump leading the charge on his white stallion.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The possibility of a Chinese coup should not be underestimated given the levels of stupidity displayed by the previous administration. Hillary probably also worked for them. Chinagate anyone?


Some have suggested that China is behind Russiagate, the last thing the Chinese want is for Russia to have a choice in who to be friends with, they want the west to drive Russia into their arms.

----------


## timosman

> Some have suggested that China is behind Russiagate, the last thing the Chinese want is for Russia to have a choice in who to be friends with, they want the west to drive Russia into their arms.


China Is at the Heart of Clinton's First Trip http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021401382.html




> February 15, 2009
> When Hillary Rodham Clinton was running for president last year, she raised eyebrows in foreign policy circles -- especially in Japan, the key U.S. ally in Asia -- when she declared in an article in Foreign Affairs that "our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century."
> 
> Now, as secretary of state, Clinton will be putting that bold pronouncement into action. She departs today for Asia on her maiden voyage as the nation's chief diplomat, and Tokyo snared the symbolically important first stop on four-nation tour. But Clinton and other Obama administration officials have made it clear that they want to move dramatically forward in relations with Beijing, finding new avenues for cooperation between the world's biggest economy and the world's fastest-growing economy, especially on climate change and the environment.
> 
> "Some believe that China on the rise is, by definition, an adversary," Clinton said in a speech Friday to the Asia Society in New York. "To the contrary, we believe that the United States and China can benefit from and contribute to each other's successes. It is in our interests to work harder to build on areas of common concern and shared opportunities."
> 
> In the eyes of many analysts, a better relationship with China is one of the few foreign policy success stories of the Bush administration. But Clinton and her aides have suggested that the overall relationship was hijacked by the Treasury Department, keeping it largely focused on economic policy. She has argued for what she calls a "comprehensive dialogue" and a "broader agenda," and aides said she will bring proposals to the Chinese leaders for regular discussions at very high levels of both governments.
> 
> ...

----------


## Madison320

> And you're still looking at it wrong.  It's "*gold is worth X yuan*", not "the *yuan is worth X gold*."


I don't get it. Gold has value, paper does not. You don't need to back gold with yuan, you need to back yuan with gold.

----------


## Madison320

> China doesn't have enough gold to back up such a strategy and their corrupt centrally planned economy wouldn't survive long enough to pull it off.


Maybe not yet but if they keep buying gold with their excess reserves they will.

And remember that in many ways China's economy is more free market than ours. For one thing corporate owners get to keep a larger share of their profits than US owners.

----------


## Madison320

> OK, I'm game.  Explain to me how/why the amount of gold matters in order to peg a currency to gold.


So according to your logic you can have a gold backed currency with no gold?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Get ready for the next round of "Tariff Wars".  They are Awesome! Could happen as soon as today. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...e-goods-2018-8




> *Trump could more than double his proposed tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods — and China is preparing to strike back against US 'blackmail'*
> 
> The Trump administration is said to be ready to raise its proposed tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods.
> 
> Trump has threatened 10% tariffs on those goods, but Bloomberg says he is expected to increase that to 25%.
> 
> The move is thought to be a negotiating tactic aimed at gaining important concessions from the Chinese government.
> 
> Beijing has reacted angrily to the reports, accusing Trump of "blackmail" and threatening retaliation.
> ...

----------


## devil21

> I don't get it. Gold has value, paper does not. You don't need to back gold with yuan, you need to back yuan with gold.


The amount of yuan (or dollars or rials or whatever) to purchase an oz of gold is what is changed via a revaluation of the currency.  You don't change the amount of gold to match the amount of currency.  It's the concept of how the price of gold is changed in a gold standard.  Read up on FDR's attempt to change the price of gold through open market operations.  Everything they did to change the price of gold via market operations (buying, selling) failed.  They eventually realized that the only way to change the dollar price of gold was to revalue the currency instead.  Then, the price of gold was successfully changed.

Swordsmyth keeps going on and on about "not enough gold".  Theoretically (the concept), the amount of gold over zero doesn't matter.  One ounce of gold could be a backing of a gold standard for a currency.  It would make an ounce of gold hellaciously expensive in that currency but it is theoretically possible.  Practically, of course, that is not viable but the concept is accurate.




> You must not have read the whole thing, it also says to make the enemy think you are strong when you are weak, they do a lot of that.


You're the one telling me that they are weak.  Not enough gold, bad economy, collapse, etc.  Clearly an image of weakness is being portrayed from China that you are regurgitating as fact.  Which scenario does that fit?  Appear strong when you are weak?  Or appear weak when you are strong?

Seriously that is my last post.  I'm fully understanding the first line of your sig now.

----------


## Madison320

> Swordsmyth keeps going on and on about "not enough gold".  Theoretically (the concept), the amount of gold over zero doesn't matter.  One ounce of gold could be a backing of a gold standard for a currency.  It would make an ounce of gold hellaciously expensive in that currency but it is theoretically possible.  Practically, of course, that is not viable but the concept is accurate.


I think the idea that "the amount of gold doesn't matter" is only true globally. For example there's a fairly constant relationship between the amount of gold it takes to buy things, like the old "ounce of gold for a good suit" story. You can trade an ounce of gold for about 17 barrels of oil and that's been fairly constant over time. But if the quantity of worldwide gold suddenly doubled, the relationship would also change proportionally. So gold would adjust according to the supply of gold worldwide and an ounce of gold would only buy 8.5 barrels of oil. But that's not going to work for one country. If China only has a gram of gold, the gold relationship is not going to adjust to where .0001 grams of gold buys a barrel of oil in China. It's still 1 ounce to 17 barrels. So if China only had 1 gram of gold to back it's currency it wouldn't work because the entire money supply would only be equal to the global purchasing power of a gram of gold.

That being said I think you're right that China is trying to create a gold backed currency. We know they've been buying gold and eventually they may get enough to create a currency to replace the dollar.

----------


## Zippyjuan



----------


## Swordsmyth

> You're the one telling me that they are weak.  Not enough gold, bad economy, collapse, etc.  Clearly an image of weakness is being portrayed from China that you are regurgitating as fact.  Which scenario does that fit?  Appear strong when you are weak?  Or appear weak when you are strong?


They attempt to portray strength, it is others who investigate beyond their propaganda that expose their weakness.






> Seriously that is my last post.  I'm fully understanding the first line of your sig now.


I'll stop annoying you now.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> China Is at the Heart of Clinton's First Trip http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021401382.html


I wonder if Theresa May has China connections.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> .  I used the plural because I don't know how many Bolton interns run your account.



That's the best you can do?  You get busted on your paid gig and then play Bart Simpson?  Worse yet, you point the finger??!!  No raise for you!

Pure comedy gold!!

----------


## Swordsmyth

US equity futures and offshore Yuan are getting a small bid  after-hours following reports confirming President Trump asking USTR  Lighthizer to prepare 25% tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods - but  (positively?) extending the comment deadline from late-August to Sept  5th.
*Full Statement:*
 U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer today released the  following statement regarding further action under Section 301 of the  Trade Act of 1974:
*“On June 18, the President directed me to identify $200  billion worth of Chinese goods for additional tariffs at a rate of 10  percent,* in response to China’s decision to cause further harm  to U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses by imposing retaliatory duties  on U.S. goods.  I initiated this process on July 10.
*“This week, the President has directed that I consider  increasing the proposed level of the additional duty from 10 percent to  25 percent.*  The 25 percent duty would be applied to the proposed list of products previously announced on July 10.
  “The Trump Administration continues to urge China to stop its unfair  practices, open its market, and engage in true market competition.  We  have been very clear about the specific changes China should undertake.   Regrettably, instead of changing its harmful behavior,* China has illegally retaliated against U.S. workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses.*
  “The increase in the possible rate of the additional duty is intended  to provide the Administration with additional options to encourage  China to change its harmful policies and behavior and adopt policies  that will lead to fairer markets and prosperity for all of our citizens.
*“The United States has joined forces with like-minded  partners around the world to address unfair trade practices such as  forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft, and we  remain ready to engage with China in negotiations that could resolve  these and other problems detailed in our Section 301 report.”*
  Interested parties may address this possible increase in the level of  the additional duty in their comments on the proposed action.  The  proposed list and process for the public notice and comment period is  set out in the Federal Register notice issued on July 10 and published  in the Federal Register on July 17.  To view the July 17 notice,  including the list of proposed products to be subject to additional  duties, click here.  *In light of the possible increase of the  additional duty rate to 25 percent, the close of the written comment  period is extended from August 30 to September 5, and the due date for  requests to appear at the public hearing is extended to August 13.*  These modifications to the comment period will be set out in a notice to be published shortly in the Federal Register.As a reminder, *the first wave of 25% tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese goods took effect last month*,  prompting immediate in-kind retaliation from China, and the next round  on $16 billion could be implemented by the U.S. in the coming days or  weeks.
  Then, as Bloomberg reports, *the administration last month released a list of thousands Chinese products it wants to slap with an additional 10% in tariffs,*  ranging from television components to handbags and seafood to baseball  gloves. The duties could take effect after the administration draws up  its revised, final list of imports following a public comment period.
_Hearings are scheduled for Aug. 20 to 23 and the comment period has been extended to Sept. 5 from late August, according to the administration officials._
  And that was enough to spark a relief rally of sorts...


  It seems everyone just missed the fact that the Trump administration just *confirmed that it is proposing raising planned taxes on $200 billion in Chinese imports to 25% from 10%* , turning up the pressure on Beijing in a trade war between the world's two biggest economies.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...-deadline-week

----------


## phill4paul

Lol. Time to hit them back. And Trump will. They will come to the table. 




> China is preparing to retaliate in the escalating trade war with tariffs on about $60 billion worth of U.S. goods.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/chin...illion-in.html

    Will feckless Americunts yell and scream for a cheap 52" T.V. lead to a U.S. tariff outcry from the House and recension before China gives in? Stay tuned.

----------


## Swordsmyth

It took little time for Trump's chief China trade war advisor Larry  Kudlow to respond to China's publication of its "retaliation list"  itemizing the $60 billion in US goods that will be subject to US  tariffs. Saying that the $60 billion trade response by China might be  weak, Kudlow warned that the US has more ammunition than China in a  trade fight, envisioning that the US imports more products from China  than vice versa. 
  Predictably, Kudlow focused on China's currency devaluation response  as the trade war recently shifted to currency war as Beijing hopes to  offset the impact of tariffs using a weaker currency.
  Speaking on Bloomberg TV, Kudlow correctly noted that the yuan has  fallen in part because China has "stopped defending the yuan. They think  it’s going to help offset the U.S. efforts to get rid of their unfair  trading." This changed on Friday evening  (Chinese  time) when the PBOC announced it would increase the reserve requirement  on FX forward, precipitating a short squeeze and sending the Yuan  sharply higher and the dollar sliding.

  Some speculated that the PBOC move was a form of soft capital  control, as the Yuan had fallen so much it had precipitated capital  flight, easily the weakest link in China's economy. Kudlow touched on  this, saying that "*some of the currency fall though I think is  just money leaving China because it’s a lousy investment, and if that  continues that will really damage the Chinese economy."*
  "*If money leaves China - and the currency could be a leading indicator - they’re going to be in a heap of trouble.* And  so I’m going to make the case that they are in a weak economic  position. That’s not a good place for them to be vis-a-vis the trade  negotiations," he told BBG TV's Jonathan Ferro.
  It is not clear if this means that Kudlow - and thus Trump - finally  understand that further tightening, and higher rates in the US, is a far  worse for the Chinese economy, especially since China is about to post  its first first half current account deficit on record which, without outside capital, it simply can't fund and the alternative would be economic contraction.


It does, however, explain why Wilbur Ross yesterday said that Trump  plans to pour more pain on China's economy: after all if the Trump  administration believes China is near a breaking point, it makes sense  to keep cranking up the pressure.
  Kudlow then made another accurate assessment of China's economic  situation saying that "it looks to me like the China economy is  declining in growth. It’s weakening almost across the board. And it  looks like the People’s Bank of China is trying to pump it up by adding  high-powered money and new credit."
  And the punchline: *"We’ve said many times: no tariffs, no  tariff barriers, no subsidies. We want to see trade reforms. China is  not delivering. Their economy’s weak, their currency is weak, people are  leaving the country."*
  As a reminder, this is precisely the prescription suggested by One River CIO Eric Peters, who last weekend laid out what is the best way to win trade war with China:
 *“The best way to bring Beijing to its knees is by running a tight monetary policy in the US,”* continued the same investor. “*China has the world’s most overleveraged, fragile financial system.”* In 2008, China’s total debt-to-GDP was 140%. It is now roughly 300%, while GDP is slowing. *“The economy is held together by capital controls. If those fail, the whole system fails.”* The  capital flight in 2015/16 cost the government $1trln in reserves, and  that was with ultra-dove Yellen in charge. Imagine what would have  happened with Volcker at the helm. *“The Chinese are dying to get their money out.”*
*“Engineering a decade of rolling Chinese financial crises would be the most effective foreign policy the US could run,”* continued  the same investor. Forget about the South China Sea, don’t bother with  more aircraft carriers, just let Beijing try to cope with their  financial system. *“And we’re 80% of the way there – we  instigated a trade war, implemented a massive fiscal stimulus, which  created the room to raise interest rates,”* he said. *“The  combined policy mix makes capital want to leave at the same time it  makes the dollar more attractive and effectively shuts down new  investment inflows to China.*”Kudlow's conclusion: China "better not underestimate President  Trump’s determination to follow through" on trade threats, and we are  confident that it is only a matter of time before Trump tweets his angry  response to China's latest retaliation to Trump's own Chinese tariffs,  pushing the tit-for-tat escalation further beyond a point of no return.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...-response-weak

----------


## timosman

How Chinas Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World - https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten....18.18-PDF.pdf

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...t-usa-v-china/




> Today, the White House Office of Trade & Manufacturing Policy (OTMP) released a report outlining how Chinas policies threaten the economic and national security of the United States.
> 
> OTMP studied how China seeks to capture, through its Made in China 2025 plan, the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth. China is targeting industries ranging from artificial intelligence, aerospace, and augmented and virtual reality to high-speed rail and shipping and new energy vehicles. Many of these Made in China 2025 industries have important defense applications.
> 
> 
> OTMP outlines how China aggressively seeks to acquire American technology and intellectual property through multiple vectors including: physical and cyber theft, forced technology transfers, evading United States export controls, export restraints on raw materials, and investments in more than 600 high-technology assets in the United States worth close to $20 billion.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Tariffs will make us rich!  "they will pay us vast sums of money in the form of Tariffs. We win either way"  Except we don't win- the costs of  tariffs are paid by US consumers and businesses, not foreign countries.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Bear in mind I skimmed some posts of this thread catching up (I've been on an "internet break" and doing some traveling with my family for several weeks), so if I say something that someone else already addressed pardon me.
> 
> The one thing that Trump has against him in this whole thing is when he returned from Beijing in May after they had put together a deal and had a "gentleman's handshake" sealing it, only to renege on it after some political pressure from the GOP. While it wasn't malicious or something akin to him lying to them, I saw a panel discussion (it's around 30 minutes, but I'll find it and link it if you care to see it) talking about this. One of the panel members was a guy named Victor Gao who has more titles than you'd believe. But to list a few, he's Chairman of China Energy Security Institute, VP for Center for China and Globalization, the director of the China National Association of International Studies, as well as an international relations analyst for the government. But he made a few comments that has me wondering if Trump can do what it will take to facilitate the talks. 
> 
> The thing he (Gao) kept going back to was Trump changing his mind on what they understood to be an agreed upon deal. Basically, they took it as an insult. And more than once he made the statement that if it meant both the Chinese and the US economies crashing then so be it. Actually, I'll go ahead and link the panel under this because it's interesting (and I'll admit kind of funny) watching him talk. Because the more he goes on the more pissed he gets. I mean he's talking about forcing American companies out of China (he lists Ford, GM and Apple by name) as well as blocking any and all American access to the Chinese market citing how they are on track to be the dominant global market in the next 10 to 15 years.  LOL....he's talking some real scorched earth stuff. 
> 
> That's why I'm curious if Trump will do the simple thing required to salve their butt hurt and simply apologize to President Xi. Because I'm concerned Trump would react to that with the obvious, "Apologize for what? Nothing was signed yet, we were in the middle of talks". And while he'd be right, that has nothing to do with those little bastards feeling insulted. If you've ever been to Asia you understand what I'm talking about. If you haven't....lol, ask someone you know who has. It's hard for westerners who've never been to an Asian nation to fully grasp, but insulting them (even done inadvertently) gets the same reaction from them that you'd experience if someone walked up and slapped your wife and spit in your child's face in front of you....haha.     
> 
> It's definitely interesting watching both China and the US move their pieces around the board. One of the things that is really giving Trump's tariffs some sting is the fact that production costs in China are probably higher than most people think due to the rise of China's middle class which is also causing a rise in salaries. China is working to counter this with investments in Africa. They're basically buying UN votes by investing in those nations (which I know that's the same thing the US does), but those investments give them a twofold return as they are using that African labor for a cheap resource much as we did to China. 
> ...


Trump keeps showing he can't be trusted.  He makes promises with countries and fails to follow through.  He breaks established agreements without any legitimate basis other than he "doesn't like it"-- everything was the "worst deal ever".  He imposes tariffs and then declares a "tariff truce" and then threatens to add even more tariffs. He makes a grand show of meeting with leaders, getting their pictures taken, and agreeing to absolutely nothing and declaring "huge progress".   Who would want to enter into a new agreement with somebody with a history of not keeping his word?

----------


## timosman

> Who would want to enter into a new agreement with somebody with a history of not keeping his word?


I think you might be one of the first in line.

----------


## EBounding

> Trump keeps showing he can't be trusted.  He makes promises with countries and fails to follow through.  He breaks established agreements without any legitimate basis other than he "doesn't like it"-- everything was the "worst deal ever".  He imposes tariffs and then declares a "tariff truce" and then threatens to add even more tariffs. He makes a grand show of meeting with leaders, getting their pictures taken, and agreeing to absolutely nothing and declaring "huge progress".   Who would want to enter into a new agreement with somebody with a history of not keeping his word?


The EU isn't going to roll back any tariffs now?

----------


## Swordsmyth

Walmart  Inc <WMT.N> has asked some beauty suppliers to consider sourcing  products from outside China, as it looks for ways to mitigate the impact  of a new set of tariffs on Chinese products proposed by the Trump  administration.In  an email sent to some beauty suppliers on Aug. 7, seen by Reuters, the  retailer asks if they have facilities outside China, and if not, whether  they would consider investing in them, to broaden their sourcing  ability.
Many cosmetics products like shampoos, lipsticks and makeup fall under the most recent list of proposed levies on Chinese goods.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walma...--finance.html

----------


## phill4paul

> Walmart  Inc <WMT.N> has asked some beauty suppliers to consider sourcing  products from outside China, as it looks for ways to mitigate the impact  of a new set of tariffs on Chinese products proposed by the Trump  administration.In  an email sent to some beauty suppliers on Aug. 7, seen by Reuters, the  retailer asks if they have facilities outside China, and if not, whether  they would consider investing in them, to broaden their sourcing  ability.
> Many cosmetics products like shampoos, lipsticks and makeup fall under the most recent list of proposed levies on Chinese goods.
> 
> More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walma...--finance.html


  Just more proof of Trumps War on Womenz!

----------


## Swordsmyth

Trump also said that his administration is currently examining how to  determine whether countries are manipulating their currencies, while  once again accusing China of trying to devalue its currency, and  studying whether to finally label China a currency manipulator.   "It is a formula," Trump told Bloomberg News in the Oval Office. “And we are looking very strongly at the formula.”
  Trump most recently accused China of manipulating its currency lower  during a Reuters interview last week, although that accusation conflicts  with the findings of his own administration: in the semi-annual report  on foreign-exchange policy, the Treasury Department stopped short of  naming China, the EU or any other country as a currency manipulator.
  However, Trump disagreed and said that China has devalued its currency in response to a recent slowdown in its economic growth.
  “They’re trying to make up for lack of business by cutting their  currency,” he said. “It’s no good. They can’t do that. That’s not, like,  playing on a level playing field.”

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...devaluing-yuan

----------


## axiomata

Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

I've been told here that Trump's tariff hardball was just a tactic to get other countries to lower their tariffs. He even offered an idea while in Europe to have both sides reduce their tariffs to zero. 

Trump got his win. Europe offered to get rid of all tarriffs on cars. Trump rejected it saying "it's not good enough".

----------


## Zippyjuan

Next round of tariffs on China could go into effect next week- September 6th.  25% on another $200 billion worth of goods.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...h-more-tariffs

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
> 
> I've been told here that Trump's tariff hardball was just a tactic to get other countries to lower their tariffs. He even offered an idea while in Europe to have both sides reduce their tariffs to zero. 
> 
> Trump got his win. Europe offered to get rid of all tarriffs on cars. Trump rejected it saying "it's not good enough".


It's not good enough, they know their people won't buy many American cars, they need to get rid of all tariffs and non-tariff barriers on anything, that is DJTvsg's goal.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Next round of tariffs on China could go into effect next week- September 6th.  25% on another $200 billion worth of goods.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...h-more-tariffs

----------


## TheCount

Now all that Trump needs to do is get the unfair dictionaries to redefine the words raise, lower, up, and down, and these negotiations will have been a success.

----------


## Zippyjuan

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...es/1055050002/

Government picking winners and losers in the economy instead of letting market sort it out. 




> If it weren’t enough that the Trump administration has slapped tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on imported aluminum, it has instituted a process by which companies that consume these products can apply for exclusions from these taxes.
> 
> In other words, the administration has imposed a new tax on imported metals and then put itself in a position to decide who has to pay it and who does not.
> 
> This is *Big Government at its worst — arbitrary and capricious, if not outright political, as it picks winners and losers in business. And all this is being done without any new law being passed and while a Republican Congress, which used to stand for free enterprise and limited government, remains supine.*
> 
> Not surprisingly, many of the 38,901 applications for relief that had been filed as of Monday made pleas designed to appeal to President Donald Trump’s political side.





> Overall, the Commerce Department has ruled on 3,461 requests, finding in the company’s favor in 2,072 instances.
> 
> *It is all but impossible to conceive of a system more antithetical to the principles of capitalism, or more antithetical to ideals laid out by President Ronald Reagan and other leading lights of the GOP.*
> 
> Apart from agriculture, which has long been highly subsidized and protected, the federal government has not interfered with commodity markets in such a dramatic way at least since World War II, when the military was given the bulk of limited resources such as petroleum and steel.
> 
> The Trump administration’s tariffs *are burdensome and punish the companies that use steel and aluminum to make cars, trucks, machine parts, building materials, industrial equipment and more.*
> 
> For proof of this, look no further than the tens of thousands of pleas for relief and the burgeoning bureaucracy to process them.

----------


## phill4paul

> Government picking winners and losers in the economy instead of letting market sort it out.


  Which market is that?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...es/1055050002/
> 
> Government picking winners and losers in the economy instead of letting market sort it out.


There is no free market in international trade, Trump is trying to negotiate one.

----------


## devil21

Oh FFS, just come out and tell the people that the dollar isn't the currency of the world anymore and we need to start focusing on rebuilding this thing.  This entire tariff charade is so tiring.  It is, however, amazing to watch people _cheer_ for their own reduced standard of living and higher prices for goods they need.

eta:  To be clear, I should add that they're cheering under completely false pretenses.  Totally being lied to about the causes and effects but obliviously still cheering along as they're promised higher costs for everything.  Ending Fed dominance is of course a good thing (though it won't matter since the replacement system is being sold and implemented by the same people) and some of the reforms that become necessary but damn it's just all lies and that's what gets me.  I'm so fed up with a society full of just plain lying ass mofos at every turn.

----------


## phill4paul

> Oh FFS, just come out and tell the people that the dollar isn't the currency of the world anymore and we need to start focusing on rebuilding this thing.  This entire tariff charade is so tiring.  It is, however, amazing to watch people _cheer_ for their own reduced standard of living and higher prices for goods they need.


  Let's do it by realizing that there is no such thing as global "free trade" and NEVER will be.

----------


## devil21

> Let's do it by realizing that there is no such thing as global "free trade" and NEVER will be.


As long as the same people stay in charge of the monetary and legal systems that control the underpinnings of trade (currency, Uniform Commercial Code, etc) then no there never will be free trade.  It wil always be managed trade.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It is, however, amazing to watch people _cheer_ for their own reduced standard of living and higher prices for goods they need.


You are obviously part of the higher economic brackets that benefited from all the good jobs being moved overseas (you have mentioned your Chinese business contacts before), the rest of us had our standard of living go down and if we fight back in the trade war they will go back up, I will not cry if collaborators like you lose a little. (you have more room to fall without being ruined than we did anyway)

----------


## phill4paul

> As long as the same people stay in charge of the monetary and legal systems that control the underpinnings of trade (currency, Uniform Commercial Code, etc) then no there never will be free trade.  It wil always be managed trade.


 It will be. There will never be a global revolution. The best you can do is to work locally. For those within the U.S. it means protectionist measures vs. other countries undermining our economy.

----------


## devil21

> You are obviously part of the higher economic brackets that benefited from all the good jobs being moved overseas (you have mentioned your Chinese business contacts before), the rest of us had our standard of living go down and if we fight back in the trade war they will go back up, I will not cry if collaborators like you lose a little. (you have more room to fall without being ruined than we did anyway)


You're so far off in your estimation that I'm not going to bother to debate it.  You didn't address my statement, just a personal attack.




> It will be. There will never be a global revolution. The best you can do is to work locally. For those within the U.S. it means protectionist measures vs. other countries undermining our economy.


See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.  "Other countries undermining our economy"  

Good lord man, haven't you learned anything??  The undermining was by our own government and the bankers that pull their strings.  And also pull the strings of the other governments.  It was NIXON that led a huge delegation to China that opened up trade with China via currency management when the global dollar needed a new leg to stand on.  But by all means, continue to blame the Chinese people for "undermining our economy".  That's exactly what they want you to do so you never see the man behind the curtain pulling the levers on all of us.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You're so far off in your estimation that I'm not going to bother to debate it.  You didn't address my statement, just a personal attack.


I did address your statement, "Free" trade destroyed our living standards, fighting back in the trade war will help repair them.

----------


## phill4paul

> You're so far off in your estimation that I'm not going to bother to debate it.  You didn't address my statement, just a personal attack.
> 
> 
> 
> See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.  "Other countries undermining our economy"  
> 
> Good lord man, haven't you learned anything??  The undermining was by our own government and the bankers that pull their strings.  And also pull the strings of the other governments.  It was NIXON that led a huge delegation to China that opened up trade with China via currency management when the global dollar needed a new leg to stand on.  But by all means, continue to blame the Chinese people for "undermining our economy".  That's exactly what they want you to do so you never see the man behind the curtain pulling the levers on all of us.


  I see the man behind the curtain. I also see the man behind the curtain operating with impunity by allowing unfair trade practices. Because THAT is where their true wealth lays. Changing that starts in our own back yard. It starts with protectionism.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.  "Other countries undermining our economy"  
> 
> Good lord man, haven't you learned anything??  The undermining was by our own government and the bankers that pull their strings.  And also pull the strings of the other governments.  It was NIXON that led a huge delegation to China that opened up trade with China via currency management when the global dollar needed a new leg to stand on.  But by all means, continue to blame the Chinese people for "undermining our economy".  That's exactly what they want you to do so you never see the man behind the curtain pulling the levers on all of us.


A crime can have multiple perpetrators dude, you are pointing to one accomplice and attempting to exonerate the rest.

----------


## devil21

> I see the man behind the curtain. I also see the man behind the curtain operating with impunity by allowing unfair trade practices. Because THAT is where their true wealth lays. Changing that starts in our own back yard. It starts with protectionism.


Allowing?  Don't you mean facilitating?

THIS PLANET IS A FARM AND YOU AND I LIVE IN ONE THE PENS.  THE PEOPLE YOU ACCUSE OF "UNDERMINING OUR ECONOMY" LIVE IN ANOTHER PEN.  DOES THE COW ACCUSE THE CHICKEN OF UNDERMINING THE COW'S PASTURE?  Or is the truth instead that the farmer tells the cow that the chicken is undermining the cow's pasture, even though the cow never sees the chicken, so the cow eats more and plows harder?  That is, until the cow is slaughtered for meat and a new cow is placed in the pasture to start the cycle all over again...

----------


## TheCount

> Allowing?  Don't you mean facilitating?
> 
> THIS PLANET IS A FARM AND YOU AND I LIVE IN ONE THE PENS.  THE PEOPLE YOU ACCUSE OF "UNDERMINING OUR ECONOMY" LIVE IN ANOTHER PEN.  DOES THE COW ACCUSE THE CHICKEN OF UNDERMINING THE COW'S PASTURE?  Or is the truth instead that the farmer tells the cow that the chicken is undermining the cow's pasture, even though the cow never sees the chicken, so the cow eats more and plows harder?  That is, until the cow is slaughtered for meat and a new cow is placed in the pasture to start the cycle all over again...


Turns out that the cows are not interested in making their lives better, only making sure that their lives are better than the chickens' lives.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Another day, another whopper of a tariff. The Trump administration has been busy finalizing the rulemaking process to put 25 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods, which will almost certainly affect the prices of many critical technology components and have on-going repercussions for Silicon Valley supply chains. That followed the implementation of tariffs on $50 billion of goods earlier this year.

Now, President Trump, as reported by reporters on Air Force One  this morning, has said that he is prepared to triple down on his  tariffs strategy, saying that he is ready to add tariffs to another $267  billion worth of Chinese goods. Although the president has a flair for  the dramatic in many of his policies, the China tariffs are one arena in  which his rhetoric has matched the actions of his administration.

More at: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/07/tr...na/?yptr=yahoo

----------


## TheCount

> Another day, another whopper of a tariff.


Woo, taxes!  Party!

----------


## bunklocoempire

> He needs to make China play fair or collapse during his administration and they have been waging a trade war against us for decades.
> And as you say the MSM would be against him anyway.
> Aggressive action is called for.


_
Aggressive action is called for?_

Because the Fed has been abolished?  

This is Ron Paul Forums not Ron Paul Flinches.

----------


## devil21

> Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
> 
> I've been told here that Trump's tariff hardball was just a tactic to get other countries to lower their tariffs. He even offered an idea while in Europe to have both sides reduce their tariffs to zero. 
> 
> Trump got his win. Europe offered to get rid of all tarriffs on cars. Trump rejected it saying "it's not good enough".


I think that should be a clue that it's not really about tariffs.  Tariffs are just a cover story for ongoing currency revaluations (destructions, really) and how those revaluations affect trade, namely the prices of goods domestically.

Always remember that they NEVER tell you the truth about ANYTHING, especially when it's related to _money_.

----------


## CCTelander

> Woo, taxes!  Party!



What? Reducing the standard of living of the poor and middle class here in yhe US isn't cause for celebration? Who knew?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What? *Reducing the standard of living of the poor and middle class* here in yhe US isn't cause for celebration? Who knew?


That is what not fighting back in the trade wars has done.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> _
> Aggressive action is called for?_
> 
> Because the Fed has been abolished?  
> 
> This is Ron Paul Forums not Ron Paul Flinches.


Ron is half right, we do need to cut government but we also need to fight back in the trade wars.

----------


## phill4paul

> What? Reducing the standard of living of the poor and middle class here in yhe US isn't cause for celebration? Who knew?


  That's been done now for decades. Starting with the original NAFTA deal. Believe what you want but the availability of gainful employment, in my area, has never been better. A local manufacturer is offering $18/hr. starting with a $1500 bonus after 3 months. 4 yrs. ago that was unheard of. Most manufacturers offering $12 and some laying off/ early retirement of 700+ employees. Perhaps the poor just need to go and get a job to afford the increase instead of living on government assistance and cheap $#@!?

----------


## TheCount

> That is what not fighting back in the trade wars has done.


Has done or will do?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Has done or will do?


If we continue to not fight back it will continue to reduce the standard of living of the poor and the middle class, fortunately DJTvsg is fighting back and halting the process.

----------


## TheCount

> If we continue to not fight back it will continue to reduce the standard of living of the poor and the middle class, fortunately DJTvsg is fighting back and halting the process.


Has done or will do?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Has done or will do?


Has done and will do unless we fight back, what part of the word "continue" do you not understand? Is English not your native tongue?

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Ron is half right, we do need to cut government but we also need to fight back in the trade wars.



"need to fight back"  (using government aggression)

"trade wars"   (created by governments aggression)

"cut government"  (used to imply a shared idea of non-aggression)

"we"  (i.e. won't you share my own fears and my own pride?)  


_When a man fights himself, while claiming to others that there is another enemy to blame._

Been there, done that.

----------


## CCTelander

> "need to fight back"  (using government aggression)
> 
> "trade wars"   (created by governments aggression)
> 
> "cut government"  (used to imply a shared idea of non-aggression)
> 
> "we"  (i.e. won't you share my own fears and my own pride?)  
> 
> 
> ...



Protectionist tariffs - "Defending" yourself by lining up to allow your own government to shoot you in the foot, or the head.

----------


## TheCount

> Protectionist tariffs - "Defending" yourself by lining up to allow your own government to shoot you in the foot, or the head.


Well, that's what this thread is celebrating, isn't it?  Our government will shoot us in the head, whereas your government will only shoot you in the leg, and that means that we're stronger!

Of course, following this line of thinking, North Korea is MAGA heaven.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> "need to fight back"  (using government aggression)


Just like any other kind of war, if you aren't willing to fight you will be destroyed.




> "trade wars"   (created by governments aggression)


Foreign governments.




> "cut government"  (used to imply a shared idea of non-aggression)


Used to state a shared desire to cut government.




> "we"  (i.e. won't you share my own fears and my own pride?)


Whether you like it or not we are part of a group and I must use "we" to refer to the group when discussing what I believe the group needs to do.





> _When a man fights himself, while claiming to others that there is another enemy to blame._

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Well, that's what this thread is celebrating, isn't it?  Our government will shoot us in the head, whereas your government will only shoot you in the leg, and that means that we're stronger!
> 
> Of course, following this line of thinking, North Korea is MAGA heaven.


You must be independent to be free and you must be able to provide for yourself to be independent, "Free Trade" isn't free because foreign governments exist and manipulate it to rob and conquer us, the ideal of world wide free trade would require the same impossibility that anarchy requires, governments would have to be banished from the realm of possibility, we can negotiate as close to free trade as possible with foreigners and that is what DJTvsg is trying to do, we can also have free trade within our territory and we do.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Woo, taxes!  Party!



Says the guy who once said, _"I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will."
_

----------


## Madison320

> You must be independent to be free and you must be able to provide for yourself to be independent, "Free Trade" isn't free because foreign governments exist and manipulate it to rob and conquer us, the ideal of world wide free trade would require the same impossibility that anarchy requires, governments would have to be banished from the realm of possibility, we can negotiate as close to free trade as possible with foreigners and that is what DJTvsg is trying to do, we can also have free trade within our territory and we do.


Trump doesn't want free trade. The EU offered to remove all auto tariffs and he turned it down.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/30/trum...o-tariffs.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Trump doesn't want free trade. The EU offered to remove all auto tariffs and he turned it down.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/30/trum...o-tariffs.html


They offered that because they know Europeans won"t buy American cars, Trump wants tariffs and barriers removed on EVERYTHING.

----------


## Madison320

> They offered that because they know Europeans won"t buy American cars, *Trump wants tariffs and barriers removed on EVERYTHING*.


How do you know?

----------


## CCTelander

> How do you know?



Because, like all steadfast Trump supporters he has his own direct hotline to the Oval Office. I'm told they get frequent updates as to exactly what Trump is "thinking" and planning. To the Trump Phone! (Fans of the 1960s Batman TV series will get it.)

----------


## Madison320

> Because, like all steadfast Trump supporters he has his own direct hotline to the Oval Office. I'm told they get frequent updates as to exactly what Trump is "thinking" and planning. To the Trump Phone! (Fans of the 1960s Batman TV series will get it.)


Holy Telepathy Batman!

----------


## goldenequity



----------


## phill4paul

STILL haven't been out tariffed.

----------


## devil21

> You went from praising the elimination of tariffs to criticizing the concept in the span of three posts.


It's almost like Swordsmyth is _Trump himself_.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It's almost like Swordsmyth is _Trump himself_.


Another small and simple mind incapable of understanding the difference between real free trade and the phony "Free Trade" agreements we suffer under.

----------


## Madison320

> It's almost like Swordsmyth is _Trump himself_.


Both Swordsmyth and TheCount are biased as hell but I think Swordsmyth is ultimately a free market capitalist, unlike TheCount who is a socialist.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Both Swordsmyth and TheCount are biased as hell but I think Swordsmyth is ultimately a free market capitalist, unlike TheCount who is a socialist.


Swordsmyth supports tariffs because they cause division and chaos between countries. Tariffs are not free market capitalism- they are crony protectionism. 

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...ot-the-answer/




> Tariffs raise the price of, and reduce demand for, imported goods. Tariffs ensure the preferences of politicians, instead of the preferences of consumers, to determine how resources are allocated. This reduces economic efficiency and living standards.
> 
> Some justify these economic inefficiencies as being worth it to save American jobs. This ignores how tariffs increase costs of production for industries reliant on imported materials to produce their products. These increased costs lead to job losses in those industries. For example, President Trump’s proposed steel tariff could cost nearly 40,000 jobs in the steel-dependent auto manufacturing industry. Tariffs also cause job losses in industries reliant on exports. This is especially true if — as is likely to be the case — other countries respond to President Trump’s actions by increasing tariffs on US products.

----------


## timosman

> Swordsmyth supports tariffs because they cause division and chaos between countries. Tariffs are not free market capitalism- they are crony protectionism. 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...ot-the-answer/


How do you get to no tariffs from where we are?

----------


## EBounding

> How do you get to no tariffs from where we are?


How many years do you impose tariffs on consumers in order to negotiate lower trade barriers with other countries?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No it's based on a history of your posts. You check all the boxes.
> 
> 
> -Frequently criticize the republican party while never criticize the democratic party.
> 
> -Think tariffs are just as bad as progressive taxation.
> 
> -Got pissed off at the idea that tax cuts for the rich are not the same as giving money to the rich. Argued that tax cuts for the rich adds to the deficit (spending is what adds to the deficit).  
> 
> ...


You must spread some reputation around.....

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Got pissed off at the idea that tax cuts for the rich are not the same as giving money to the rich.


Technically, you are taking away less of their money if you give them a tax cut, but the net effect is that they get more of it than they had before the tax reduction.  How is the tax cut funded?  More borrowing?  That is taking money from somebody else so you can give more to the wealthy. 




> Argued that tax cuts for the rich adds to the deficit (spending is what adds to the deficit).


Tax cuts do add to deficits.  Unless you offset them with spending cuts and these weren't.  A deficit is the difference between what you spend and what you take in.  Yes, if you spend more money (with the same taxes) the deficit does go up.   And if you cut taxes (reduce revenues) and keep spending the same your deficit goes up. 




> Mock Peter Schiff (a Ron Paul advocate with almost identical views).


Wasn't he that guy who said almost every year since 2009 that the next recession was almost here and it would be even worse then the Great Recession and that we would have hyperinflation and gold would soar past $5000 an ounce?  Said the Fed could never end Quantitative Easing? How has all that worked out? 




> Think tariffs are just as bad as progressive taxation.


Tariffs must be better.  They protect government selected industries at the expense of consumers (higher prices, fewer jobs) and competing industries.  A steel tariff for example makes costs higher for everybody who makes things using steel.  

If you would like to balance our spending just using tariffs to raise revues at current spending levels we need a 200% tariff on everything we import.  That means triple their current prices.  (but that would cause our levels of imports to drop significantly so we would need an even HIGHER tariff).  $80 a barrel of oil would be $240 a barrel.  Prices on everything would be a lot higher- and that hits the average American (and poor) since they currently don't pay net income taxes.  It would cost millions of jobs in exporting companies (other countries would respond to our tariffs).  Companies who need imported parts to produce their goods would have to significantly raise prices or go out of business costing many many more jobs.

Yep- tariffs would be a wonderful thing!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Technically, you are taking away less of their money if you give them a tax cut, but the net effect is that they get more of it than they had before the tax reduction.  How is the tax cut funded?  More borrowing?  That is taking money from somebody else so you can give more to the wealthy.


Tax cuts are not funded, spending is funded.






> Tax cuts do add to deficits.  Unless you offset them with spending cuts and these weren't.  A deficit is the difference between what you spend and what you take in.  Yes, if you spend more money (with the same taxes) the deficit does go up.   And if you cut taxes (reduce revenues) and keep spending the same your deficit goes up.


Again spending is the problem, unless we ever reach a point where we aren't spending too much tax cuts are always good and the lack of spending cuts is the problem.





> Tariffs must be better.  They protect government selected industries at the expense of consumers (higher prices, fewer jobs) and competing industries.  A steel tariff for example makes costs higher for everybody who makes things using steel.


Tariffs are better because they can be avoided by not spending and because they protect strategic industries and keep us from being dependent on hostile foreigners, ideally they should be across the board but even targeted tariffs are better than an income tax which is also manipulated to pick winners and losers but doesn't have any of the benefits of tariffs.




> If you would like to balance our spending just using tariffs to raise revues at current spending levels we need a 200% tariff on everything we import.  That means triple their current prices.  (but that would cause our levels of imports to drop significantly so we would need an even HIGHER tariff).  $80 a barrel of oil would be $240 a barrel.  Prices on everything would be a lot higher- and that hits the average American (and poor) since they currently don't pay net income taxes.  It would cost millions of jobs in exporting companies (other countries would respond to our tariffs).  Companies who need imported parts to produce their goods would have to significantly raise prices or go out of business costing many many more jobs.
> 
> Yep- tariffs would be a wonderful thing!


Just think how bad it is to remove all that money from people through an income tax that they can't avoid, we would be better of if all of it was shifted to tariffs even without the vital spending cuts.

----------


## Madison320

> Technically, you are taking away less of their money if you give them a tax cut, but the net effect is that they get more of it than they had before the tax reduction.  How is the tax cut funded?  More borrowing?  That is taking money from somebody else so you can give more to the wealthy.


Stealing less money<> giving money.





> Tax cuts do add to deficits.  Unless you offset them with spending cuts and these weren't.  A deficit is the difference between what you spend and what you take in.  Yes, if you spend more money (with the same taxes) the deficit does go up.   And if you cut taxes (reduce revenues) and keep spending the same your deficit goes up.


No. Spending adds to the deficits. Tax cuts "don't reduce" the deficit, but they don't "add" to it. Suppose you owe 10K on your credit card. I could pay it off for you, but I won't. Did I "add" to your credit card debt? No. It was your spending that added to it. 





> Wasn't he that guy who said almost every year since 2009 that the next recession was almost here and it would be even worse then the Great Recession and that we would have hyperinflation and gold would soar past $5000 an ounce?  Said the Fed could never end Quantitative Easing? How has all that worked out?


Ron Paul has said similar things and they're both right. It's just taking longer that expected. Remember that rates are still under 2% which incredibly low historically and the fed balance sheet has not been reduced, and the debt is at 21.5T and rising.




> Tariffs must be better.  They protect government selected industries at the expense of consumers (higher prices, fewer jobs) and competing industries.  A steel tariff for example makes costs higher for everybody who makes things using steel.


Tariffs are not as immoral as progressive taxation because they are levied on everyone, they are more avoidable and due to the previous reasons they are much, much lower. The average citizen pays well under 1% of their income to all the tariffs combined. Many people pay almost 40% income tax and there's no way to escape it or you go to jail. That's hundreds of times more than all the tariffs combined. All taxes are bad but comparing tariffs to the progressive income tax is like comparing shoplifting to armed bank robbery.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> No. Spending adds to the deficits.* Tax cuts "don't reduce" the deficit, but they don't "add" to it.* Suppose you owe 10K on your credit card. I could pay it off for you, but I won't. Did I "add" to your credit card debt? No. It was your spending that added to it.


Suppose we spent $100 billion and took in $50 billion in taxes.  Our deficit would be $50 billion.   The government must borrow $50 billion to cover that shortfall.  

Now lets cut taxes so we only take in $25 billion. Our spending is still $100 billion. Is our deficit still only $50 billion? No, it is now $75 billion.  The deficit grew by the amount of the tax cuts. The tax cuts increased the deficit. They have to borrow $25 billion more than without the tax cuts ($75 billion vs $50 billion). 




> Suppose you owe 10K on your credit card.* I could pay it off for you, but I won't*. Did I "add" to your credit card debt? No.


Since you didn't do anything or give me anything, you had zero impact on my debt. You did not impact my borrowing or my assets.  I still owe 10k.  If you gave me $5k, then you would be helping reduce my debt.

----------


## Madison320

> Suppose we spent $100 billion and took in $50 billion in taxes.  Our deficit would be $50 billion.   The government must borrow $50 billion to cover that shortfall.  
> 
> Now lets cut taxes so we only take in $25 billion. Our spending is still $100 billion. Is our deficit still only $50 billion? No, it is now $75 billion.  The deficit grew by the amount of the tax cuts. The tax cuts increased the deficit. They have to borrow $25 billion more than without the tax cuts ($75 billion vs $50 billion). 
> 
> 
> 
> *Since you didn't do anything or give me anything, you had zero impact on my debt*. You did not impact my borrowing or my assets.  I still owe 10k.  If you gave me $5k, then you would be helping reduce my debt.


There's the clue.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> There's the clue.


That is totally irrelevant to tax cuts increasing the deficit.  My borrowing did not increase so my debt did not increase. In my example, borrowing did increase so the deficit increased. 

 But you also seem to have two term confused- deficit and debt.   The deficit is how short you are this year- the difference between what you spend and you take in. You borrow the difference and that becomes your debt. The debt is the total accumulated borrowing. 

  If you are short the same amount the next year, the deficit for that year is the same as the year before but that year's deficit gets added to the total debt.  In our example, the first year deficit was $50 billion.  That meant we had to borrow $50 billion and our debt was now $50 billion.  Second year- keeping spending and taxation the same.  Deficit is still $50 billion but now we have to borrow another $50 billion so the debt is now $100 billion.  Debt is higher.  

Third year- lets institute our tax cuts.  We spend $100 billion same as always but now only get $25 billion in taxes.  Our deficit -being the difference- is now $75 billion- more than before the tax cuts.  The deficit grew by the amount of the tax cuts- $25 billion.   Our debt is increasing faster now.  Instead of adding $50 billion we are adding $75 billion in borrowing so the debt is now $175 billion.   The tax cuts increased BOTH the debt and the deficit.

----------


## specsaregood

One of the stocks I've about doubled my money on this year...

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/...ses-2018-09-14



> *US iron miner helps launch ad campaign to sing tariff praises*
> 
> NEW YORK  Some US companies have reacted to the divisive issue of metal tariffs by saying as little as possible. Cleveland-Cliffs, on the other hand, has not only publicly backed the levies, now its putting up money to sing their praises.
> 
> *The US iron-ore producer says its deploying a promotional campaign with other companies that touts the benefits of President Donald Trumps steel tariffs.
> Targeting voters in iron- or steel-producing states including Minnesota, Michigan and Ohio, the ads will begin to run this month and through October, ahead of the November 6 midterm elections, spokeswoman Patricia Persico said by phone. The ads will run as banners on media websites directing people to the campaign site Keep America Steel Strong.
> *
> Were not going to be even talking about the tariffs, were going to talk about the jobs that they generate, Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves said in an interview. This is a campaign explaining to the public that were not an industry of the past, but an industry of the present.
> 
> ...

----------


## Madison320

> That is totally irrelevant to tax cuts increasing the deficit.  My borrowing did not increase so my debt did not increase. In my example, borrowing did increase so the deficit increased.


But if you run up your credit card debt your deficit would increase and the fact that I didn't help pay it down doesn't make me responsible for the increase. In most cases the most productive citizens are not the ones spending tax money. Just like I didn't add to your credit card debt. The people responsible for the national debt are the ones that SPEND the money not the ones who are forced to pay it down.

On a side note has anyone ever seen Zippy and TheCount in the same room? Kinda like Clark Kent and Superman?

----------


## Swordsmyth

Trump defended his policies in an early-morning tweet on Monday,  writing: "Tariffs have put the U.S. in a very strong bargaining  position, with Billions of Dollars, and Jobs, flowing into our Country -  and yet cost increases have thus far been almost unnoticeable. If  countries will not make fair deals with us, they will be 'Tariffed!'"

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...104704050.html

----------


## EBounding

> Trump defended his policies in an early-morning tweet on Monday,  writing: "Tariffs have put the U.S. in a very strong bargaining  position, with Billions of Dollars, and Jobs, flowing into our Country -  and yet cost increases have thus far been almost unnoticeable. If  countries will not make fair deals with us, they will be 'Tariffed!'"
> 
> More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...104704050.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

By cutting tariffs, China is hoping to stimulate its economy and  increase domestic consumption. The move could also strike a blow in the  ongoing trade war with the United States, but *it is not clear how many  U.S. imports already targeted by Beijing could benefit from reduced  tariff barriers if they enter China through a third country*. 

More at: https://worldview.stratfor.com/situa...ading-partners

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Oh, of course.  Now that that's settled, we can leave this thread to the not-full-of-$#@! tariffistas and their new conservative gospel of "fair" economic intervention by government.



Says RPF's undermining ultra-progressive who voted Obama twice, Hillary once, and Democrats in the SC senate races.  Did I get all those right?

----------


## devil21

China Daily published a 4 page ad/article/opinion piece in the Des Moines Register about soybean tariff impact on IA farmers.  That's stone cold China, stone cold.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-trump-tariffs




> China reached into the U.S. heartland in its escalating trade war over President Donald Trump’s tariffs, using an advertising supplement in Iowa’s largest newspaper to highlight the impact on the state’s soybean farmers as “the fruit of a president’s folly.’’
> 
> The four-page section in Sunday’s Des Moines Register, which carried the label “paid for and prepared solely by China Daily, an official publication of the People’s Republic of China,” featured articles including one outlining how the trade dispute is forcing Chinese importers to turn to South America instead of the U.S. for soybeans.

----------


## homahr

What can Trump do to stop China from buying Iranian oil? Is the tariff tactic wrt China related to destroying Iran?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> China Daily published a 4 page ad/article/opinion piece in the Des Moines Register about soybean tariff impact on IA farmers.  That's stone cold China, stone cold.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-trump-tariffs


They are desperate.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What can Trump do to stop China from buying Iranian oil?


Not much.





> Is the tariff tactic wrt China related to destroying Iran?


No, China is a much bigger threat than Iran is alleged to be.

----------


## devil21

> They are desperate.


Desperate for South American and Russian soybeans?




> What can Trump do to stop China from buying Iranian oil? Is the tariff tactic wrt China related to destroying Iran?


Everything he's doing is intentionally designed to create a narrative of why other countries are dumping the dollar for trade.  Even the EU is setting up a new payment system in conjunction with Iran, China, Russia and others, ostensibly over the Iran nuclear deal.  It's all about dumping the dollar as world reserve currency, as directed by Trump's banker cabinet.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Desperate for South American and Russian soybeans?


Desperate to bluff Trump into folding with a winning hand before they collapse.

----------


## devil21

> Desperate to bluff Trump into folding with a winning hand before they collapse.


Is there something that's preventing you from recognizing that the rest of the world is systematically dropping the dollar for trade?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Is there something that's preventing you from recognizing that the rest of the world is systematically dropping the dollar for trade?


LOL

There is no chance of that, they may use other currencies for a few things but the dollar has no feasible rivals right now or in the near or medium term future.

----------


## devil21

> LOL
> 
> There is no chance of that, they may use other currencies for a few things but the dollar has no feasible rivals right now or in the near or medium term future.


Wow, delusional.  It takes big stones to either lie that easily or be that clueless and continue to double down on it.  Are you sure you're not a Brit?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Wow, delusional.


LOL




> It takes big stones to either lie that easily


So anyone who disagrees with you is a liar?
You sound like a Demoncrat.




> or be that clueless and continue to double down on it.







> Are you sure you're not a Brit?


Are you sure you aren't Chinese?

----------


## devil21

> LOL
> So anyone who disagrees with you is a liar?


No, anyone that visits sites like Zerohedge but always somehow forgets to post (or apparently read) any of articles clearly denoting the ongoing systematic dumping of the dollar is being purposely disingenuous.

Here's a thread I started _9 years ago_ on RPF about the planned dumping of the dollar as global reserve.  It's loaded with various articles about it.  But I know you won't look at it since learning isn't why you post here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-US-dollar

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, anyone that visits sites like Zerohedge but always somehow forgets to post (or apparently read) any of articles clearly denoting the ongoing systematic dumping of the dollar is being purposely disingenuous.
> 
> Here's a thread I started _9 years ago_ on RPF about the planned dumping of the dollar as global reserve.  It's loaded with various articles about it.  But I know you won't look at it since learning isn't why you post here.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-the-US-dollar


Opinions on ZH are split, I agree with those like @tmosley (who according to old threads used to post here) who say that there is no viable alternative to the dollar and that the use of other currencies will be limited.

----------


## homahr

> Not much.


Apparently, Trump can't stop India which is an epic failure on the administration's part. India would have been the easiest country to turn against Iran, but Trump and his staff aren't smart enough to take advantage of the slave-like colonial Indian mindset. Also, zero-sum policy in foreign affairs doesn't really work, but you can still reach your goal (destroying Iran) if you think long-term with some tact and finesse.

----------


## homahr

> D
> Everything he's doing is intentionally designed to create a narrative of why other countries are dumping the dollar for trade.  Even the EU is setting up a new payment system in conjunction with Iran, China, Russia and others, ostensibly over the Iran nuclear deal.  It's all about dumping the dollar as world reserve currency, as directed by Trump's banker cabinet.


Turkey, India are doing the same wrt trade with Iran. However, it appears from the news reports that both South Korea and Japan have fallen in line with the US sanctions with no alternatives to trade with Iran.

----------


## devil21

> Opinions on ZH are split, I agree with those like @tmosley (who according to old threads used to post here) who say that there is no viable alternative to the dollar and that the use of other currencies will be limited.


Who said anything about an alternative currency?  No one, at least not me, has suggested that any one currency will replace the dollar.  That's not the plan.  The globalist plan is to remove the dollar as reserve currency so that no single country has such an impact on world trade.  Trump is doing a splendid job of displaying _why that should be changed_, as has been planned.  All of this is about removing the dollar, not replacing it with another single currency.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Who said anything about an alternative currency?  No one, at least not me, has suggested that any one currency will replace the dollar.  That's not the plan.  The globalist plan is to remove the dollar as reserve currency so that no single country has such an impact on world trade.  Trump is doing a splendid job of displaying _why that should be changed_, as has been planned.  All of this is about removing the dollar, not replacing it with another single currency.


The dollar will still be dominant, so it becomes a question of much it will dominate and how much power it will still have, I think it will remain very dominant and powerful but I can't say exactly how dominant and powerful both because that isn't clear and because it is simply hard to quantify.

----------


## devil21

> The dollar will still be dominant, so it becomes a question of much it will dominate and how much power it will still have, I think it will remain very dominant and powerful but I can't say exactly how dominant and powerful both because that isn't clear and because it is simply hard to quantify.


The global currency unit is the IMF SDR (cue Zippy), of which the dollar makes up part of by percentage weighting, but that weighting is subject to change.  

The point is that the dollar unit will not be -the- reserve currency any more, which means oil trade in dollars is drastically reduced and the ability to export inflation to the rest of the world is drastically reduced.  Cheap oil and cheap debt from the dollar reserve standard have provided Americans a higher standard of living than much of the world. Trump's job is to provide the public reason/cover story for these long-planned changes and spin the ramifications of the changes as a good thing for Americans.  Less is more, lower standard of living is good, MAGA.  All the same.  Whether it is or not good is not what I'm posting about.  I deal mainly with facts, not so much opinions.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The global currency unit is the IMF SDR (cue Zippy), of which the dollar makes up part of by percentage weighting, but that weighting is subject to change.  
> 
> The point is that the dollar unit will not be -the- reserve currency any more, which means oil trade in dollars is drastically reduced and the ability to export inflation to the rest of the world is drastically reduced.  Cheap oil and cheap debt from the dollar reserve standard have provided Americans a higher standard of living than much of the world. Trump's job is to provide the public reason/cover story for these long-planned changes and spin the ramifications of the changes as a good thing for Americans.  Less is more, lower standard of living is good, MAGA.  All the same.  Whether it is or not it is good is not what I'm posting about.  I deal mainly with facts, not so much opinions.


The SDR will not replace the dollar and MAGA will increase the average American's standard of living.

----------


## devil21

> The SDR will not replace the dollar and MAGA will increase the average American's standard of living.


Whatever you say, scro.  I've only been passionately following this de-dollarization process for 10 years but you're the expert here.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The SDR will not replace the dollar and MAGA will increase the average American's standard of living.


SDR's can't replace the dollar since they are comprised of dollars. Get rid of dollars and SDRs cease to exist. (at least half of it does). 42% is US dollars. 31% Euros, 11% Yuan, 8% yen, and 8% Pound Sterling.   It isn't actually a currency. There exists less than $300 billion worth of them. 

https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factshe...wing-Right-SDR




> The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement its member countries’ official reserves. So far SDR 204.2 billion (*equivalent to about US$291 billion*) have been allocated to members, including SDR 182.6 billion allocated in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis. The value of the SDR is based on a basket of five currencies—the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the Japanese yen, and the British pound sterling.






> *The global currency unit is the IMF SDR* (cue Zippy), of which the dollar makes up part of by percentage weighting, but that weighting is subject to change.





> The SDR serves as the unit of account of the IMF and some other international organizations.
> 
> The SDR is *neither a currency nor a claim on the IMF.* Rather, it is a potential claim on the freely usable currencies of IMF members. SDRs can be exchanged for these currencies.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Whatever you say, scro.  I've only been passionately following this de-dollarization process for 10 years but you're the expert here.


And I've been hearing about it being a done deal "next year" for about that long, I don't claim nothing will happen but it hasn't been and won't be as dramatic as the Sinophiles claim.

----------


## devil21

> And I've been hearing about it being a done deal "next year" for about that long, I don't claim nothing will happen but it hasn't been and won't be as dramatic as the Sinophiles claim.


It's a long process and indeed longer than many, myself included, thought it would take.  But it is happening and it's speeding up.  We shall see how dramatic it becomes since historically such changes are accompanied by a manufactured World War.



LOL, Zippy pops in every time I post about the SDR.  It's like being able to summon spirits upon my command!

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It's a long process and indeed longer than many, myself included, thought it would take.  But it is happening and it's speeding up.  We shall see how dramatic it becomes since historically such changes are accompanied by a manufactured World War.
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL, Zippy pops in every time I post about the SDR. * It's like being able to summon spirits upon my command!


And still you don't understand what it actually is.

----------


## homahr

> LOL, Zippy pops in every time I post about the SDR.  It's like being able to summon spirits upon my command!


Troll's gonna troll.

----------


## devil21

> And still you don't understand what it actually is.


In case you didn't notice, I was dumbing it down for Swordsmyth to a conceptual level he can understand, not writing a doctoral thesis.  Now be gone spirit!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In case you didn't notice, I was dumbing it down for Swordsmyth to a conceptual level he can understand, not writing a doctoral thesis.  Now be gone spirit!


I don't need your "dumbing down" I know what SDRs are.

----------


## AuH20

Trump is right, but he better win.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Taiwan is boosting its US soybean purchases in a bid to support farmers hit by new Chinese tariffs,  as the government in Taipei seeks to strengthen ties with US  legislators and the White House amid the fallout from the trade dispute  between Washington and Beijing.
A Taiwanese trade mission has  pledged to lift the country's purchases of US soybeans through 2019 by  nearly one-third to $US1.6 billion ($2.2 billion), in a deal expedited  from 2019 to assist midwestern producers hit by lower prices and seeking  alternative markets in the wake of China's higher tariffs on imports of  the commodity from the US.


The move by Taiwan, the sixth-biggest buyer of US soybeans, follows a sharp increase in European Union imports of US soybeans in recent months, as Brussels seeks to improve EU-US trade relations.
  The Taiwanese purchase,  inked on Capitol Hill last week, also comes against a backdrop of  improving ties between Taipei and Washington, despite opposition from  Beijing, which claims Taiwan as its own territory.



 Taiwan's decision to  bring forward the timing of the normally biennial soybean purchasing  delegation's visit to the US was "being noticed" in Washington,  according to a person familiar with the matter.
"They stepped up  the timeline of [the delegation] to send it now, so that our soybean  farmers would hurt less as a result of the trade friction between the US  and China; that is what friends do," the person said.
The deal,  which covers up to 3.9 million tonnes of soybeans over 2018 and 2019  valued at up to $1.59 billion, marked a 33 per cent increase in value  from a 2017 agreement. It was part of Taiwan's "resolute intent to "buy  American", Taiwanese trade officials said.

More at: https://www.afr.com/news/economy/tra...0180930-h1621h

----------


## Swordsmyth

*I find it amusing to read some analysts stating that the  Chinese government’s stealth yuan devaluation has offset the impact of  tariffs.*
 A 10% tariff hurts a small part of the economy. However, a 10% devaluation hurts all Chinese citizens equally and massively.
 The yuan devaluation is not a tool for exports. Devaluations are a  form of price control and a disguised reduction of salaries. As such,  they hurt more than what they aim to protect.

 However, with rising household and corporate debt. the yuan  devaluation is a shot in the foot of the economy, as purchasing power is  being diminished and loan repayment capacity is falling. It is wrong to  believe that a devaluation does not pose a problem for debt incurred in  yuan. Margins are falling because the yuan is devalued, but costs are  not falling in tandem.70% of corporate costs do not fall with the yuan,  they rise -energy,  fixed costs, imported goods and services-  and  working capital requirements have been rising, as we have seen in the  published earnings of most of the companies in the Shanghai Index.  Around 65% of the index generates returns below the cost of capital and  most companies pay interest charges with additional debt, according to Moody’s, and evident in the second quarter results published. 
Household disposable income is also falling as inflation appears  underestimated by official figures. Most independent analyses see real  inflation closer to 2 percentage points higher than official data shows.  Living costs have risen much faster than the headline inflation suggests, and the recent devaluations add to this problem, which makes debt-repayment capacity suffer with a weaker currency. 


China money supply growth exceeds the US one, while a significant  part of fixed investment and credit goes to low productivity sectors or  returns below cost of capital. 
The idea that the yuan is “gold-backed” clearly disappears when  we look at the total gold reserves compared to money supply. Gold  reserves are less than 0.25% of China’s money supply. 
Unfortunately, China’s stealth devaluation is not making the  country more competitive, it is making household and corporate debt  riskier as the purchasing power of the yuan is diminished. 
Meanwhile, foreign exchange reserves remain almost 20% below the  peak level and the PBOC has abandoned its objective of fighting against  excess debt. 
The yuan devaluation is not solving the economy’s problems. By  maintaining misguided capital controls and avoiding necessary structural  reforms, the devaluation is accelerating the problems of the Chinese  economy while hurting savers, workers and pensioners in the country. 

More at: https://www.infowars.com/chinas-yuan...a-big-mistake/

----------


## Swordsmyth

China's Shadow-banking system is collapsing (and with its China's  economic-fuel - the credit impulse), it's equity market has become a  slow-motion train-wreck, its economic data has been serially  disappointing for two years, and its bond market is starting to show  signs of serious systemic risk as corporate defaults in 2018 hit a record high.

  But, if you were to read the Chinese press, none of that would be evident, as _The New York Times reports_ a government directive sent to journalists in China on Friday named *six  economic topics to be "managed," as the long hand of China's 'Ministry  of Truth' have now reached the business media in an effort to censor  negative news about the economy*.
The New York Times lists the topics that are to be "managed" as:

Worse-than-expected data that could show the economy is slowing.Local government debt risks.The impact of the trade war with the United States.Signs of declining consumer confidenceThe risks of stagflation, or rising prices coupled with slowing economic growth“Hot-button issues to show the difficulties of people’s lives.”
The government’s new directive betrays a *mounting anxiety among Chinese leaders that the country could be heading into a growing economic slump.*  Even before the trade war between the United States and China,  residents of the world’s second-largest economy were showing signs of  keeping a tight grip on their wallets. Industrial profit growth has  slowed for four consecutive months, and China’s stock market is near its  lowest level in four years.
 *“It’s possible that the situation is more serious than previously thought or that they want to prevent a panic,”* said Zhang Ming, a retired political science professor from Renmin University in Beijing.
  Mr. Zhang said the effect of the expanded censorship strategy could  more readily cause people to believe rumors about the economy. *“They are worried about chaos,” he added. “But in barring the media from reporting, things may get more chaotic.”*The directive didn’t appear to affect run-of-mill daily coverage of  economic data, which could still be widely found online in China on  Friday. Instead, the directive appeared to be aimed at easing the  overall tone. Indeed, another notice sent on Friday *instructed online news outlets to remove comments at the bottom of news articles that “bad-mouth the Chinese economy*.”
  One wonders if any "badmouthers" will automatically be accused of  working for the Kremlin as is the case in the US, or simply arrested and  never heard from again.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...-growth-slumps

----------


## Swordsmyth

Recent news from China has been _really_ ugly.
  But what can you expect? They’re trying to fight a trade war against  the U.S. – deal with slowing growth – and survive against a stronger  U.S. dollar.
  And because of these problems – China’s major stock exchanges have really suffered this year.
  But – contrary to what the mainstream says – I think things are going to get much worse. . .

  For starters – the latest Chinese Manufacturing PMI (purchasing  manager index) showed a continued downturn. Both in the NBS and Caixin  Indexes.


  Clearly the trade-war with the U.S. is being felt. And with little  progress in negotiations between the U.S. and China – expect the _near-and-midterm_ to continue being weak.
  Now – Unfortunately – this slow down in the Chinese economy and the loss of sales and income are coming at a bad time. . .
  Especially for their corporations.
  The combination of a slowing economy, a stronger dollar, and a  tightening Federal Reserve is putting pressure on indebted Chinese  firms.

  This is putting China’s elites between a rock and a hard place. . .
  That’s because with the trade-war raging on and a tightening Fed – the Communist Party of China will want to _ease_ and help their economy.
  The Peoples Bank of China (the Chinese central bank) can _cheapen_ the yuan to try and boost exports. And as I wrote before – the weaker yuan will offset Trump’s tariffs.
  For example – if the U.S. places 20% tariffs on _all_ Chinese  goods – China simply must devalue the Yuan by 20%. This would offset the  increased costs from the tariffs – keeping the price for U.S. consumers  unchanged. Basically rendering the imposed tariff _worthless_.
  But the problem with this is Chinese firms have _significant_ dollar-denominated debts. So a stronger dollar makes their debt-burden much harder to service.
  Look at it this way – Chinese companies with dollar-debts  (liabilities) will watch it grow compared to their falling assets  (denominated in the weakening Yuan). And with rising debt burdens always  comes the higher risk of default.
_Already 2018’s turning out to be a record year for onshore Chinese bond defaults. . ._
  Goldman noted that in the last two months _alone_ – there were at least _eight_ new defaults.
  Did the weakening yuan since early summer spark this troubling trend?
  To put this in context – there were only 11 new defaults between January and July (seven months) in 2018.


So after including the 11 defaults between Jan – July, this brings the total to *19* new defaults in only the first 10 months of 2018. . .
  This is a *record year* for both new defaults _and_ the amount of bonds being defaulted on. 



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...hit-new-record

----------


## devil21

> China's Shadow-banking system is collapsing (and with its China's  economic-fuel - the credit impulse), it's equity market has become a  slow-motion train-wreck, its economic data has been serially  disappointing for two years, and its bond market is starting to show  signs of serious systemic risk as corporate defaults in 2018 hit a record high.
> 
>   But, if you were to read the Chinese press, none of that would be evident, as _The New York Times reports_ a government directive sent to journalists in China on Friday named *six  economic topics to be "managed," as the long hand of China's 'Ministry  of Truth' have now reached the business media in an effort to censor  negative news about the economy*.
> The New York Times lists the topics that are to be "managed" as:
> 
> Worse-than-expected data that could show the economy is slowing.Local government debt risks.The impact of the trade war with the United States.Signs of declining consumer confidenceThe risks of stagflation, or rising prices coupled with slowing economic growth“Hot-button issues to show the difficulties of people’s lives.”
> The government’s new directive betrays a *mounting anxiety among Chinese leaders that the country could be heading into a growing economic slump.*  Even before the trade war between the United States and China,  residents of the world’s second-largest economy were showing signs of  keeping a tight grip on their wallets. Industrial profit growth has  slowed for four consecutive months, and China’s stock market is near its  lowest level in four years.
>  *“It’s possible that the situation is more serious than previously thought or that they want to prevent a panic,”* said Zhang Ming, a retired political science professor from Renmin University in Beijing.
>   Mr. Zhang said the effect of the expanded censorship strategy could  more readily cause people to believe rumors about the economy. *“They are worried about chaos,” he added. “But in barring the media from reporting, things may get more chaotic.”*The directive didn’t appear to affect run-of-mill daily coverage of  economic data, which could still be widely found online in China on  Friday. Instead, the directive appeared to be aimed at easing the  overall tone. Indeed, another notice sent on Friday *instructed online news outlets to remove comments at the bottom of news articles that “bad-mouth the Chinese economy*.”
> ...


LOL.  Did you intentionally leave out this part?




> Mark Williams, chief Asia economist of Capital Economics, said the firm expects the Chinese economy to slow down to 5 to 5.5 percent from 6.9 percent last year. Despite the lower forecast, he stressed that it was “not a weak number” for the Chinese economy.


Wow, it's a bloodbath!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL.  Did you intentionally leave out this part?


Not particularly.






> Wow, it's a bloodbath!


The thin end of the wedge is always thin, China can't afford to slow their growth much or their whole system will collapse and this is just the beginning.

----------


## devil21

> Not particularly.
> 
> The thin end of the wedge is always thin, China can't afford to slow their growth much or their whole system will collapse and this is just the beginning.


That doesn't even make sense.  A growing economy can't grow and collapse at the same time (caveat: unless not taking on new debt fast enough over a long period of time).  Granted, the likelihood that their government numbers are any more honest than ours are is slim but still, your explanation doesn't make any economic sense.  Never mind that it appears their worst GDP print is still better than our best GDP print yet they're the collapsing country?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That doesn't even make sense.  A growing economy can't grow and collapse at the same time (caveat: unless not taking on new debt fast enough over a long period of time).  Granted, the likelihood that their government numbers are any more honest than ours are is slim but still, your explanation doesn't make any economic sense.  Never mind that it appears their worst GDP print is still better than our best GDP print yet they're the collapsing country?


Their economy is structured differently than ours, it is even more like a Ponzi scheme, if it doesn't grow fast enough it will collapse, their debt and malinvestment problems are even bigger than ours proportionally and they don't have the advantage of being the world reserve currency.

Once their growth slows past a certain point the weak points in their economy will begin to fail and then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

----------


## homahr

*Trump is losing the trade war and blaming China
*
US President Donald Trump boasted that he is winning the trade war, telling delegates at the recent United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York that the US economy is booming whereas Chinas is faltering. In light of the delegates snickering and laughing, however, few if any attendees took him seriously, perhaps for good reason.

Official economic data and reality suggest the US economy may not be doing as well as Trump claimed. The number of homeless people rose in 2017. Soybean and other farmers are concerned about losing the lucrative Chinese market for good, while US businesses are worrying that they may be in the crossfire of the trade war. Consumers, who are already struggling to stay above water, worry that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration might pull them under. These are just a few examples of the latest concerns.

*US business concerns*

A September survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China found that more than 60% of US businesses in China will be hurt by Trumps tariffs and only 6% will be returning home because of them. The last figure is interesting, and telling.

First, the main reason for US firms not returning to the US might be for business interests. The Chinese market of 1.4 billion people, most of whom have sufficient savings and low debts, is too lucrative to give up. Besides, US manufacturing is far less productive than Chinas because the latter has built a very comprehensive and efficient infrastructure system, from transportation to supply chains. Thus returning to US soil would make US businesses less competitive.

Second, people have the right to choose and maximize their own self-interest. In a market economy like the US, profit expectation is a key determinant of investment decisions, going where the money is. Trump might in fact be the reason most would not return to the US, because his trade policies increase production costs, such as his steel and aluminum tariffs and the recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Ford Motor Company has already complained that the steel and aluminum tariffs could reduce its profits by US$1 billion. The automobile-manufacturing provisions in the USMCA requiring 75% local content and increasing Mexican wages to $16 per hour will increase production costs further.

Consumers also want the biggest bang for their buck, suggesting they will buy from whoever gives them the lowest price. Indeed, most US consumers have become addicted to lower-price Chinese goods. Given their increasingly indebtedness, that addiction would rise.
Therefore, it should not be a surprise that domestic and foreign investment in the US is falling and will likely continue to decrease in the coming years if the trade war drags on. According to official government statistics, US inbound investment went into negative territory of -$8.2 billion in the first quarter. Chinese investment in America plunged by 92% because of national security concerns.

*Farmers concerns*

Most US food producers  from lobster fishermen to soybean growers and others in between  will tell us that they have worked for years to develop the China market. For example, it took many years to wrestle back Chinese soybean buyers from Brazil. Trumps tariffs undid those efforts in just a few days because China is turning to Brazil and other soybean-growing countries. Once a business relationship is established with non-US farmers, America could lose the lucrative and huge Chinese market forever.
On other food products, Trumps tariffs are said to be responsible for billions of kilograms of beef in cold storage looking for buyers. The poultry and pork industries are also concerned with Trumps winner-take-all trade stance because China is by far the biggest market for those two 
products. Pork and chicken in fact are Chinas national meats  people there eat every part, from feet to intestines to meat, of the animals. 

Thanks to Trump, US hog and chicken farmers may kiss 1.4 billion consumers goodbye.

*Poverty and homelessness on the rise*

According to the US Tax Policy Center and others including the United Nations, the US Federal Reserve, and the US Department of Housing and Social Development, the numbers of poor and homeless people are on the rise or becoming more destitute under Trump.
The Housing Department estimated that nearly 540,000 people slept on the streets in 2017, a year-on-year rise of almost 1%. A recent UN report found that the poor had become more destitute since Trump had been in charge, an assessment concurred by some  US politicians such as Senator Bernie Sanders because of increasing wealth inequality. The Fed revealed that more than 40% of American workers are still struggling, living from paycheck to paycheck.

*Comparing US and Chinese economic growth*

Most reputable economic forecasting organizations  the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and others  expect the second-quarter growth of 4.2% in US gross domestic product will not be repeated in the third and subsequent quarters.

According to the Tax Policy Center, the $1.5 trillion worth of tax cuts pushed through by the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress primarily benefited the top 1%. Those findings would suggest future consumption will be low or flat. Besides, the government spending that helped to boost the second quarters robust growth increased the US budget deficit.

Americas massive fiscal debt could preclude the government from instituting future stimulus packages. The IMF predicts that US economic growth will likely drop by between 1 and 2 percentage points in the coming quarters and years, estimated at 2.9% and 2.5% respectively in 2018 and 2019.

While Chinas economy will also be hit by the trade war, the IMF and other organizations project that it will grow 6.8% and 6.5% this year and next. Indeed, HSBC and the IMF predict that China will replace the US as the worlds biggest economy by 2030 if not sooner. Meanwhile Chinas public and consumer debts are far lower than those of the US.

And for those who suggest that declining stock prices are a sign that China is losing the trade war, dont be too sure. Chinas stock markets are in essence gambling houses for small investors to make a quick buck. They are not indicative of economic performance like stock markets in the West


Some economic commentators have remarked that mounting a trade war against China is wrong, hurting America just as much as if not more than China. Perhaps Trump also sees that, because he appears desperate, creating problems and blaming China for them. He even told the world at the recent USGA meeting that China is meddling in the US midterm and presidential elections because the communist country dared to retaliate against him.

The latest news is the South China Sea freedom of navigation operation in which a Chinese destroyer chased an American one out of Chinas 12-mile exclusive economic zone. CNN and other news outlets reported that the Chinese navy behaved irresponsibly and aggressively, hoping to gain support for escalating the trade and possibly military war against China. It seems that yellow journalism, sensationalizing an incident to sell papers or increase viewers, is alive and well in the US.
Trump should be aware of the consequences of fighting a war based on fake news. He should consult George W Bush, who will likely be tarnished in history by the Iraq war. Lyndon Johnsons Vietnam War not only cost more than 50,000 American lives, it also cost him a second term. China will be a far more formidable foe.

----------


## devil21

> Their economy is structured differently than ours, it is even more like a Ponzi scheme, if it doesn't grow fast enough it will collapse, their debt and malinvestment problems are even bigger than ours proportionally and they don't have the advantage of being the world reserve currency.
> 
> Once their growth slows past a certain point the weak points in their economy will begin to fail and then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.


Actually, that's exactly like ours.  The PBOC is a Rothschild western central bank, also.  It's why they, and us, have to constantly take on more and more debt and blow bigger and bigger bubbles to stay afloat.  The only difference is that they haven't been able to export their inflation like we have.  They've exported goods, we've exported debt.

----------


## Swordsmyth

China's central bank announced it  would cut the Required Reserve Ratio (RRR) for most banks by 1.0%  effective October 15 for the fourth time in 2018, a little over three  months after the PBOC announced a smaller, 0.5% cut on June 24,  as Beijing seeks to stimulate the slowing economy amid the growing  trade war with the US, a slumping stock market, a sliding yuan and a  record number of bond defaults.

  The People’s Bank of China announced on Sunday local time that it  lowered the required reserve ratio for some lenders by 1 percentage  point according to a statement on its  website. The cut, which will apply to a wide range of banks _including  large commercial banks, joint stock commercial banks, city commercial  banks, non-county rural banks and foreign banks,_ will release a  total of 1.2 trillion yuan ($175 billion), of which 450 billion yuan  will be used to repay existing medium-term funding facilities which are  maturing, and the remaining RMB 750bn will help offset the seasonal rise  in liquidity demand during the second half of the month due to tax  payments, according to the PBOC.
  But the real reason behind the *RRR cut is that it is intended  to boost sentiment before the onshore equity market re-opens on Monday  after the week-long holidays, as well as to support liquidity conditions * at a time when global interest rates have suddenly spiked to multi-year highs..
  Commenting on the cut, Goldman economists said that while they had  been expecting one RRR cut per quarter in H2, "the 1pp magnitude  surprised us on the upside."

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ade-war-record

----------


## Swordsmyth



----------


## Swordsmyth

At roughly the same time that China announced its latest 1% RRR cut,  whose net liquidity injection would be roughly 750BN yuan, the PBOC  reported that FX reserves decreased by US$23bn in September to $3.087Tn  from $3.110TN after an $8bn drop in August. With consensus expecting a  far more modest drop of only $500MM to $3.105TN, this was the biggest  drop in Chinese reserves since February; to find a greater outflow one  would need to go back all the way to December 2016.

  Unlike in recent months when the value of the Yuan declined sharply,  in September the currency valuation effect was quite modest, and  according to Goldman calculations amounted to only -$2bn suggesting that  capital outflows have returned, if at a modest pace for the time being.
  Additionally the rise in US Treasury yields during the month might  also have contributed to the reserves' decline: In the official  statement, SAFE said the rise in global yields was one factor for the  decline in reserves. Based on historical observations, though, it is not  clear to what extent reported FX reserve readings take into account  asset price changes. As a reminder, the PBOC's FX reserve report is  viewed somewhat skeptically by the analyst community, and subsequently  released - and more exhaustive - PBOC and SAFE flow data will give  further information to gauge the underlying FX flow.
  China's reserve holdings, the world’s biggest, have so far exhibited  modest fluctuations as capital controls remain in place and policy  makers have taken measures to stabilize the falling currency. That said,  amid a worsening trade-war outlook, negative sentiment around China’s  economy and a surging U.S. dollar could yet test the nation’s defenses.
  "China’s foreign-exchange reserves should decline given a stronger  dollar and increasing depreciation pressures on the yuan, which could  prompt the PBOC to intervene," said Mizuho FX strategist Ken Cheung.  "Also, capital outflows should be increasing due to mounting risks on  China-U.S. trade war risks."
  And speaking of the depreciation pressure on the yuan, which today  just increased again after the abovementioned required reserve ratio  cut, with China returning form a week-long holiday its currency is  bracing for renewed trade war - and rate shock - impact, and weakened in  offshore trading to a new 7-week low as traders prepared for mainland  markets to reopen.
  The offshore yuan dropped as low at 6.9152, down -0.3%, after falling  another 0.3% last week, and was approaching the lowest level since  August 16 when it tumbled as low as 6.95 before recouping some losses.

  The CNH is once again dangerously close to the PBOC's redline of  7.00, with 3-month USD/CNH points, which have reached their highest this  year, suggesting that a breach of that level is increasingly probably  and implying a CNH yield of around 2% above equivalent USD 3-month  rates. 

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...hs-yuan-slides

----------


## Swordsmyth

On the energy front, China has already blinked, maybe even twice. First,  it conceded in August by removing U.S. oil imports from a list of  possible duties. Two months earlier, China - perhaps trying to either  intimate U.S. oil producers (who have been largely supportive of Trump’s  policies thus far) who would in turn pressure President Trump, or  either by pressuring Trump directly, indicated it would levy a 25  percent duty on U.S. oil imports.

Since China is the largest buyer of American crude, Beijing likely  discarded one of its strongest bargaining chips in the trade war so far.  Some reports claim  that U.S. oil imports to China are worth $8 billion all by themselves,  so erasing oil from the tariff list reduced the value of sanctioned  goods by roughly one-third.
As far as Beijing’s LNG tariff threats  are concerned, the reduction from an earlier 25 percent duty to 10  percent could also be considered another blink on China's part. Beijing,  though it does have a host of other gas and LNG suppliers, at the end  of the day still needs American LNG as the country continues to pivot  away from dirtier burning coal needed for power production in favor of  cleaning burning natural gas. By 2020, per government mandate, gas is  earmarked to make up at least 10 percent of China’s energy mix, with  further earmarks by 2030.
Moreover, Being's 10 percent duty on  U.S.-sourced LNG will merely see that cost passed onto China's state-run  oil majors, while also increasing revenue for LNG sellers, including  American LNG exporters.
Tariffs will also increase the price of  LNG in Asia as producers and traders in the region will likely increase  LNG on the spot market (which China needs to fill gaps in winter supply)  to prices just under U.S. LNG prices with the tariff cost added in.  Complicating the matter further, the 10 percent LNG retaliatory tariff  comes just before winter when LNG demand is set to increase, and  customers are already vulnerable to price hikes for the cleaner burning  fuel.
Energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie estimates  that China will need to buy about 8 million tons of LNG on the spot  market, where commodities are purchased for immediate delivery or  shipment in the near future CNBC, citing analysts, claims that Chinese  LNG buyers will also try to swap as many LNG cargoes as possible to  avoid the 10 percent tariff, but if they can’t swap cargoes they will be  stuck paying the 10 percent duty.
As other LNG producers take  advantage of China’s 10 percent tariff increase and hike LNG prices, the  markup could add another $4 million to $5 million on LNG cargoes for  Chinese buyers, Wood Mackenzie added.

More at: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-...f-With-US.html

----------


## phill4paul

STILL haven't been out tariff'd. Can't be done.

----------


## Swordsmyth

As China returns from its Golden Week vacation,_ it is not just its currency and stock market that is collapsing..._
_As Bloomberg reports,_  an indicator produced by a Beijing-based business school in the style  of the closely-watched purchasing managers index plunged last month,  adding to concerns about the slowing economy and *raising the question of whether business conditions may be worse than official statistics show.*

  The index is based on a survey of CKGSB students and graduates who are *executives at companies operating in China.* The respondents represent around 300 privately-owned small and mid-sized enterprises across several sectors of the economy.
 _"Most surveyed companies are now experiencing  unprecedented difficulties and have become increasingly pessimistic  about business prospects for the next six months,"_ Li Wei,  the economics professor at CKGSB who oversees the survey, said in a  commentary accompanying the September survey results.
_"For most, business has never been worse."_In fact, one look at the 'real' economic data in China and it is  evident that it has been disappointing for the longest period since  2015...



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...de-war-strikes

----------


## TheCount

> *A 10% tariff hurts a small part of the economy. However, a 10% devaluation hurts all Chinese citizens equally and massively.*


LOL

----------


## Swordsmyth

Growth in China's manufacturing sector stalled this September, with  export orders falling faster than they have in two years. The Caixin/  Markit Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) for September fell  more than expected to 50.0 from 50.6 in August. The index measures the  rate of expansion or contraction in an economy, and the neutral 50-mark  divides expansion from contraction. *What was once the  world's fastest growing economy, destined to overtake the United States  at any moment, is now poised, not simply to cool off, but to begin to  shrink in size.* New export orders from Chinese firms, the  all-important indicator of what the future portends, are now shrinking  across the board.
 "Expansion across the manufacturing sector weakened in September, as  exports increasingly dragged down performance and continued softening  demand began to have an impact on companies' production," said  Zhengsheng Zhong, director of macroeconomic analysis at CEBM Group, a  company specializing in analysis of the Chinese economy. *"Downward pressure on China's economy was significant,"* said Zhong.*China's currency is in free fall.* China's foreign  exchange reserves fell more than expected in September 2018 to a  14-month low as the yuan weakened against the dollar.
*China's stock market is crashing.* It has lost $2  trillion in value already this year. China, which overtook Japan as the  second largest stock market in the world only a few years ago, has now  officially fallen behind Japan. The losses show no signs of abating.
*Chinese investments in the US plummeted 92 per cent in the first nine months of 2018 from their peak two years ago.*  In New York, where Chinese money was once driving real estate prices  through the roof, the Chinese are now selling and going home. In the  second quarter of 2018 Chinese investors sold $1.29 billion worth of US  commercial real estate. During the same time period, Chinese investors  bought only $126.2 million of property, according to data firm Real  Capital Analytics. This marked the first time that these investors were  net sellers since 2008.
  Meanwhile, back home,* China is on pace for a record year in corporate-bond defaults.*  Chinese companies have reneged on about $2.5 billion of public bond  payments so far this year. As the economy downshifts and the threat of  US tariffs hangs over everything, Chinese companies increasingly simply  cannot pay their debt.
 _"Corporate profits have worsened this year and are unlikely to improve against the backdrop of an economic slowdown,"_ said Li Shi, general manager of the rating and bond-research department at China Chengxin International Credit Rating Company.Meanwhile a spokesman for the Chinese Supreme People's Court is warning of an* impending flood of Chinese bankruptcies and telling the Chinese judiciary to prepare in advance*.
 "It's hard to predict how this trade war will develop and to what extent," the spokesman said. "But one thing is sure: *if  the US imposes tariffs on Chinese imports following an order of US$60  billion, US$200 billion, or even US$500 billion, many Chinese companies  will go bankrupt."*Against this backdrop China-based manufacturers, many of whom were  already in the process of moving out, have intensified the speed with  which they are leaving.
 *"Companies aren't as eager to have production in China,"* says Nathan Resnick, CEO of startup company Sourcify.
  "We run production runs in India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Philippines  and Mexico right now. Labor costs are actually more affordable outside  of China, so for products like apparel where there is a lot of  cut-and-sew labor, most companies are moving out of China anyway," he  says.
*"I've been going back and forth to China for years, and it is getting more expensive.*  With all these tariffs coming, why not run some of your production runs  elsewhere? Companies are saying that the scare of these tariffs has  decreased the incentives to manufacture in China."Discussing the trend, William Ma Wing-kai, managing director of Kerry  Logistics Network, a Hong Kong-listed firm owned by Malaysia's  billionaire Kuok family, stated,
 _"Our clients have been shifting part of their production  lines as early as March from China to other Asian countries where they  already have manufacturing plants. This is a reallocation of global  production bases."_ In retrospect none of this should come as a surprise. *The  result of this confrontation was preordained. The United States is far  and away the world's largest market for consumer goods*. China,  which lives or dies based on exports cannot lose access to the American  market and even begin to replace those sales elsewhere. There are on the  other hand an almost endless number of other locations other than  China, including the United States, to which manufacturers can move  their factories and shift production. China was already seeing the  beginnings of this shift before the trade war began. The confrontation  with the United States simply intensified the trend.
*What comes next will reshape the global economy and the world's geopolitical landscape.*  China will ultimately cave and sign a deal. Its economy will not  collapse. It will, however, never again see growth on the scale it has  seen for the last thirty years. Within a year or two, in fact, we are  likely to see a red-hot American economy surge past China in its rate of  growth. China, which once thought fit to challenge the United States  for global supremacy will remain a second-tier power.
*Chinese influence around the world, heavily dependent on the availability of funds to invest, will decline precipitously.*  Chinese plans for massive defense spending will be still born. Outposts  in the South China Sea once taken as harbingers of relentless expansion  will instead stand as high-water marks for a nation facing the harsh  reality of economic contraction.
*The ultimate reckoning will come inside China however.*  Ever since China opened its economy to the world it has had an implicit  bargain with its citizens. They would accept continued authoritarian  rule by the Communist Party in exchange for a rising standard of living  and greater economic opportunity. _The Communist Party is  about to be forced to admit that it can no longer keep its end of that  bargain. What the people do next remains to be seen._


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ready-lost-war

----------


## devil21

^^^^^^^^
I know I like to get my news from CIA intel officers.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> ^^^^^^^^
> I know I like to get my news from CIA intel officers.


No, you prefer Chinese communist propaganda.

----------


## devil21

> No, you prefer Chinese communist propaganda.


6 or a half dozen.  At least I recognize that neither are working for the American people.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Last March, we discussed why few things are as important for China's wealth effect and economy, as its housing bubble  market. Specifically, as Deutsche Bank calculated at the time, "in 2016  the rise of property prices boosted household wealth in 37 tier 1 and  tier 2 cities by RMB24 trillion, *almost twice their total disposable income of RMB12.9 trillion*."  The German lender added that this (rather fleeting) wealth effect "may  be helping to sustain consumption in China despite slowing income  growth" warning that "*a decline of property price would obviously have a large negative impact*."

  Naturally, as long as the housing bubble keeps inflating and prices  keep rising, there is nothing to worry about as the population will keep  spending money buoyed by illusory wealth appreciation. It is when  housing starts to drop that Beijing begins to panic.
  Fast forward to today, when Beijing may be starting to sweat because  whereas Chinese property developers usually count on September and  October to be their “gold and silver” months for sales, this year has  turned out to be different. As the SCMP reports, not only were sales  figures grim for September, but the seven-day national holiday last week  also brought at least two "_fangnao_" incidents – *when angry, and often violent, homeowners protest against price cuts offered by developers to new buyers.*
  These protests are often directed at sales offices, with varying  levels of intensity – from throwing rocks to holding banners and putting  up funeral wreaths. The risk, of course, is that as what has gone up  (wealth effect) will come down, and as home ownership has remained the  most important channel of investment for urban households in China in  the past decade, *price cuts have become increasingly unacceptable and a cause for social unrest*.
  Just last week, angry homeowners who paid full price for units at the  Xinzhou Mansion residential project in Shangrao attacked the Country  Garden sales office in eastern Jiangxi province last week, *after finding out it had offered discounts to new buyers of up to 30%*.
 Country Garden cut the selling  price at one of its residential developments by 1/3. Those who paid full  price smashed the sales office. Similar incidents had happened before,  and will again. It’s impossible to remove “the guarantee of  principal”（刚性兑付）in China. pic.twitter.com/UxHFODYxmc
 — Hao Hong 洪灝, CFA (@HAOHONG_CFA) October 6, 2018A similar incident took place in suburban Shanghai, where the same  developer slashed prices at another project called One Mansion by a  quarter.
  While the protests have been isolated so far, the risk is that the  greater the slide in property prices, the more widespread popular anger  will become:
 "Property accounts for roughly 70 per cent of urban Chinese families’ total assets – a home is both wealth and status. *People don’t want prices to increase too fast, but they don’t want them to fall too quickly either*,” said Shao Yu, chief economist at Oriental Securities.Or fall at all, for that matter.
  While China's stock market has had its ups and down, along the way  accompanied by various "rolling" bubbles affecting assored Chinese  assets, China’s property market has soared since the 2000s making home  ownership the quickest way to gain wealth. In Beijing, homes that went  for an average of around 4,000 yuan (US$580) per square metre in 2003  are now above 60,000 yuan (US$8,600) a square metre, according to  property price data provider creprice.cn.
  And, in a page right out of Ben Bernanke's playbook, who in 2005 claimed that  "we've never had a decline in housing prices on a nationwide basis" and  as a result never would, what is now taking place in China is nothing  short of a shock to the general population: "*People are so used to rising prices that it never occurred to them that they can fall too. We shouldn’t add to this illusion,"* Shao said.
  Meanwhile, dreading that this moment would eventually come, the  government has been working on measures to cool property prices for  years, calling residential real estate not only an economic issue but  also “an important issue for people’s livelihoods that influences social  stability”, in a directive back in 2010.
  And while the industry remained strong in the first eight months of  the year it started slowing last month, according to data provider China  Real Estate Information Corp. Official statistics showed that in  Shangrao, where the violent protest occurred, transactions of homes last  month fell by 22% from August and 18% from the same month last year. In  Shanghai, sales in the past five weeks have risen slightly from the  same period last year, but average prices dropped in September by over  3% from August and 1.4% from the same period last year.
  Quoted by SCMP, Zhang Dawei, chief analyst at Centaline Property, warned that not only were the overall sales dropping, *but poor construction quality could also be a cause for more violence.* “Try  not to buy homes built in 2018, because while the developers were short  of money, the same is the case with contractors,” he said, and had an  even more ominous warning about what's coming: "The fourth quarter would  be a peak time for residential project completion. *Issues which  used to be papered over by rising prices could erupt in this period… so  we should look out for a sudden surge [public violence] in the coming  months."*
  Ultimately, it's all a question of public expectations: expectations  that have been number following years of government bailouts and bubble  reflating, making sure that every single drop in housing was promptly  offset.  Hu Xingdou, a Beijing-based economist, said despite China’s  market-oriented reforms 40 years ago, investors still lacked respect for  market and social rules.
 "They don’t have the spirit of contract, and they always think they  can fight against the rules,” he said. “As a commodity, the value of  homes can both rise and fall. Investors should obey this fundamental  rule."But why should they if until recently, policymakers did everything in their power to avoid them this simplest of lessons.
  To be sure, public anger at falling prices is hardly new. Rampaging  against price cuts was first seen in 2011, when homebuyers of a  residential project named Oriental Rose in Beijing’s Tongzhou district  mobbed a Huaye sales office after the firm cut prices by a tenth.
  Similar incidents have erupted whenever investors have found their  property value depreciating. And, in a country where there are  relatively fewer investment channels and an unpredictable stock market,  such protests are always couched as a struggle to protect individual  rights. In many such cases, *protesters demand compensation or  cancellation of their purchase, and in order to prevent further social  disorder, developers often accept their demands.*
  In other words, moral hazard in China is so pervasive, it threatens the very fabric of society.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...e-prices-slide

----------


## Swordsmyth

When it comes to estimating China's total outstanding debt, there has  long been confusion about the real number with most putting the  debt/GDP at around 250%, while the IIF last year calculated China's debt  load as high as 300% of GDP.

  Now, China watchers can one add another ~40% of debt/GDP to the total  because according to S&P, China’s local governments have  accumulated 40 trillion yuan ($5.8 trillion) - or even more - in  off-balance sheet debt, suggesting the already record surge in defaults  is set to accelerate further.
*"The potential amount of debt is an iceberg with titanic credit risks,"* S&P credit analysts wrote in a report Tuesday, Bloomberg reported,  with much of the build-up related to local government financing  vehicles, which don’t necessarily have the full financial backing of  local governments themselves.
  LGFV debt has emerged as a growing risk for China's economy, because  with the national economy slowing, and as a result of a crackdown on  shadow lending and a Beijing quota for issuance of local-government  bonds not enough to fund infrastructure projects to support regional  growth, authorities across the country have resorted to LGFVs to raise  financing, according to S&P.
  That’s left LGFVs “walking a tightrope” between deleveraging and  transforming their businesses into more typical state-owned enterprises,  S&P warned.
  Meanwhile, debt vulnerabilities continue to rise as a result of the previously reported record surge in Chinese corporate defaults this year, as Beijing seeks to roll back a decades-old practice of implicit guarantees for debt.

  And while so far LGFV debt has avoided an event of default, several  issues have come close, with local government bailouts taking place only  in the last minute, adding to concerns about LGFVs vulnerabilities.  Meanwhile, according to S&P the riskiest LGFVs include the  following:

Those tied to weaker prefectural, city or district-level governments with lax supervision over state-owned enterprises.Those focused on commercial activities - thus having diminishing importance to local governments.Those with significant refinancing risks thanks to large short-term  debt or reliance on borrowing from the shadow-banking sector.
As Bloomberg notes, the focus on funding to sustain growth at  the local level echoes a broader shift in the central government, which  last year was focused on reducing leverage in the financial system. That  phase is essentially over, thanks in part to an escalating trade war  with the U.S., according to Citi. The result has been a sharp slowdown  in China's debt-reliant economy.
  “The markets are right, in our view, to feel more concerned about the  sustainability of China’s debt and the increased financial risks," said  Citi's chief China economist Liu Li-Gang, who also saw “renewed  pressure” on the yuan as the currency continues to creep ever lower to  the PBOC "redline" of 7.00.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...c-credit-risks

----------


## Swordsmyth

Marking the *worst year since 2008,* China's  tech-heavy (Nasdaq-equivalent) Shenzhen Composite index is down a  shocking 35% year-to-date, and it's starting to become a self-feeding  vicious circle...

_As Bloomberg reports,_ the most recent slump in the teach-heavy index comes *despite regulators' efforts to rein in risks of share-backed loans* following reports over the weekend that insurers are being 'encouraged' to invest in listed companies to reduce liquidity risks connected to such loans.
*Share pledges, where company founders and other major investors put up stock as collateral,* have emerged as a pressure point in China’s debt-laden economy, especially as the stock market tumbles.
 “*There’s a liquidity crisis in the stock market, and pledged shares are again starting to sound the alarm,*” said Yang Hai, analyst at Kaiyuan Securities Co.
  "Stocks in Shenzhen typically bear the brunt of loss of confidence in the stock market because of their higher valuations.”Bloomberg additionally notes that this attempt to slow the impact of this crisis has been ongoing all summer...
 China *in June told brokerages to seek approval before selling large chunks of stock that have been pledged as collateral for loans*, according to people familiar with the matter...
  while the *top financial regulator in August warned the industry that it’s closely watching corporate stock pledges.*And quite clearly, has failed... with* two-thirds of Shenzhen Composite stocks now at 52-week lows or worse...*


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...-chinas-nasdaq

----------


## Swordsmyth

With investor attention increasingly focused on China's credit  pipeline to see if the recent crackdown on shadow lending has unlocked  other sources of debt in a country where _growth is always and only a credit phenomenon_, and where both the housing and auto sectors are  suddenly reeling, overnight's latest credit data from the PBOC was  closely scrutinized... and left China watchers with a very bitter  taste. 
  What it showed was that *traditional new RMB loans rose to RMB1,380bn in September, largely as expected (exp RMB1,360bn) from RMB1,280bn in August*,  with growth of outstanding loans unchanged at 13.2% Y/Y and up from  12.7% a year ago. New loans to the corporate sector rose to RMB677bn  from RMB613bn in August, in which medium- to long-term loans rose to  RMB380bn from RMB343bn in August. New loans to the household sector rose  slightly to RMB754bn in September from RMB701bn in August, and the  long-term loan component (mostly mortgage loans) remained largely flat  at RMB431bn (August: RMB442bn). New loans to non-bank financial  institutions were -RMB60bn in September versus -RMB44bn in August  (average September level: RMB13bn). Also of note, M2 growth rose by 0.1%  to 8.3% Y/Y in September, in line with market expectations, however as  Nomura writes in a note this morning, monetary aggregate growth is no  longer as important to the central bank’s policy making as it once was,  and Beijing is focusing more on interbank liquidity conditions,  aggregate financing and investment.

  Where the data was especially interesting, however, was in the  broader Total Social Financing category, which on the surface came in  well stronger than expected printing at RMB2,205bn in September from  RMB1,929bn in August, above the $1,550bn estimate, and the strongest  month since January.

  However, this being China, there was as usual a big footnote with this latest credit data: starting this month, *the  PBoC further adjusted its definition of aggregate financing by  including net financing through local government special bond issuance*  - just two months after it added asset-backed securities (ABS) and  non-performing loan write-offs into this measure - and the same LGFV  source of debt which yesterday S&P said could contain as much as $5.8 trillion in off balance sheet debt.
  Why did China revise its TSF yet again?
  Simple: to "pump up" the credit numbers and telegraph to the market  and consumers that Chinese credit is growing faster, and thus represent a  stronger economy, than it is in reality. Indeed, the September jump in  TSF was driven mainly by a faster local government bond issuance, *while  based on the previous definition, it fell to a weaker-than-expected  RMB1,467bn from RMB1,518bn and below the RMB1,554 consensus, weighed  upon by continued contraction of shadow banking financing and a decline  in net corporate bond financing*. Growth of outstanding  aggregate financing, based on the new definition, slowed by 0.2% to  10.6% in September. If central and local government bond financing is  included, growth in Nomura's "augmented outstanding aggregate financing"  measure moderated by 0.3% to 11.2% Y/Y  in September. This variance in  TSF growth rates is shown in the chart below:

  Broken down by category, despite the mild rise in new loans, *new entrusted loans and trust loans combined were -RMB234bn in September, versus -RMB190bn in August*, *suggesting an even faster contraction of the shadow banking sector*.

  Meanwhile, net corporate bond financing slumped to RMB14bn in  September from RMB338bn in August mainly due to the crowding-out effect  from the recent surge in local government bond issuance on private  sector financing.
  As a reminder, the latest credit data came just as the latest reserve  requirement ratio (RRR) cut by the People’s Bank of China’s (PBoC)  became effective on 15 October, which replaced the RMB450bn of maturing  medium-term lending facility (MLF) and injected a net RMB750bn of  liquidity into financial markets.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...redit-slowdown

----------


## Swordsmyth

_“Something has to be done...How can my government be subsidizing China and driving me out of business?”_Those are the words of Jayme Smaldone, who runs a 12-employee  housewares company in Rahway, N.J., who first became aware of the  problem when he noticed websites selling Chinese knockoffs of his  “Mighty Mug,” a desktop coffee cup he designed with an anti-topple base.
  And it appears President Trump has listened to Jayme among many others, as The New York Times reports that he *plans  to withdraw from a 144-year-old postal treaty that has allowed Chinese  companies to ship small packages to the United States at a steeply  discounted rate, undercutting American competitors and flooding the  market with cheap consumer goods*.

  Peter Navarro, Mr. Trump’s hard-line trade adviser, wrote in a Financial Times op-ed last month.
 “*These disparities have introduced a massive distortion in the eCommerce market.*
  It is* often possible for a Chinese company to sell ‘knockoff’  products through online vendors, such as Amazon or Alibaba, to U.S.  consumers for less than it costs for American mailers to ship authentic  goods.* Moreover, while USPS loses an estimated $1 on every  small package that arrives from China, outbound mail of American  exporters is charged at well above cost.”As The New York Times details,  a 2015 report from the Inspector General of the United  States Postal Service found that the treaty, which was created to ease  the flow of mail and small parcels between 192 countries, *had  not been overhauled to reflect the new realities of eCommerce and  China’s aggressive undercutting of international competitors.*
 The price of shipping a 4.4 pound package, the largest parcel covered  by the treaty, from China to the United States is about $5, according  to United States estimates, according to post office estimates culled by  Mr. Navarro’s staff.
  American companies can pay two to four times that amount to ship a  similar package from Los Angeles to New York, and much more for packages  sent to China.
*The “system creates winners and losers,”* the  report’s author’s concluded, especially China’s national postal service  and "Chinese online retailers in the lightweight, low-value package  segment at the expense of the U.S. PostalService and American  retailers.”
*It is not clear how much the disparity costs American  taxpayers and retailers, in part because the Postal Service does not  release detailed country-by-country shipping breakdowns*. A 2014  study, cited in a Postal Service analysis of the issue, estimated that  discounted shipping cost industrialized nations as much as $2.1 billion a  year in aggregate.
*The losses to retailers and manufacturers could be much more, as online commerce expands further.*Presumably, President Obama decide to ignore the 2015 report.
  What is most odd about this decision by President Trump is no one is  against it, no one is complaining at Trump "breaking norms" or  "isolationism" or "being racist" - politicians and industry groups are  all in agreement that it was unfair and needed to stop...
  Even industry groups that have questioned the president’s tariffs on  Chinese imports, applauded the move as proportional and targeted.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...g-treaty-china

----------


## Swordsmyth

Everyone knows - despite Treasury's decision not to label China a currency manipulator - that the Yuan has been collapsing...

  However, that collapse is against the US Dollar and other just-as-fiat-and-unbacked currencies.
*The PBOC has been considerably more careful about how its currency has moved relative to 'real money'.*
  In Q1, the PBOC appeared to 'manage' its currency to 8,400 Yuan per  oz of gold. In Q2, the PBOC strengthened its 'peg' to 8,300 Yuan per oz  of gold; and the last few months have seen gold managed stronger still  at around 8,200 Yuan per oz... until this week...

  As the chart above shows, it seems the PBOC has lost its ability to  managed the 'peg' - whether due to desperate liquidity needs elsewhere  or defending stocks as they begin to freefall - with Yuan plunging back  to only 8,500 per oz of gold.
  This is a significant breakout (weaker) for the yuan...

_h/t @TaviCosta_
*This sudden decoupling of gold from yuan is extremely notable* since, as we noted previously,  it has seemed that the PBOC has attempted to peg yuan in an effort to  improve credibility (as the currency collapsed against the USDollar's  fiat).



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...chart-says-yes

----------


## devil21

> 


So much WINNING!  We will know that we've finally WON when our bank accounts are empty from higher costs for everything.

Btw, did you know Navarro is a   *gasp*   Democrat??

----------


## nobody's_hero

> So much WINNING!  We will know that we've finally WON when our bank accounts are empty from higher costs for everything.
> 
> Btw, did you know Navarro is a   *gasp*   Democrat??


That's a bit silly. You don't run out of money because stuff costs more. You run out of money because you can't find work. No paycheck, no money. If anything, bank accounts *will fill* as people go back to saving money up for things they really want. 

I guess people that run out and buy the latest doo-hickey with their credit cards and live in mom's basement will be greatly affected by these tariffs. 

There's more job openings right now than unemployed people. If you're out of money, it's not because of tariffs.

----------


## Danke

> _“Something has to be done...How can my government be subsidizing China and driving me out of business?”_Those are the words of Jayme Smaldone, who runs a 12-employee  housewares company in Rahway, N.J., who first became aware of the  problem when he noticed websites selling Chinese knockoffs of his  “Mighty Mug,” a desktop coffee cup he designed with an anti-topple base.
>   And it appears President Trump has listened to Jayme among many others, as The New York Times reports that he *plans  to withdraw from a 144-year-old postal treaty that has allowed Chinese  companies to ship small packages to the United States at a steeply  discounted rate, undercutting American competitors and flooding the  market with cheap consumer goods*.
> 
>   Peter Navarro, Mr. Trump’s hard-line trade adviser, wrote in a Financial Times op-ed last month. “*These disparities have introduced a massive distortion in the eCommerce market.*
>   It is* often possible for a Chinese company to sell ‘knockoff’  products through online vendors, such as Amazon or Alibaba, to U.S.  consumers for less than it costs for American mailers to ship authentic  goods.* Moreover, while USPS loses an estimated $1 on every  small package that arrives from China, outbound mail of American  exporters is charged at well above cost.”As The New York Times details,  a 2015 report from the Inspector General of the United  States Postal Service found that the treaty, which was created to ease  the flow of mail and small parcels between 192 countries, *had  not been overhauled to reflect the new realities of eCommerce and  China’s aggressive undercutting of international competitors.* The price of shipping a 4.4 pound package, the largest parcel covered  by the treaty, from China to the United States is about $5, according  to United States estimates, according to post office estimates culled by  Mr. Navarro’s staff.
>   American companies can pay two to four times that amount to ship a  similar package from Los Angeles to New York, and much more for packages  sent to China.
> *The “system creates winners and losers,”* the  report’s author’s concluded, especially China’s national postal service  and "Chinese online retailers in the lightweight, low-value package  segment at the expense of the U.S. PostalService and American  retailers.”
> *It is not clear how much the disparity costs American  taxpayers and retailers, in part because the Postal Service does not  release detailed country-by-country shipping breakdowns*. A 2014  study, cited in a Postal Service analysis of the issue, estimated that  discounted shipping cost industrialized nations as much as $2.1 billion a  year in aggregate.
> *The losses to retailers and manufacturers could be much more, as online commerce expands further.*Presumably, President Obama decide to ignore the 2015 report.
> ...


That explains how I could get small packages from China so cheaply.

----------


## devil21

> That's a bit silly. You don't run out of money because stuff costs more. You run out of money because you can't find work. No paycheck, no money. If anything, bank accounts *will fill* as people go back to saving money up for things they really want. 
> 
> I guess people that run out and buy the latest doo-hickey with their credit cards and live in mom's basement will be greatly affected by these tariffs. 
> 
> There's more job openings right now than unemployed people. If you're out of money, it's not because of tariffs.


My post was hyperbole, obviously, but the celebration of higher prices as "WINNING" by the Trump PR team is becoming tiresome.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> My post was hyperbole, obviously, but the celebration of higher prices as "WINNING" by the Trump PR team is becoming tiresome.


The celebration of job losses by the China PR team became tiresome long ago.

----------


## Swordsmyth

*Likely American voters are vastly more interested in putting new  tariffs on foreign countries than implementing new free trade deals.* A new poll  by Public Opinion Strategies reveals likely voters’ lack of excitement  for the free trade apparatus of Washington, D.C. that has prevailed for  decades. Instead, likely voters find implementing new trade restrictions  more important to securing a booming U.S. economy that benefits  American workers.
  When asked to rank a number of policies that would be considered  “most important” for Congress and President Trump, likely voters say  slapping tariffs or other trade restrictions on foreign countries who  violate trade agreements is much more important to them than the U.S.  entering new free trade deals.
   A majority of nearly 60 percent of likely voters say it is important  for Trump and Congress to “place trade restrictions on countries that  violate trade agreements” to create more American jobs. Meanwhile, only  38 percent of likely voters said entering new free trade deals is the  most important means to creating U.S. jobs.


About 63 percent say it is very important for Trump and Congress to  mandate that “all taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects use American  made goods whenever possible,” in order to add to the number of U.S.  jobs in the economy.
  Likewise, 80 percent of likely voters say taxpayer-funded  infrastructure projects should be built by American workers and  American-made products, rather than by the lowest bidder.


The poll comes as economic nationalism has swept across the American electorate, with a similar poll revealing last month that 6-in-10 midterm voters support  Trump’s tariffs on foreign imports, designed to protect American jobs  and industry while forcing multinational corporations to bring  manufacturing back to the U.S.
 As Breitbart News reported,  there have been about 11,100 U.S. jobs created due to Trump’s  protective tariffs. On the other hand, there have been about 514 job  losses directly tied to the tariffs. There are 20 times as  many American jobs that have been created in the last six months thanks  to Trump’s tariffs on imported foreign goods than jobs that have been  lost.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ot-free-trade/

----------


## Swordsmyth

For all the concerns that Trump's trade war and tariff increases  could jeopardize corporate capital spending plans, resulting in a  broader economic slump, a Special Question posed by  this month's Philly Fed survey found that this is not the case; in fact  when taking into account Trump's tax relief/fiscal stimulus just the  opposite picture emerges.
  In Special Question #3 in the October Philly Fed survey, the regional Fed asks "*How  have each of the two factors, tax relief and trade policy (including  tariffs), affected your expected capital spending for 2019 compared with  2018?*"

  What it found was that while some *40% of respondents would increase CapEx as a result of Tax Relief*, only *~23%  would cut capital spending plans due to the adverse consequences and  unpredictability resulting from tariff increases and trade policy.*

  In other words, as long as positive impulse from Trump's tax relief  permeates the economy, the president has little to worry about when it  comes to adverse consequences from the ongoing trade war with China or  other nations.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...fect-trade-war

----------


## Swordsmyth

Chinese macro data has been serially disappointing for almost five  straight months, and tonight - as Yuan tests down to cycle lows - all  eyes are on the heavily 'managed' macro data to reasssure the masses  that despite a 25-35% collapse in its stock market this year, all is  well in the land of hidden debt.
  China's regulator already offered up some reassurance tonight that _"China's financial market volatility is not in line with the healthy status of the economy..."_ adding that "*financial risks are controllable."*

  Before tonight's main meal of government-sponsored data is served up, we remind you, as we reported two weeks ago, an  indicator produced by a Beijing-based business school in the style of  the closely-watched purchasing managers index plunged last month, adding  to concerns about the slowing economy and *raising the question of whether business conditions may be worse than official statistics show.*

  The index is based on a survey of CKGSB students and graduates who are *executives at companies operating in China.* The respondents represent around 300 privately-owned small and mid-sized enterprises across several sectors of the economy.
 _"Most surveyed companies are now experiencing  unprecedented difficulties and have become increasingly pessimistic  about business prospects for the next six months,"_ Li Wei,  the economics professor at CKGSB who oversees the survey, said in a  commentary accompanying the September survey results.
_"For most, business has never been worse."_In fact, one look at the 'real' economic data in China and it is  evident that it has been disappointing for the longest period since  2015...

  And heading into tonight's print, yuan was weakening...

  So given all that, we are sure tonight's data dump will be goldilocks  - not too warm (because everyone would know it was fake) and not too  cold (because we can't signal that Trump is winning).
  Before the data hits, bear in mind what Bloomberg noted, *Chinese growth data has become both extremely predictable and frankly boring these last five years.* 

*Reported figures have haven't deviated by more than 0.2  percentage points from median forecasts since 2013. Another observation  is if you look further back, it almost never comes in below  expectations.* 
  So here's tonight's data:

 *China Q3 GDP* *Missed* at +6.5% YoY vs +6.6% YoY expectations (and +6.7% YoY prior) *China Sept Retail Sales Beat* at +9.2% YoY vs +9.0% YoY expectations (and +9.0% YoY prior) *China Sept Industrial Production* *Missed* at +5.8% YoY vs +6.0% YoY expectations (and +6.1% YoY prior) *China Sept Fixed Asset Investment Beat* at +5.4% YoY vs +5.3% YoY expectations (and +5.3% YoY prior)
China’s economy faced increasing headwinds in the third quarter,  with worsening trade tensions and the government’s deleveraging  campaign undercutting growth. *Those problems prompted officials  to step up stimulus, but the impact of those measures has yet to kick in  and more may be needed.*
 "We expect further escalation of US-China trade tensions going into  2019, which will likely be partially offset by CNY adjustment and more  growth-supportive fiscal and monetary policies," wrote JPMorgan  economists led by Zhu Haibin, who expect growth to slow to 6.1 percent  next year. "We expect fiscal and monetary policies to become more  growth-supportive, providing a lift to headline GDP growth," they wrote.Chinese officials will have to step it up as the* stimulus is not working*...
  China GDP is the *weakest on record* aside from the peak of the financial crisis; Industrial Production grew at nearly its *weakest on record*; FAI was the *weakest on record;* but retail sales bounced...

  China's growth moderation has come as inflation quickens, with headline CPI climbing to 2.5% YoY in September, *raising the prospect that the nation experiences at least some measure of mild stagflation.*
*China says downward pressure on growth is growing,* according to the National Bureau of Statistic's press release.


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...growth-q1-2009

----------


## Swordsmyth

*Charting China's Imminent Implosion*

----------


## devil21

> *Charting China's Imminent Implosion*


Oh the humanity!




> China Q3 GDP Missed at +6.5% YoY vs +6.6% YoY expectations (and +6.7% YoY prior)
>     China Sept Retail Sales Beat at +9.2% YoY vs +9.0% YoY expectations (and +9.0% YoY prior)
>     China Sept Industrial Production Missed at +5.8% YoY vs +6.0% YoY expectations (and +6.1% YoY prior)
>     China Sept Fixed Asset Investment Beat at +5.4% YoY vs +5.3% YoY expectations (and +5.3% YoY prior)


So China's GDP is ~2.3% higher than ours, yet their economy is imploding while ours is booming?  That makes no sense.  Their retail sales are UP which means they are successfully, albeit slowly, redirecting to an internal consumption model and away from the export model.  Industrial dropped a bit because they are importing more items, as is necessary when your currency becomes much more accepted globally.  Investment increased but it's hard to say whether that's outside investment by entities receiving those exported yuan or something else.

This narrative of the Chinese collapse is pretty lame.  Yes, their equity markets are dropping but when their currency is purposely weakening AND their stock markets are dropping that means that their currency and markets are being _revalued_, not that their economy is collapsing.  I'm sure you'll call me a Xi shill or whatever but someone needs to clear up this ridiculous narrative of China collapsing while US is thriving, yet their numbers blow ours out of the water and WE are the ones about to be taxed to the hilt via tariffs and a currency losing reserve status.

----------


## TheCount

> Oh the humanity!







If the US hit any of these metrics, Swordsmyth would need to go to the ER for an erection lasting more than four hours.

----------


## specsaregood

From an entertaining investors conference call yesterday:



> *In remember, throughout the entire world, we don't have any more, thanks to Section 232, thanks to the actions taken by the U.S. Government. We don't have any more throughout the world, the dumping effect of dumping Chinese steel, because we not only put these guys out of here*, but we also back our little kids, little brothers.
> 
> Japan is benefiting so much from Section 232, because the Japanese cannot stand up against the Chinese on their own. And their domestic market is benefiting from the fact that price is went up in Japan. Germany, benefiting a lot. All of these effects are benefiting a lot. *They complain, because it looks good on paper, looks good on TV. But at the end of the day, everybody throughout the entire world benefiting from tariffs. Mexicans, they are benefiting a lot.* Canadians, right now with the quota, with hurricane, with the U.S. MCA benefiting a lot.
> 
> So we recovered our leadership in the world in the steel business. Thanks to President Trump. Thanks for his courageous actions supporting the resurgence of manufacturing in the United States of America. That's what happening.
> 
> By doing that, we stood up against the bully and the bullish China. *So China is in deep trouble right now, because their plan fell apart. Their plan was predicated in the United States never reacting and allowing our economy to be decimated by their actions no more.*


https://seekingalpha.com/article/421...nscript?page=8

----------


## Danke

*China's ghost cities and their multibillion-dollar debt are raising concerns*https://www.afr.com/news/world/asia/...0180404-h0ybjz

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Oh the humanity!
> 
> 
> 
> So China's GDP is ~2.3% higher than ours, yet their economy is imploding while ours is booming?  That makes no sense.  Their retail sales are UP which means they are successfully, albeit slowly, redirecting to an internal consumption model and away from the export model.  Industrial dropped a bit because they are importing more items, as is necessary when your currency becomes much more accepted globally.  Investment increased but it's hard to say whether that's outside investment by entities receiving those exported yuan or something else.
> 
> This narrative of the Chinese collapse is pretty lame.  Yes, their equity markets are dropping but when their currency is purposely weakening AND their stock markets are dropping that means that their currency and markets are being _revalued_, not that their economy is collapsing.  I'm sure you'll call me a Xi shill or whatever but someone needs to clear up this ridiculous narrative of China collapsing while US is thriving, yet their numbers blow ours out of the water and WE are the ones about to be taxed to the hilt via tariffs and a currency losing reserve status.





> If the US hit any of these metrics, Swordsmyth would need to go to the ER for an erection lasting more than four hours.


The ChiComs lie about their numbers and their system is dependent on much higher numbers than ours is, any significant sustained slowdown will turn into a collapse.

Their egregious misallocations of resources was already starting to threaten them and now Trump's tariffs are multiplying the damage and they haven't even had time to take full effect yet.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Earnings reporting season is underway, and analysts are eager to hear  from executives about how an escalating trade war between the U.S. and  China is impacting their businesses. A common theme is that they are  ready to relocate supply chains if the cost of importing Chinese goods  becomes prohibitive.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/compa...143908195.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

For close to 30 years, we’ve been told that China is going to  overtake the US and the ‘West’ and become the largest and most powerful  economy on Earth. Supposedly, the best the West can hope for is to  ‘manage’ China’s rise and hope it liberalizes on the way to the top.

 It is clear why that sentiment continues to be so prevalent. China  has been the fastest growing large economy in the world for decades.  Since 2000, China’s economy has grown over 325%. That compares to 33% in the US and just 1% in Italy. Since 2008, China has been responsible for a stunning 54% of all global GDP growth  (pdf). China has become the second largest economy in the world,  roughly two-thirds the size of the US, the world’s largest manufacturer,  the largest consumer of industrial resources, and the largest exporter.  For decades, China has outgrown the US and the West in virtually every  economic metric one can think of.
    Accordingly, the mythos of the ‘Chinese Model’ has emerged: so called  ‘Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics.’ Yet no one can articulate  exactly what ‘Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics’ means beyond  platitudes about the ‘genius’ of China’s leaders and an even vaguer  sense of ‘long term’ planning and ‘wisdom.’
 In truth, the secret to China’s economic success is simple. It is  built on the largest and fastest growing debt bubble in modern history.  Today, the ratio of Chinese banking system assets to GDP (a measure of  financial system debt) is higher than it was in the EU on the eve of the  2011 European Sovereign Debt Crisis and nearly six times that in the US  before the 2008 Housing Crisis.


 Looking specifically at corporate and household sector debt, China is  reaching levels last seen in Spain before their financial crisis in  2011 or in Japan at the peak of their economic growth in the 1990s.

 What’s more, as we first explained here on The Sounding Line,  the Chinese government likely ran a bigger deficit than the US last  year when local government debt is included in the calculation. The  whole world critiques the US government (quite justifiably) for its  unsustainable spending, yet we hear very little about China’s similarly  large government spending problem.
 Considering that most of these figures exclude China’s massive $10 trillion shadow banking system, notoriously lax accounting rules, and penchant for completely making up economic statics to create the illusion of growth, China is likely in the midst of the largest debt bubble in modern history.
 Much of China’s debt has gone into massive infrastructure projects  throughout the country. Accordingly, China is now spending nearly 90% of  GDP to build infrastructure despite persistent overcapacity problems  and numerous ghost cities  that still remain essentially empty years after they were built.  Perhaps the most remarkable thing about China’s economy is that it is  ‘only’ growing at an official rate of 6.7% despite such massive over  construction and exaggerated economic numbers.



More at: http://thesoundingline.com/taps-coog...rose-in-china/

----------


## Swordsmyth

Edwards' argument revolves around the claim with China's policymakers  having had a very good crisis in 2008 (which was papered over only  thanks to trillions in new debt, as Kyle Bass' tweet above shows), "*since  then, naysayers, such as myself, have been consistently wrong in  projecting that policymakers would lose control and that a grotesque  credit bubble would burst and lay the economy low."*

  And yet, just like in late 2015, with the sharp swoon that followed  China's devaluation and the bursting of its stock bubble, once again  fears are growing about the Chinese economy slowing rapidly, even if few  fear a bust. Instead, Edwards contends that a*s President Trump  exerts mounting pressure on the Chinese economy via tariffs, "the worry  is that a Chinese policy response will send the global markets into a  tailspin, just as the August 2015 devaluation did."*
  Which, in turn, reminds the SocGen strategist that, as we reported back in August,  China just unveiled its first ever current account deficit, marking a  seachange in the direction of China's capital flows, and making Chinas  policymakers job even harder, once again bringing up the question: "Is  luck running out?"


  Of course, the current account is just a symptom of an greater malady  affecting China: namely a rapid slowdown in Chinese growth. Referencing  the recent work of SocGen China economist Wei Yao, Edwards notes that  the swing into current account deficit shown above is likely to be  permanent. The result will be increased fragility in the renminbi "at a  time when economic growth is slowing sharply, led by the industrial  (secondary) sector (see left-hand chart below).* And with export growth to the US only temporarily buoyed to avoid tariff hikes, this slowdown is likely to intensify.*"

  Even more troubling than China's brand new current account deficit is  that as Yao highlights, the Chinese economy has slowed to the point  that *employment has begun to fall, most visibly in the slump in the latest employment component of the PMIs* (both  official and Caixin). And while the decline in manufacturing jobs has  been apparent for a few years now (ie sub 50), but it is also the  services sector that is now also shedding labor, making China's economic  slowdown a "really serious" issue for policymakers.

  Meanwhile, the traditional response Beijing has activated in such  situations - namely blowing a massive credit bubble, no longer appears  to be an option as Chinese policy seems "to swing from feast to famine  as policymakers grapple with the increasing instability of the credit  bubble they have created."

  The main reason cited by the SocGen economists for the policymakers'  reluctance to blow yet another bubble is concerns about how it will  affect China housing market, where the issue is that Beijing's credit  policy swings about so violently it destabilizes a housing market that  is constantly prone to bubble tendencies (see chart below). This,  Edwards believes, is due to few alternative investment opportunities -  especially after the 2015 H2 equity market collapse.



  And here Edwards makes a bold assumption: "*after the  aggressively expansive monetary and fiscal policy of 2015/16, the  authorities remain determined not to reignite the credit bubble*."  Perhaps, or perhaps Beijing simply has not had a reason to pull out all  the debt stops just yet in the past 3 years, ever since the Shanghai  Accord of early 2016 unleashed another debt tsunami across China, whose  aftereffects have kept the economy afloat.
  Still, one can argue that Edwards is correct, especially when one  looks at the overall public sector deficit which is already at 2009  crisis levels of 11% of GDP, as creation of China's shadow credit - *the deus ex machina for the past decade* - continues to be "strangled."


  As a result of these trends, the SocGen strategists describe Chinese  policy easing in the face of the current sharp slowdown as only  "half-hearted" and demanding for more stimulus from Beijing to avoid a  sharp economic contraction. 

  Which in turn brings us back to the start of this post, and the  lesson from 1987, because whereas everyone is focusing on an entirely  different set of problems, Edwards cautions that *"no one expects a [Chinese] hard-landing"* and asks "*Why not?*"
  If he, and Kyle Bass are right, we'll get the answer to this question very soon.


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...e-hard-landing

----------


## Swordsmyth

https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status...56440353169408

----------


## Origanalist

Just throwing it out there..

US trade gap grew to $54 billion in September

https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-trade-...n-in-september

----------


## EBounding

> Well, I've recently had to make a life change and work at a company that manufactures drive lines for GM, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, BMW and Maserati. They just told us to square everything away and take time off now. Come spring we will be working 7 days straight for 2-3 months. So I'm thinking they are not hurting so bad as you have been led to believe.


GM's actually doing well profit-wise.  But they're trying to get ahead of the curve to preserve free cash flow instead of doing it during a recession.  Ford too.  I get it.  But the tariffs are making things much worse.  

From July:  GM cuts 2018 profit forecast, says trade war hit to car sales

----------


## EBounding



----------


## devil21

> All driven by the "I want my cheap $#@!, and I want it now" globalibertarians.


There's a kind of important part you're missing there....the currency continues to lose value and purchase less, while wages stagnate and prices rise.  What is someone supposed to do?  Pay more and like it?  Nothing will be fixed as long as the monetary unit is controlled by bankers that constantly devalue the currency.  Everything else is a symptom of that problem.  You do understand that it was our own government that started the Chinese product trade, yes?  Kissinger as SecState and then Nixon as Pres.  It wasn't "globalibertarians" that went to China in the 70's to set this into motion.

Ron Paul tried to explain all of this but it seems some still want to blame the users of the devaluing currency instead of the currency system itself and the ones pulling the strings behind the curtain.

----------


## TheCount

> What encourages the Chinese to refuse to negotiate is the lamentations and cries from the crony corporatists and the US Chamber of Commerce. As long as they publically cry uncle and undermine negotiations, the Chinese will not give an inch. They see the weakness.


Those bastards.  Can't they understand that taxes are for their own good and the good of the Nation?

If they were real Patriots, like @TheTexan they would relish every opportunity that they have to give money to the government.

----------


## Ender

> There's a kind of important part you're missing there....the currency continues to lose value and purchase less, while wages stagnate and prices rise.  What is someone supposed to do?  Pay more and like it?  Nothing will be fixed as long as the monetary unit is controlled by bankers that constantly devalue the currency.  Everything else is a symptom of that problem.  You do understand that it was our own government that started the Chinese product trade, yes?  Kissinger as SecState and then Nixon as Pres.  It wasn't "globalibertarians" that went to China in the 70's to set this into motion.
> 
> Ron Paul tried to explain all of this but it seems some still want to blame the users of the devaluing currency instead of the currency system itself and the ones pulling the strings behind the curtain.


1000%!

Heaven forbid we should develop free trade & REAL capitalism.

----------


## osan

> You sell to us five to one. This is a WAR they will not win. They know they can't. But, they had to try. Now it is a matter of allowing them to "_save face_" and renegotiate.


In this, most Asians are weak, silly creatures - Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and so forth.  The whole notion of "face" is infantile and we should be thankful that God, or whomever, planted that idiocy into the cultures of the Asian hordes.  Otherwise, they'd be a bigger problem.

So I say play to it.  Let them have it, so long as we get what we want and don't give away anything essential.  Whatever Trump may be truly about when all the bull$#@! of politics are swept aside, let him continue to work toward American advantage.  As I always repeat,  abundant are our failings and other problems, but the fact is that ninety percent or more of the advances in the human condition have come to the world courtesy of American ingenuity and drive, and that is no exaggeration.  Despite at least 100 years for which it may be credibly claimed that the rest of the world has had the opportunity to follow suit and fly high, not even Europe has matched us for sheer creativity, capacity, and drive to bring to the world that which makes life better.  Without us, the world would still be living in 1820 conditions, whether for better or worse.

I hope Trump undoes all the giveaways that past presidents traitorous handed to China on a platter.  Think of it - has we not literally handed EVERYTHING to the Chinese, they would yet exist as they did in 1940.  WE made China, not the Chinese.

----------


## osan

> There's a kind of important part you're missing there....the currency continues to lose value and purchase less, while wages stagnate and prices rise.  What is someone supposed to do?  Pay more and like it?  Nothing will be fixed as long as the monetary unit is controlled by bankers that constantly devalue the currency.  Everything else is a symptom of that problem.  You do understand that it was our own government that started the Chinese product trade, yes?  Kissinger as SecState and then Nixon as Pres.  It wasn't "globalibertarians" that went to China in the 70's to set this into motion.


Valid points, all.

At the philosophical extreme, we are all to blame for this because "we" sat idly as that vile subhuman degenerate Henry Kissinger gave the keys to the world economy to China on a silver platter.  In more direct terms, the progressives traitorously fed American prosperity to China in piecemeal fashion as they similarly trimmed away the prosperity that Americans built for themselves over the previous 200 years without the help of anyone.  Our standard of living has been wicked away by devils as your points suggest.  We may thank ourselves for expecting the snake not to bite.

So long as we look to, and comply with "government", the agents of which cannot be trusted to the ends of our noses even on the best of days, we will continue our slide into less-than status as the rest of the world laughs at how complacent, stoopid, and timid we have become.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> All driven by the "I want my cheap $#@!, and I want it now" globalibertarians.


“Free trade” and “libertarianism” are simply “principles” of convenience for the powerful corporatists and their lobby groups and think tanks.

Slowly but surely over the past 40 years or so, the main business of the major corporations has changed. It helps to realize what their actual business has become. They are importers and US salesmen. Their business is global in that they import to the US. Their business is mostly US domestic on the sales side.

That is why their true interests are in zero US import tariffs, but they don’t care what the Chinese tariffs are, as they don’t move product to China. This is not economically sustainable, as it causes a loss of wealth for the US consumers and working classes, who are producing less and less, and buying imported goods. At some point, there has to be something produced in the US, and not just sold and served.

Now there is one glaring exception. The US still produces food and exports it. Which is exactly why the Chinese focus has been on tariffs on US food and feed. It’s the only place they have leverage.

Can the only product produced in the US be food? Can the only productive jobs in the US be farming? This explains the loss of wealth for the bottom 50% and destruction of the middle class.

And of course, behind it all, the Fed, US debt and monetary inflation have helped to create and sustain this whole trend. US debt, the other great “export” from America.

Edit: And we can’t forget US arms sales as an “export”. But how much of that production is actually outsourced now too?

----------


## AZJoe

Tariffs all around says the commissar of trade. The Soviet trade minister will save us with  tariff welfare, tariff socialism, taxation. More government - yeah, that's the ticket!
So the solution to government created problems must be more government. 
Always the siren's call of the of the devoted fanatical worshipper of the religious cult of the almighty state.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Tariffs all around says the commissar of trade. The Soviet trade minister will save us with  tariff welfare, tariff socialism, taxation. More government - yeah, that's the ticket!
> So the solution to government created problems must be more government. 
> Always the siren's call of the of the devoted fanatical worshipper of the religious cult of the almighty state.


Straw man. No one here wants permanent higher tariffs.

The stated intent of the current tariffs is to negotiate _lower_ tariffs and _freer_ trade all around. Open up the closed markets. Guess we’ll have to see what the new agreements look like when it’s all over.

Now if you want to just dream about a world that will never exist in reality, we can go back to what Ron Paul proposed in 2007, which is to completely eliminate income tax, and instead fund government with low, flat tariffs. It would be nice relative to what we have today, but it isn’t going to happen.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Straw man. No one here wants permanent higher tariffs.
> 
> The stated intent of the current tariffs is to negotiate _lower_ tariffs and _freer_ trade all around. Open up the closed markets.* Guess we’ll have to see what the new agreements look like when it’s all over.*
> 
> Now if you want to just dream about a world that will never exist in reality, we can go back to what Ron Paul proposed in 2007, which is to completely eliminate income tax, and instead fund government with low, flat tariffs. It would be nice relative to what we have today, but it isn’t going to happen.


NAFTA II (the USMC Agreement) was basically NAFTA I (the "worst agreement in history") except Canada will now buy a few more gallons of milk from the US and Mexico will pay auto workers at least $15 an hour.  And the tariffs on Canada and Mexico are still in place.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> NAFTA II (the USMC Agreement) was basically NAFTA I (the "worst agreement in history") except Canada will now buy a few more gallons of milk from the US and Mexico will pay auto workers at least $15 an hour.  And the tariffs on Canada and Mexico are still in place.


Yeah, we’ll take your word on that.

----------


## TheCount

> Yeah, we’ll take your word on that.


Whose word will you take?

----------


## nobody's_hero

The problem with trying to convince people "tariffs are taxes" is that you're only going to convince people who consume, specifically those who consume foreign goods. You aren't likely to convince the savers, investors, or producers, who see themselves largely unaffected by these tariffs. Those folks have been getting the $#@!-end of the stick for decades.

Cutting income (productivity) taxes and taxing consumption is sort of a reversal of what we've seen, where government has seemingly geared all trade and tax policy towards increasing dependency and encouraging slothfulness. It's by design, I'm sure. A proud, independent, self-sustainable people cannot be easily controlled, but if you can scare them into believing they'll lack shiny new trinkets to buy with their food stamps and credit card debt . . . well, this seems to be the narrative of the MSM. I wonder why.

The idea that not being able to consume, consume, consume is gonna crash our economy all seems very Keynesian to me.

----------


## TheCount

> The problem with trying to convince people "tariffs are taxes" is that you're only going to convince people who consume, specifically those who consume foreign goods. You aren't likely to convince the *savers, investors, or producers, who see themselves largely unaffected by these tariffs*. Those folks have been getting the $#@!-end of the stick for decades.


They may see themselves as being largely unaffected, but that's completely false.  The tariffs are on raw and unfinished materials such as steel and wood in addition to finished goods.  That means that these taxes do not only affect those who consume foreign goods, but affect any producer who uses raw and unfinished materials, the savers and investors who get a piece of those producers' profits, the workers involved in the production of finished goods, and the consumers who purchase those _American made_ finished goods.  Construction, for example, is affected by tariffs on Canadian wood, and steel tariffs have hit a number of companies.

----------


## Ender

> Whose word will you take?


How about Ron Paul's?



> *Tariffs Are Not the Answer
> By Ron Paul*
> 
> Ron Paul Institute
> 
> March 13, 2018
> ￼
> President Trumps planned 25 percent tariff on steel imports and 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports may provide a temporary boost for those industries, but the tariffs will do tremendous long-term damage to the American and global economies. Tariffs raise the price of, and reduce demand for, imported goods. Tariffs ensure the preferences of politicians, instead of the preferences of consumers, determine how resources are allocated. This reduces economic efficiency and living standards.
> 
> ...

----------


## TheCount

> How about Ron Paul's?


Haven't you heard?  He's a crony capitalist bent on undermining and weakening America and preventing it from becoming Great Again.




> What encourages the Chinese to refuse to negotiate is the lamentations and cries from the crony corporatists and the US Chamber of Commerce. As long as they publically cry uncle and undermine negotiations, theChinese  will not give an inch. They see the weakness.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

And the closest offer ever proposed to what beltway libertarians claim to want...




> President Trump offered European nations and other countries a zero-tariff deal as a way out of an escalating trade war, but so far he has no takers ...
> ...
> “Ultimately that’s what you want. You want tariff-free, no barriers, and you want no subsides because you have some countries subsidizing industries, and that’s not fair,” he told them. “So you go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy-free. That’s the way you learned at the Wharton School of Finance.”
> ...
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...iff-trade-off/

----------


## nobody's_hero

> They may see themselves as being largely unaffected, but that's completely false.  The tariffs are on raw and unfinished materials such as steel and wood in addition to finished goods.  That means that these taxes do not only affect those who consume foreign goods, but affect any producer who uses raw and unfinished materials, the savers and investors who get a piece of those producers' profits, the workers involved in the production of finished goods, and the consumers who purchase those _American made_ finished goods.  Construction, for example, is affected by tariffs on Canadian wood, and steel tariffs have hit a number of companies.


Again, it's really like we're trying to force people to see that they're affected, but despite the claims, the apocalypse isn't likely to happen. Quite the contrary. American lumber companies might see opportunity where none existed before. American steel/aluminum producers as well. Just because there are tariffs, does not mean the laws of supply/demand cease to exist and people just give up meeting demand. It is a smaller market, _yes_, but if your mind is geared more towards production than worshiping at the altar of consumerism, then it's a great time to open a steel plant or harvest some trees. 


Instead of freaking out over 'where'd muh cheap crap go?', the attitude has shifted towards "I smell money." I'd say that's a much healthier attitude for Americans to have.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There's a kind of important part you're missing there....the currency continues to lose value and purchase less, while wages stagnate and prices rise.  What is someone supposed to do?  Pay more and like it?  Nothing will be fixed as long as the monetary unit is controlled by bankers that constantly devalue the currency.  Everything else is a symptom of that problem.  You do understand that it was our own government that started the Chinese product trade, yes?  Kissinger as SecState and then Nixon as Pres.  It wasn't "globalibertarians" that went to China in the 70's to set this into motion.
> 
> Ron Paul tried to explain all of this but it seems some still want to blame the users of the devaluing currency instead of the currency system itself and the ones pulling the strings behind the curtain.


So we should disguise the loss of wealth by addicting ourselves to welfare from our enemies?
That is how to boil a frog, eventually the people can't afford anything anyway and they are now dependent on foreign enemies for their needs.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Foreign government intervention is as bad or worse than domestic government intervention and you can't have free trade and a regulatory state.

----------


## Danke

Assuming government needs some funding (like courts and military).  I'll take a flat tariff tax and eliminate income taxes.

----------


## devil21

> So we should disguise the loss of wealth by addicting ourselves to welfare from our enemies?


As opposed to what?  Losing wealth by spending _more_ on goods, instead of less?  It is a no-win situation and the system of constantly devaluing currency is designed that way, intentionally to strip wealth and concentrate it back into the hands of those that issued the "money" in the first place.  And the notion that tariffs coming from the Trump administration are supposed to fix anything is ridiculous since he has surrounded himself with the very people that take orders from those that were _responsible_ for current state-of-affairs in the first place.  




> That is how to boil a frog, eventually the people can't afford anything anyway and they are now dependent on foreign enemies for their needs.


As it was designed to do and has been a smashing success.  No one legally owns anything in this country since few alive have ever been able to pay for anything.  I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about though...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> As opposed to what?  Losing wealth by spending _more_ on goods, instead of less?  It is a no-win situation and the system of constantly devaluing currency is designed that way, intentionally to strip wealth and concentrate it back into the hands of those that issued the "money" in the first place.  And the notion that tariffs coming from the Trump administration are supposed to fix anything is ridiculous since he has surrounded himself with the very people that take orders from those that were _responsible_ for current state-of-affairs in the first place.  
> 
> 
> 
> As it was designed to do and has been a smashing success.  No one legally owns anything in this country since few alive have ever been able to pay for anything.  I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about though...

----------


## TheCount

> Again, it's really like we're trying to force people to see that they're affected, but despite the claims, the apocalypse isn't likely to happen. Quite the contrary. American lumber companies might see opportunity where none existed before. American steel/aluminum producers as well. Just because there are tariffs, does not mean the laws of supply/demand cease to exist and people just give up meeting demand. It is a smaller market, _yes_, but if your mind is geared more towards production than worshiping at the altar of consumerism, then it's a great time to open a steel plant or harvest some trees.


Great time to open a steel plant?  With someone else's money, sure.  The profitability of that plant is entirely reliant on government aid.  What happens when the tides of populism shift?




> Instead of freaking out over 'where'd muh cheap crap go?', the attitude has shifted towards "I smell money." I'd say that's a much healthier attitude for Americans to have.




Where do you suppose this extra money is coming from, and who do you suppose is getting it?

Government is directly picking winners and losers.  It's not roses all around for everyone.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Great time to open a steel plant?  With someone else's money, sure.  The profitability of that plant is entirely reliant on government aid.  What happens when the tides of populism shift?
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you suppose this extra money is coming from, and who is earning it?
> 
> Government is directly picking winners and losers.  It's not roses all around for everyone.[/COLOR]


As opposed to the Chinese government picking winners and losers?

----------


## TheCount

> As opposed to the Chinese government picking winners and losers?


I'm fully aware that your ideal American government resembles the Chinese government.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I'm fully aware that your ideal American government resembles the Chinese government.


Not hardly.

That would be you.

Of course your real preference is for a global government run by the ChiComs.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> *As opposed to what?  Losing wealth by spending more on goods, instead of less?*  It is a no-win situation and the system of constantly devaluing currency is designed that way, intentionally to strip wealth and concentrate it back into the hands of those that issued the "money" in the first place.  And the notion that tariffs coming from the Trump administration are supposed to fix anything is ridiculous since he has surrounded himself with the very people that take orders from those that were _responsible_ for current state-of-affairs in the first place.



Or gaining wealth from production. 

But why is it only viewed from the consumer's standpoint? No one ever got rich by consuming. Production creates wealth. If consumption creates wealth then people drowning in credit card debt must be living the dream.

That's what's so frustrating about the whole debate. As long as people get cheap crap, no one really cares what happens to the producers, The entrepreneurs, The workers. We've gone from one extreme to the other since the days of Smoot-Hawley protectionism, to this new-age notion that you don't actually have to work hard or risk anything to increase your lot in life, and being able to buy a bunch of junk = wealth(?).

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Great time to open a steel plant?  With someone else's money, sure.  The profitability of that plant is entirely reliant on government aid.


Apparently, so was the Chinese industry. That's why their economy is collapsing right now. Of course, this would have never been realized if we hadn't elected a president who was gonna fight back in a trade war that's been raging on one side for decades. Otherwise the illusion would have just continued on it's merry way.

----------


## TheCount

> Apparently, so was the Chinese industry.


I'm glad that you can see the similarities between what you want and the Chinese system.  In other words, you're arguing for Chinese-style central economic control.  




> That's why their economy is collapsing right now.


If 6% growth is a collapse, sign me up!




> Of course, this would have never been realized if we hadn't elected a president who was gonna fight back in a trade war that's been raging on one side for decades.


Yes, if only we'd known that we could tax ourselves to prosperity earlier!  This strategy has certainly never been tried before in the history of the nation... Why if, for example, we'd known that we could protect American car manufacturers from international competition in the 70s and 80s, we might have tried that, and I'm sure that it would have worked out great for everyone involved if we had!

----------


## TheCount

> Not hardly.
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Of course your real preference is for a global government run by the ChiComs.


Ooh, good answer; is this the famed "I know you are but what am I" defense?

One of us argues for government control of the economy, information, and "culture." The other does not.  "Nuh uh" doesn't change that.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I'm glad that you can see the similarities between what you want and the Chinese system.  In other words, you're arguing for Chinese-style central economic control.


You're the one saying it's okay to benefit from the Chinese system. But you hate it. So which is it? 

The era of illusion that we can just flip burgers for each other and call it a strong economy is coming to an end. We're gonna start producing again. Working again. Gaining wealth again. If you want to sit at home and complain that there's no more cheap steel coming from a country that has suicide nets around their buildings, go right ahead. But there's a lot of opportunity right now for people who will take advantage of it.

----------


## Ender

> Smoot Hawley was passed when we had a trade surplus, it was an aggressive tariff when nobody was waging trade war against us and it wasn't responsible for the depression anyway, it was the scapegoat chosen by the banksters to distract from the Fed.


From Ron Paul:
Ron Paul:




> The Case for Free Trade
> By Ron Paul
> Mises.org
> December 1, 2016
> 
> In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, imposing heavy tariffs on imports, with the avowed motive of protecting U.S. companies and jobs. Within one year, our 25 major trading partners had retaliated with their own tariffs on American goods. World trade declined sharply, and the depression was made worldwide and longer-lasting.
> 
> Today the policy of protectionism is again gaining favor in Congress, and in other countries. But it must be fought with all our strength.
> 
> ...

----------


## Ender

> You're the one saying it's okay to benefit from the Chinese system. But you hate it. So which is it? 
> 
> The era of illusion that we can just flip burgers for each other and call it a strong economy is coming to an end. We're gonna start producing again. Working again. Gaining wealth again. If you want to sit at home and complain that there's no more cheap steel coming from a country that has suicide nets around their buildings, go right ahead. But there's a lot of opportunity right now for people who will take advantage of it.


*Tariffs Are Not the Answer
By Ron Paul
*



> Ron Paul Institute
> 
> March 13, 2018
> 
> donate FacebookTwitter￼￼￼￼
> ￼
> President Trump’s planned 25 percent tariff on steel imports and 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports may provide a temporary boost for those industries, but the tariffs will do tremendous long-term damage to the American and global economies. Tariffs raise the price of, and reduce demand for, imported goods. Tariffs ensure the preferences of politicians, instead of the preferences of consumers, determine how resources are allocated. This reduces economic efficiency and living standards.
> 
> Some justify these economic inefficiencies as being worth it to save American jobs. This ignores how tariffs increase costs of production for industries reliant on imported materials to produce their products. These increased costs lead to job losses in those industries. For example, President Trump’s proposed steel tariff could cost nearly 40,000 jobs in the steel-dependent auto manufacturing industry. Tariffs also cause job losses in industries reliant on exports. This is especially true if — as is likely to be the case — other countries respond to President Trump’s actions by increasing tariffs on US products.
> ...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And the closest offer ever proposed to what beltway libertarians claim to want...


When Trump entered office, the Europeans had an offer on the table as part of the TPP talks to get rid of over 90% of all tariffs and taxes between the US and Europe.  He said  it was the "worst deal" (they are all the "worst deals").  He ended those negotiations and walked away from their offer.  Eleven Europeans signed the deal without the US. 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...fs-855737.html




> *Japan and EU to sign trade deal eliminating nearly all tariffs*
> 
> The European Union and Japan are signing a widespread trade deal that will eliminate nearly all tariffs, seemingly defying worries over trade tensions triggered by US president Donald Trumps policies.
> 
> The deal will be signed in Tokyo, although this is largely a ceremonial exercise as the agreement was struck late last year.
> 
> It was delayed from earlier this month because Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe cancelled going to Brussels over a disaster in south-western Japan caused by extremely heavy rainfall, with more than 200 people dying in floods and landslides.
> 
> European Council president Donald Tusk and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker will also attend a gala dinner at the prime ministers official residence.
> ...

----------


## CCTelander

> *Tariffs Are Not the Answer
> By Ron Paul
> *



Ron who?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yeah, well take your word on that.


Might read this.   https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-nafta-vs-usmca/

----------


## Ender

> Ron who?


Some weird guy that thinks he knows something about freedom, finances & lawful pursuits.

----------


## CCTelander

> Some weird guy that thinks he knows something about freedom, finances & lawful pursuits.



Sounds like some silly, senile old geezer to me. Unlike the Cheeto Charlatan in Chief.

----------


## EBounding

GM to Idle Factories, Cut Thousands of North American Jobs

Don't worry though.  The Best Trade War Ever is just about won--I can feel it!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> He is against punitive tariffs.  A flat across the board, that was used before the Income tax to fund the government, I bet he would agree with.


But even tariffs that aren't flat are an improvement over an income tax.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yes, all taxes can be viewed that way.
> 
> *Slashing the budget and doing away with Income taxes would not need a 200% tariff*.


Ron said he would not touch Social Security or Medicare/ Medicaid- to "honor promises made to people" (suggesting cutting them also costs candidates votes so they won't touch them).  You can't cut interest payments on the debt.  That leaves about $ 1 trillion including the Department of Defense.  To balance your budget you need to cut $1 trillion from that $1 trillion including all defense spending.  Even if you do that, you still have over $3 trillion in spending left to pay for.  

Imports are about  $2 trillion a year. https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/ That means you need a 150% tariff on every item imported including energy. If oil was $100 a barrel, the tariff would increase that to $250 a barrel for us.  Then when you impose those import tariffs, since imports are vastly more expensive, total imports drop so now you need an even higher tariff.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Ron said he would not touch Social Security or Medicare/ Medicaid- to "honor promises made to people".  You can't cut interest payments on the debt.  That leaves about $ 1 trillion including the Department of Defense.  To balance your budget you need to cut $1 trillion from that $1 trillion including all defense spending.  Even if you do that, you still have over $3 trillion in spending.  
> 
> Imports are about  $2 trillion a year. https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/ That means you need a 150% tariff on every item imported including energy.  Then when you impose those import tariffs, since imports are vastly more expensive, total imports drop so now you need an even higher tariff.


And it would still be better than an income tax.

People who weren't paying an income tax would have that much more money to spend on things and they would make more money because they wouldn't be undercut by foreigners waging trade wars against us.

Ron is also wrong about Social Security or Medicare/ Medicaid, the crisis is severe enough that we must cut off anyone who doesn't absolutely need them and begin a phaseout so that more people aren't promised something we can't afford.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And it would still be better than an income tax.
> 
> *People who weren't paying an income tax would have that much more money to spend on things* and they would make more money because they wouldn't be undercut by foreigners waging trade wars against us.
> 
> Ron is also wrong about Social Security or Medicare/ Medicaid, the crisis is severe enough that we must cut off anyone who doesn't absolutely need them and begin a phaseout so that more people aren't promised something we can't afford.


Half of all income tax filers don't owe any net income taxes.  That would shift taxes from income on the wealthy to spending by the lower incomes. The average person would be paying considerably more than they do now.  Since they are now paying more for everything without any tax savings, they can now afford to buy fewer things.  People buying fewer goods means lower profits for business so they need fewer workers so more lose their jobs.

High incomes would receive the tax break but they spend considerably less of their incomes on goods and services so they would not be able to make up the difference in demand from the loss of buying from those in the middle to lower income levels.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Half of all income tax filers don't owe any net income taxes.  That would shift taxes from income on the wealthy to spending by the lower incomes. The average person would be paying considerably more than they do now.


It would shift the taxes to those who buy imported things, people would be able to avoid them by buying domestic things or not buying, the rich would spend more of their money on domestic goods and services and the poor would benefit..

We need to cut spending but tariffs would be better than an income tax.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It would shift the taxes to those who buy imported things, people would be able to avoid them by buying domestic things or not buying, the rich would spend more of their money on domestic goods and services and the poor would benefit..
> 
> We need to cut spending but tariffs would be better than an income tax.


It would also hurt businesses who use imported items in their production. Moving to only raising income from tariffs would devastate the economy and cost jobs while making things more expensive for consumers. It removes competition for locally produced items so they can charge higher prices as well. There really aren't good arguments for tariffs.  They lead to fewer jobs and higher prices. 

And we haven't even touched the other part.  US exports.  As we impose tariffs on other countries, they respond by imposing tariffs on our goods.  Our exporters lose business and lay off more workers. More erosion of our economy.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It would also hurt businesses who use imported items in their production. Moving to only raising income from tariffs would devastate the economy and cost jobs while making things more expensive for consumers. It removes competition for locally produced items so they can charge higher prices as well. There really aren't good arguments for tariffs.
> 
> And we haven't even touched the other part.  US exports.  As we impose tariffs on other countries, they respond by imposing tariffs on our goods.  Our exporters lose business and lay off more workers. More erosion of our economy.


The income tax does the same amount of damage to our economy or worse, the companies that use imports could better afford domestic replacements because they wouldn't pay income taxes and their domestic suppliers would have to pay them either so their prices would be lower, the exporting companies could lower their prices because they wouldn't have to pay income taxes and their domestic customers could afford to buy more of their product.

----------


## Ender

> No. The $#@!ing crash did that. The Great Depression. That usually drives down car sales. Lol.


Smoot-Hawley was the major CAUSE of the $#@!ING CRASH. 




> The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930, raised American tariffs to unprecedented levels, which practically closed our borders to foreign goods. According to most economic historians, this was the crowning folly of the whole period from 1920 to 1933 and the beginning of the real depression. Once we raised our tariffs, wrote Benjamin Anderson,
> 
> an irresistible movement all over the world to raise tariffs and to erect other trade barriers, including quotas, began. Protectionism ran wild over the world. Markets were cut off. Trade lines were narrowed. Unemployment in the export industries all over the world grew with great rapidity. Farm prices in the United States dropped sharply through the whole of 1930, but the most rapid rate of decline came following the passage of the tariff bill.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/06/...at-depression/




> Federal policies and the Great Depression
> 
> The Smoot-Hawley Act turned a bad recession into a worldwide depression. In the year after Smoot-Hawley was enacted, U.S. foreign trade decreased more than 50 percent. Jude Wanniski noted,
> 
> Smoot-Hawley had a major impact on spurring the stock market crash and led to a worldwide trade war that devastated both America and Europe.
> 
> Once the United States stopped purchasing European goods, Germany and other European powers were forced to default on their debts to the United States. This helped cause a wave of bank failures and panic across the country.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/04/...e-agriculture/

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Smoot-Hawley was the major CAUSE of the $#@!ING CRASH. 
> 
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/06/...at-depression/
> 
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/04/...e-agriculture/


I thought it was the Fed, silly me.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

*US to slap 10% tariffs on Apple iPhones & importaed laptops, raise China tariffs*

President Donald Trump said he could place a 10% tariff on iPhones and laptops imported from China, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal   published Monday. He also said it's "highly unlikely" that he would   delay an increase in tariffs just four days before a summit with Chinese   President Xi.



Potentially Related

*Trump threatens GM over Ohio plans: 'They better damn well open a new plant there'*


President Donald Trump tears into General  Motors for  its newly announced plan to halt production at multiple  plants in the  U.S. and Canada, telling reporters that he warned GM CEO  Mary Barra  that her company was "*playing around with the wrong person.*"

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Smoot-Hawley was the major CAUSE of the $#@!ING CRASH. 
> 
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/06/...at-depression/
> 
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/04/...e-agriculture/


The Stock Market Crash came  after Smoot- Hawley was announced. It passed the House in in May and stocks were headed down though the big crash was not until October. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/smoot-hawl...eat-depression




> Consider the following sequence of events:
> 
>  The Smoot-Hawley tariff passes the House on May   28, 1929.  Stock prices in New   York   (1926=100) drop   from 196 in March to 191   in June.   On June   19, Republicans   on the Senate Finance Committee   meet   to   rewrite   the   bill. Hoping for improvement, the market rallies,  but  industrial production  ( 1967 = 100)  peaks  in  July,  and  dips  very  slightly through  September.  Stocks  rise  to  216  by  September,  hit*ting their peak on  the  third  of  the  month.  The  full  Senate Finance Committee goes to   work  on  the  tariff  the  following day,  moving  it  to  the  Senate  floor  later  in  the   month.
> 
>  On October 21, the Senate rejects, 64 to 10, a move to limit tariff increases to agriculture. “A weakening of the Democratic-Progressive Coalition was evidenced on October 23,” notes the Commercial and Financial Chronicle. In this first test vote, 16 members of the anti-tariff coalition switch sides and vote to double the tariff on calcium carbide from Canada. Stocks collapse in the last hour of trading; the following morning is christened Black Thursday.   On  October 28,  a  delegation   of   senators   appeals   to   President   Hoover to help push a tariff  bill  through  quickly  (which  he  does  on the 31st). The Chronicle  headlines  news  about  broker  loans on  the  same  day:  “Recall  of  Foreign  Money  Grows  Heavier-All Europe  Withdrawing  Capital.” The following day is stalemate. Stocks begin to rally after November 14, rising steadily from 145 in November to 171 in April. Industrial production stops falling and hovers around the December level through March.
> 
> On March 24, 1930, the Senate passes the Smoot-Hawley tariff, 222 to 153. Debate now centers on whether or not President Hoover will veto. Still, stocks drop 11 points, to 160, in May. On June 17, 1930, despite the vigorous protests of a thousand economists, Hoover signs the bill into law, noting that it fulfills a campaign promise he had made, and stocks drop to 140 in July.
> 
>  The Commercial and Financial Chronicle dated June 21, 1930 led off  with  the major  events  of  the  week –”the signing by the President of  the  Smoot-Hawley  tariff  bill” and “a renewed violent collapse of the stock market.” Without ever quite linking the two events, the Chronicle did observe that “if the foreigner cannot sell his goods to us he cannot obtain the wherewithal to buy our goods.” Other sections noted  that  international  stocks  were  particularly hard hit, that 35 nations had vigorously  protested  the tariff and threatened retaliation, and that Canada and other  nations had already hiked their own tariffs “in view of the likelihood of such legislation in the United States.”

----------


## phill4paul

> Smoot-Hawley was the major CAUSE of the $#@!ING CRASH. 
> 
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/06/...at-depression/
> 
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/04/...e-agriculture/


  The stock market crash was the MAJOR cause of the Great Depression. It happened in October of 1929. Smoot Hawley didn't pass until June 1930. Smoot Hawley didn't cause the crash, over speculation did. Whoever wrote that at lewrockwell doesn't have his dates correct.

----------


## Ender

> The stock market crash was the MAJOR cause of the Great Depression. It happened in October of 1929. Smoot Hawley didn't pass until June 1930. Smoot Hawley didn't cause the crash, over speculation did. Whoever wrote that at lewrockwell doesn't have his dates correct.


Several astute historians have said that the Smoot-Hawley Act upgraded the crash, making it much longer & much worse- & made it world-wide.

Here's a bunch of articles on tariffs & the Smoot-Hawley Act

:https://www.lewrockwell.com/?s=Smoot-Hawley+depression

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Several astute historians have said that the Smoot-Hawley Act upgraded the crash, making it much longer & much worse- & made it world-wide.
> 
> Here's a bunch of articles on tariffs & the Smoot-Hawley Act
> 
> :https://www.lewrockwell.com/?s=Smoot-Hawley+depression


Perhaps they are right, but Smoot-Hawley started a trade war while we were a net exporter, that has nothing to do with Trump fighting back in the trade wars while we are a net importer.

You should be preaching the lesson of Smoot-Hawley to China etc.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The stock market crash was the MAJOR cause of the Great Depression. It happened in October of 1929. Smoot Hawley didn't pass until June 1930. Smoot Hawley didn't cause the crash, over speculation did. Whoever wrote that at lewrockwell doesn't have his dates correct.


While it was not signed into law until after the Crash, it had already passed the House and businesses and investors were responding to what its impact might be.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> While it was not signed into law until after the Crash, it had already passed the House and businesses and investors were responding to what its impact might be.


It was the chosen scapegoat to blame the bankster caused crash on and defame tariffs for all time.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It was the chosen scapegoat to blame the bankster caused crash on and defame tariffs for all time.


What actions did the Fed make prior to the stock market crash?

----------


## Ender

Pretty much my POV:




> *The Immigration Solution*
> By Bill Walker
> 
> May 2, 2006
> 
> donate FacebookTwitter￼￼￼￼
> ￼
> Americans have recently been informed that Mexicans are sneaking into the US, picking tomatoes, working in factories, founding plumbing companies, and generally making us look lazy. Apparently this behavior has been going on for some time; it’s really surprising that no one noticed before now. (There are two Mexican Ph.D. students in the lab where I work… I’m surprised they have time to take the jobs of hard-working American tomato-pickers, since no matter what hour I go to the lab they’re at their benches designing gene-therapy vectors.)
> 
> ...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What actions did the Fed make prior to the stock market crash?


The banksters caused the crash themselves, they used the Fed to make it last.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Pretty much my POV:

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The banksters caused the crash themselves, they used the Fed to make it last.


Ah- the generic "Banksters" (sometimes code for "Jewish" bankers). Throw out a few cliches  and fewer real facts.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Ah- the generic "Banksters" (sometimes code for "Jewish" bankers). Throw out a few cliches  and fewer real facts.


It has been written about extensively, J.P. Morgan was one of the main villains.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It has been written about extensively*, J.P. Morgan was one of the main villains*.


He died in 1913.

The banks actually tried to halt the declines.   https://economics.stackexchange.com/...eat-depression

----------


## Swordsmyth

> He died in 1913.


After helping set up the fed and other preparations for the crash.

----------


## spudea

> Pretty much my POV:


Your POV from 2006 is tragically out of date.  And the author is categorically wrong saying socialists don't want open borders.  Their #1 schtick is class warfare, they want more poor people and if they can import them by the millions, even better.  They've even convinced most of the wealthy its the right thing to do to raise taxes and redistribute to the poor.  Socialists don't have to ever demonstrate that their redistribution actually works to help people, they only have to demonstrate the need exists, see California.

----------


## Ender

> 


So intelligent.

----------


## Ender

> Your POV from 2006 is tragically out of date.  And the author is categorically wrong saying socialists don't want open borders.  Their #1 schtick is class warfare, they want more poor people and if they can import them by the millions, even better.  They've even convinced most of the wealthy its the right thing to do to raise taxes and redistribute to the poor.  Socialists don't have to ever demonstrate that their redistribution actually works to help people, they only have to demonstrate the need exists, see California.


Nope- it is right on- and I'm from California. Most of the lefties are your white bosses who are run by the gov. Most the Mexicans just want to work and be left alone.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So intelligent.


It's all that your post deserved.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Nope- it is right on- and I'm from California. Most of the lefties are your white bosses who are run by the gov. Most the Mexicans just want to work and be left alone.


LOL

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Your POV from 2006 is tragically out of date.  And the author is *categorically wrong saying socialists don't want open borders.*  Their #1 schtick is class warfare, they want more poor people and if they can import them by the millions, even better.  They've even convinced most of the wealthy its the right thing to do to raise taxes and redistribute to the poor.  Socialists don't have to ever demonstrate that their redistribution actually works to help people, they only have to demonstrate the need exists, see California.


"Anybody who opposes an airtight heavily militarized border must be in favor of completely open borders".   False dichotomy. Nobody wants "open" borders.  The argument is how much money should be spend on them.   Ron Paul is not in favor of spending more taxpayer money to expand the police state to have an even bigger presence on the border. Is he "open borders"?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> "Anybody who opposes an airtight heavily militarized border must be in favor of completely open borders".   False dichotomy. Nobody wants "open" borders.  The argument is how much money should be spend on them.


"Abolish ICE" "No Borders, No wall, No USA at all"

----------


## spudea

> Nope- it is right on- and I'm from California. Most of the lefties are your white bosses who are run by the gov. Most the Mexicans just want to work and be left alone.


Great would you say California is the most socialist state in the USA?  How did it become that way and how did immigration affect that?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Great would you say California is the most socialist state in the USA?  How did it become that way and how did immigration affect that?


What about other states with large immigrant populations like Texas, Nevada, and Hawaii?  How socialist is Texas?

(noting that all the white people in the country come from immigrants too- even Conservatives)

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What about other states with large immigrant populations like Texas, Nevada, and Hawaii?  How socialist is Texas?
> 
> (noting that all the white people in the country come from immigrants too- even Conservatives)


Excessive immigration is threatening to turn all of those states socialist or already has.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Excessive immigration is threatening to turn all of those states socialist or already has.


What's Massachusetts' excuse??  Vermont??

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What's Massachusetts' excuse??  Vermont??


Just because we have our own communists is not a reason to let them import reinforcements until they outnumber us so badly that we don't stand a chance politically or in a rebellion/civil war.

----------


## devil21

> Or gaining wealth from production.


That's kind of the screw job of the current system though.  There is no "wealth" being created, only further indebtedness masquerading as wealth. 




> But why is it only viewed from the consumer's standpoint? No one ever got rich by consuming. Production creates wealth. If consumption creates wealth then people drowning in credit card debt must be living the dream.


Probably because everyone consumes but not everyone produces.  Having said that, producers gain "wealth" by maximizing profit margin through low input prices.  Higher input prices translates to higher output prices and is mostly a zero sum game.  I still contest that any wealth is being _created_, however, since all that's being created monetarily is more debt.  Production creates debt is more accurate statement under the current system.  Does changing to that perspective change your opinion at all?  Higher prices means higher debt.  Do you still want higher prices now?




> That's what's so frustrating about the whole debate. As long as people get cheap crap, no one really cares what happens to the producers, The entrepreneurs, The workers. We've gone from one extreme to the other since the days of Smoot-Hawley protectionism, to this new-age notion that you don't actually have to work hard or risk anything to increase your lot in life, and being able to buy a bunch of junk = wealth(?).


I generally agree with your sentiment, as a producer myself, I want the lowest input costs possible so I can make the output product as affordable as possible.  Higher prices means less people can afford the product, at least until wages rise.  But then when wages rise, prices rise further since wages are always a lagging metric.  There is no solution in this current debt-money system.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> That's kind of the screw job of the current system though.  There is no "wealth" being created, only further indebtedness masquerading as wealth. 
> 
> Probably because everyone consumes but not everyone produces.  Having said that, producers gain "wealth" by maximizing profit margin through low input prices.  Higher input prices translates to higher output prices and is mostly a zero sum game.  I still contest that any wealth is being _created_, however, since all that's being created monetarily is more debt.  Production creates debt is more accurate statement under the current system.  Does changing to that perspective change your opinion at all?  Higher prices means higher debt.  Do you still want higher prices now?
> 
> I generally agree with your sentiment, as a producer myself, I want the lowest input costs possible so I can make the output product as affordable as possible.  Higher prices means less people can afford the product, at least until wages rise.  But then when wages rise, prices rise further since wages are always a lagging metric.  There is no solution in this current debt-money system.


Well, if you want to debate the pitfalls of having a currency based on debt, you're in for a boring debate because we'll agree more than we disagree. 

Still, FRNs seem to be enough to motivate people to show up to work every day, _AND_ to buy stuff with them. I don't know if the fundamentals there would be much different if we had a real currency backed by something of value. 

I think consumerism is a way to mask the problem though. The new "opiate of the masses." You say it is production, but I disagree simply based on the fact that almost all trade and tax policy over the last century has been geared towards _punishing_ productivity and _encouraging_ consumption. We ushered in the income tax and shunned things like tariffs. Something fishy about that, IMO. There's enough suspicion there to keep me from jumping on the "free trade" bandwagon. Seems to be a bit of a rat race against the shenanigans of the Fed, to find cheaper labor and cheaper garbage before anyone gets wise. I don't believe libertarian free-marketers are in on the deception, but I do think they might want to take a look at who is standing behind them and nodding their heads in agreement.

----------


## devil21

> Seems to be a bit of a rat race against the shenanigans of the Fed, to find cheaper labor and cheaper garbage before anyone gets wise.


That sentence sums up the system overall, especially now that it's in its end stages.  The system has become little more than a "find the greater fools" version of capitalism, since, as you point out, productivity has been punished and smart, conservative business practices also have been (low debt load, patient growth, etc).  The fast devaluation of the currency has forced the "greater fools" mindset more since it's a rush to amass as much wealth as possible before the currency loses more value.  OTOH, a currency backed by something of value means relative stability and the ability to return to smarter business practices.  The flip side is that is that all of this debt has to be wiped out and of course that means the money created out of that debt also.  We really should have done what RP suggested back in 2008 and liquidated all that bad debt and malinvestment...

---------------

On topic of tariffs:  UTX CEO (major US-based manufacturing corp) said a bit ago on CNBC that tariffs don't help anyone and don't accomplish anything, become a tax on consumers, don't bring jobs back, creates inflation, hurts demand and just don't work.  He minces no words.

Relevant part starts at 7:30 mark
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/11/2...ies-hayes.html

----------


## CCTelander

> That sentence sums up the system overall, especially now that it's in its end stages.  The system has become little more than a "find the greater fools" version of capitalism, since, as you point out, productivity has been punished and smart, conservative business practices also have been (low debt load, patient growth, etc).  The fast devaluation of the currency has forced the "greater fools" mindset more since it's a rush to amass as much wealth as possible before the currency loses more value.  OTOH, a currency backed by something of value means relative stability and the ability to return to smarter business practices.  The flip side is that is that all of this debt has to be wiped out and of course that means the money created out of that debt also.  We really should have done what RP suggested back in 2008 and liquidated all that bad debt and malinvestment...
> 
> ---------------
> 
> *On topic of tariffs:  UTX CEO (major US-based manufacturing corp) said a bit ago on CNBC that tariffs don't help anyone and don't accomplish anything, become a tax on consumers, don't bring jobs back, creates inflation, hurts demand and just don't work.  He minces no words.*
> 
> Relevant part starts at 7:30 mark
> https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/11/2...ies-hayes.html



And he's absolutely right. Won't stop people from cheering for more though.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Nobody wants "open" borders.  The argument is how much money should be spend on them.


Have you forgotten where you are?

The position of this website is that the amount that the federal government should spend on "borders," outside of times of constitutionally declared wars during which that spending is toward defense against bona fide military invasions, is zero.

Ron Paul may prefer not to label his position as "open borders," but given that he ardently opposes a border wall, supports letting anyone enter the country without even having a passport, and opposes banning people who lack government paperwork like visas from being able to get jobs here, it wouldn't be a stretch to call it that. And anyone who accepts the mission of this website as written agrees with him on these things.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What's Massachusetts' excuse??


Irish immigrants?




> Vermont??


People who moved there from Massachusetts?

----------


## phill4paul

> Have you forgotten where you are?
> 
> The position of this website is that the amount that the federal government should spend on "borders," outside of times of constitutionally declared wars during which that spending is toward defense against bona fide military invasions, is zero.
> 
> Ron Paul may prefer not to label his position as "open borders," but given that he ardently opposes a border wall, supports letting anyone enter the country without even having a passport, and opposes banning people who lack government paperwork like visas from being able to get jobs here, it wouldn't be a stretch to call it that. And anyone who accepts the mission of this website as written agrees with him on these things.


  And bringing the troops home to protect the border? Should we agree with him on that?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> And bringing the troops home to protect the border? Should we agree with him on that?


Re-read the post you just quoted.

----------


## phill4paul

> Re-read the post you just quoted.


"None of us are for illegal immigration." "Quit pretending we can take care of those borders(Afghanistan) and take care of our borders and our needs here."

----------


## Superfluous Man

> "None of us are for illegal immigration." "Quit pretending we can take care of those borders(Afghanistan) and take care of our borders and our needs here."


In other words, you can find quotes from Ron Paul saying exactly what I said he said.

----------


## phill4paul

> In other words, you can find quotes from Ron Paul saying exactly what I said he said.


  So you agree that 300k+ illegal trespassers should not be allowed? I too agree.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> When Trump entered office, the Europeans had an offer on the table as part of the TPP talks to get rid of over 90% of all tariffs and taxes between the US and Europe.  He said  it was the "worst deal" (they are all the "worst deals").  He ended those negotiations and walked away from their offer.  Eleven Europeans signed the deal without the US. 
> 
> https://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...fs-855737.html


Because managed trade agreements negotiated by unaccountable bureaucrats catering to powerful lobbyists and international plutocrats is much better than zero tariffs and zero subsidies. Always advocating the status quo as dictated by the global left establishment.




> President Trump offered European nations and other countries a zero-tariff deal as a way out of an escalating trade war, but so far he has no takers ...
> ...
> Ultimately thats what you want. You want tariff-free, no barriers, and you want no subsides because you have some countries subsidizing industries, and thats not fair, he told them. So you go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy-free. Thats the way you learned at the Wharton School of Finance.
> ...
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...iff-trade-off/

----------


## EBounding

At what point do we declare victory in the Trade War?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> We are not talking about "your" property. We are talking about "our" property. This is the reality. Nations exist. THIS nation exists.


So then you agree that the federal government has no moral license to dictate whom I can welcome onto my own property? If I want to hire people that you consider "illegals" to work for me on my property, the government has no business interfering? It only has the authority to refuse to let them onto government-owned land, and that's it?

Is that really your position?

Or, are you really saying, as I suspect you are, that the property I consider mine really isn't mine at all, but is just a subset of the collective property of the whole nation, with me being granted the privilege to use it as a tenant? The reason you can use violence to prevent me from hiring the people you consider "illegals" to work for me on my land is because, as you see it, it's not my land, it's "our" land, with the rightful decision-maker about the use of it being the part of "us" that includes you and not me.

----------


## specsaregood

> At what point do we declare victory in the Trade War?


I dunno why we would ever declare "victory".
But here is another positive sign:

----------


## Zippyjuan

> A Zero Hedge comment:


Hmm.  Anonymous poster on zerohedge.  Seems legit.

----------


## Swordsmyth

White  House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Tuesday that a reduction in  Chinese tariffs on U.S. cars and agricultural and energy commodities  would be a "litmus test" for whether U.S.-China trade talks were on  track.
Washington  also expects China to promptly address structural issues including  intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers, U.S.  officials have said.
White  House National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Wall Street  Journal event on Tuesday that Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual  property was among the administration's top concerns.
He  said the United States should look into a rule that would bar imports  of Chinese products that used stolen U.S. intellectual property.
U.S.  Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican, in February 2017  introduced a bill that would have allowed the U.S. government to punish  Chinese intellectual property theft by imposing duties on the country's  imports.
The  legislation, which was not put to a vote, envisaged using revenue  raised by the duties to compensate those harmed by China's actions.
Trump has long accused China of unfair trade practices that hurt Americans and the U.S. economy.

His appointment of Lighthizer to lead the talks instead of Treasury  Secretary Mnuchin puts one of the administration's toughest China  critics in charge. Trump said on Tuesday that Lighthizer would work  closely with Mnuchin, Kudlow and trade adviser Peter Navarro.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...6--sector.html

----------


## devil21

OMG Trump really touts the notion of taxing the piss out of American consumers as "Making America Rich Again".  This guy...

----------


## EBounding



----------


## Swordsmyth

China will more than triple its capacity for production of ethanol in  little over a year. According to a Dou Kejun, a researcher at the China  National Renewable Energy Centre, the nation is already constructing or  seeking approval to construct new ethanol plants with a total  production capacity of over 6.6 million tonnes of the mostly corn- and  cassava-based biofuel each year.6.6 million tonnes is an  especially stunning figure when you consider that China’s entire ethanol  production in 2017 was just 2.8 million tonnes. Feng Wensheng, a  manager at Henan Tianguan Group Co Ltd., a major Chinese producer,  estimates that current capacity has already risen to about 3.38 million  tonnes, including some plants that are still under construction after  very recent approval. A major factor in this massive uptick is the  government’s announcement last year that they would now be requiring  gasoline supplies nationwide to be blended with ethanol by just 2020.  This requirement alone will require about 15 million tonnes of ethanol  per year.
Unlike ethanol in the United States, the vast majority  of which is corn-based, less than half of China’s current ethanol  production is derived from corn, a larger portion (1.7 million tonnes)  being sourced from cassava. Other sources of Chinese biofuels include  wheat, sorghum and rice.
China’s newly soaring demand for ethanol  has garnered quite a lot of attention from the international biofuels  industry, as most believe it’s highly unlikely that China will be able  to produce enough ethanol on domestic soil to meet the nation’s soaring  thirst. Contrary to the predominant belief within the industry,  researcher Dou reported to Reuters  that China’s planned growth in production capacity would take the  country “quite close” to the volumes necessary to meet its 2020  objective. He hedged this statement by saying the process is not set,  but dynamic and subject to change. Meanwhile, many industry insiders  predict that China will need to import large volumes of ethanol from  other major international producers of the biofuel such as the United  States and Brazil, the world’s first and second biggest ethanol  producers, respectively.

This dynamic is muddied considerably, however, by the ongoing trade  war between China and the United States. After Chinese President Xi  Jinping imposed tariffs on U.S. ethanol imports and the U.S. takes a  step back from overall trade in China, a surprising player has stepped  up to fill China’s unflagging demand. Over the course of just two  months, Malaysia--a nation with negligible levels of use or production  of ethanol--has shocked the industry by displacing the United States and  China’s biggest ethanol supplier.
Where is Malaysia getting all  of this ethanol? From the very same nation they displaced. Far from  becoming an ethanol producer the size of the United States or Brazil,  Malaysia is just playing go-between between the quarreling superpowers,  as the Southeast Asian nation has simultaneously ramped up their imports  of U.S. ethanol to record quantities. Malaysia serves to fill a  loophole in the complicated trade relations between the U.S. and China,  as shipments from Malaysia to China are tax-free.

More at: https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Ene...roduction.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

The English language headline for China’s National Bureau of Statistics’ press release on November 2018’s Big 3 was, _National Economy Maintained Stable and Sound Momentum of Development in November_. For those who, as noted yesterday,  are wishing China’s economy bad news so as to lead to the supposed good  news of a coordinated “stimulus” response this was itself a bad  news/good news situation.

*If the Communist State Council is to be flustered into action, the title of the release might suggest maybe not.* Then  again, there isn’t a month that goes by where the NBS writers don’t  write pretty much the same thing. In a Communist country, any wording  less than “sound momentum” is surely frowned upon especially when there  is no momentum.
*Underneath, the figures were all bad.* Were they bad  enough? I don’t believe anything short of full-fledged collapse will be,  but this is attempting to game and analyze a political factor whose  proportions are never going to be fully known.
*What we are left with is pure ugly.* The last time  Industrial Production grew at a 5.4% annual rate, as it did last month,  it was February 2016 and the worst of times for modern, industrial  China. It was also the same month the last “stimulus” was uncorked.
  It doesn’t get any lower than the 2015-16 downturn so for Chinese  industry to already be at that depth with “this one” just getting  started, it all tells us that perhaps there is a lot of downside left to  come and that officials are keenly aware of the possibility.



  If this was somehow unexpected and unapproved, so to speak, they  wouldn’t have waited for 5.4% to reappear. That goes double for consumer  spending, or retail sales in this case. Chinese retail activity grew by  just 8.1% in November. You have to go back fifteen years to find  something less.

  What should really stand out especially for the stimulus whisperers is *when* China’s  latest economic inflection transpired. It wasn’t Trump and trade, it  was in the middle of last year for both IP as well as RS.

  Why mid-2017? That was when authorities began to realize the full  extent of their predicament. They had done the “stimulus” stuff in a  rush to begin 2016 and it didn’t get anywhere. There are often heavy  costs to doing these kinds of things, so to pay out a lot and receive  very little in return from it is a big counterpoint to thinking about  doing it again.


*China simply has, as we’ve been writing and speaking about  for half a decade (and more, less specifically about China), no monetary  room with which to get any kind of internal growth started. That point  was driven home last year. The global economy despite all officials  protestations everywhere has never once picked up toward recovery.*
  Therefore, the Chinese government is left between the rock (external  malaise) and the hard place (no internal monetary space). Only a few  months after June 2017, Communist officials convened at the 19th Party  Congress and “elected” to move authoritarian. This, I don’t believe, is mere coincidence.


The only mild positive so far in 2018 is how Fixed Asset Investment  (FAI) has stabilized albeit at extremely low levels. Private FAI, in  particular, is growing at around a 9% rate (8.8% in November) which is  better than late last year.




*The flipside of that is how Private FAI seems to have hit a  ceiling around 9%, nowhere near the 25% rate that for a few years kept  China out of trouble.* Even with officials at lower levels  (almost certainly on orders from the central government) in the  provinces no longer clamping down on the waste of State-owned FAI, it  hasn’t stabilized China’s economy because it can’t.
  On an accumulated basis, Public FAI rose 2.3% in November (meaning  YTD) while on a monthly basis it was less than 7% (annual rate) for the  second straight month. Like Private FAI, better than before but not  really meaningfully so. It seems more like messaging than meaning.
  To me, this adds up to the same thing – an attempt at managing the  decline rather than intentions to turn it around as expectations for  globally synchronized growth would have required.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...anic-next-week

----------


## Swordsmyth

The  U.S. Trade Representative's office on Friday officially changed the  scheduled date of a tariff rate increase on $200 billion worth of  Chinese goods to 12:01 a.m. EST (0501 GMT) on March 2, 2019 as the  United States and China pursue talks on trade and intellectual property.The  change was made in a Federal Register filing from a previously  scheduled effective date of Jan. 1, 2019 for the increase to 25 percent  from 10 percent.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/u-sets-march-...--finance.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

The  resumption of soybean sales to China this week is encouraging to  American farmers who have seen the value of their crop plummet amid a  trade war with the world's second-largest economy, but producers see it  only as a small step and say they need more federal aid.Private  exporters reported sales of 1.13 million metric tons of soybeans to  China on Thursday and another 300,000 metric tons on Friday, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture said. The Thursday report was the  ninth-largest daily sale since 1977, according to the agency's Foreign  Agriculture Service, and it comes less than two weeks after the Trump  administration reached a three-month truce in its trade war with China  during which the two sides will try to work out their differences.

January soybean futures in early Friday trading on the Chicago Board of  Trade gained 40 cents to about $9.06 a bushel. That's down from almost  $15 a bushel four years ago and nearly $10 a bushel 18 months ago.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/farmers-buoye...183715650.html

----------


## XNavyNuke

> January soybean futures in early Friday trading on the Chicago Board of  Trade gained 40 cents to about $9.06 a bushel. That's down from almost  $15 a bushel four years ago and nearly $10 a bushel 18 months ago.
> 
> More at: https://news.yahoo.com/farmers-buoye...183715650.html


Completely arbitrary timepoints so that the infotainists can keep their editor happy.  Here is a link to the the historical chart.
Soybean Prices - 45 Year Historical Chart

I guess its Bill Clinton's fault for the lowest price per bushel in the past twenty years.

XNN

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Completely arbitrary timepoints so that the infotainists can keep their editor happy.  Here is a link to the the historical chart.
> Soybean Prices - 45 Year Historical Chart
> 
> I guess its Bill Clinton's fault for the lowest price per bushel in the past twenty years.
> 
> XNN


And the bumper crop had nothing to do with the price, only Trump is responsible.

----------


## Swordsmyth

China has, for the first time ever, provided clearance for U.S. rice  imports into its domestic market, the South China Morning Post reported  Dec. 28.

More at: https://worldview.stratfor.com/situa...ad-trade-talks

----------


## devil21

Japan to cut way back on buying American produce, grain and meat products and lower tariffs on competitor's products instead.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Japan to cut way back on buying American produce, grain and meat products and lower tariffs on competitor's products instead.


And all we had to do to avoid it was submit to the TPP.
Whose side are you on?

We can still negotiate a bilateral trade agreement that doesn't move us towards world government.

----------


## devil21

> And all we had to do to avoid it was submit to the TPP.
> Whose side are you on?


Side?  Hmm, I wasn't aware this was a football game.  I like facts and presenting a complete picture, instead of cherry-picking articles to create a one-sided narrative like some do around here.  Consider me the color-commentator in the booth while you're on the sidelines spraying Gatorade into player's mouths.




> We can still negotiate a bilateral trade agreement that doesn't move us towards world government.


We can.  We haven't, but we can.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Side?  Hmm, I wasn't aware this was a football game.  I like facts and presenting a complete picture, instead of cherry-picking articles to create a one-sided narrative like some do around here.  Consider me the color-commentator in the booth while you're on the sidelines spraying Gatorade into player's mouths.


There is the side of the globalists in favor of TPP and the side of the patriots against it.

Which side are you on?

----------


## devil21

> There is the side of the globalists in favor of TPP and the side of the patriots against it.
> 
> Which side are you on?


If I had to "pick a side" (never mind that rarely are two sides the only cut and dry options) of course it's the patriot side.  Engaging with you about such things is ridiculous, however, since I disagree with most every premise of your posts.  

Tariffs are a tax on American buyers.  Tariffs push trade partners to seek out new trade partners, as the Japanese changes show, which you obviously avoided posting because it doesn't fit the cherry-picked narrative you present.  And finally, none of this tariff stuff ever addresses the root cause, which is the global de-dollarization that is underway.  

So maybe you can see why I'm not eager to jump onto your predetermined "sides" choice, since there's a lot of lies, false narratives and incomplete information being pushed.  Taking sides based on such things is for small minds.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If I had to "pick a side" (never mind that rarely are two sides the only cut and dry options) of course it's the patriot side.  Engaging with you about such things is ridiculous, however, since I disagree with most every premise of your posts.  
> 
> Tariffs are a tax on American buyers.  Tariffs push trade partners to seek out new trade partners, as the Japanese changes show, which you obviously avoided posting because it doesn't fit the cherry-picked narrative you present.  And finally, none of this tariff stuff ever addresses the root cause, which is the global de-dollarization that is underway.  
> 
> So maybe you can see why I'm not eager to jump onto your predetermined "sides" choice, since there's a lot of lies, false narratives and incomplete information being pushed.  Taking sides based on such things is for small minds.


The Japanese tariffs on our goods are the problem, you implied that Trump had done something bad that was resulting in the Japanese lowering tariffs on other people but not on us, the only thing Trump did that affected that was not bad, it was good, it was pulling us out of the TPP which is designed to move towards world government.

In order to get the Japanese to lower tariffs on us without joining the TPP it will be necessary to negotiate a bilateral agreement and that might end up requiring us to put tariffs on them temporarily.

Anything else is irrelevant to the question of tariffs.

You say you are on the side against the TPP so you should be giving Trump credit for pulling us out.

----------


## H_H

> Consider me the color-commentator in the booth while you're on the sidelines spraying Gatorade into player's mouths.


 LOL, I love it, 21.  :^D

This is the best thing I remember you ever writing in your career here, or at least the one I can relate to and understand the most.




> You say you are on the side against the TPP so you should be giving Trump credit for pulling us out.


 Well, I mean, he does, right?  I mean, what do you want from him?  Prayer facing Trump Tower five times a day?  Trump got us out of the TPP.  21 doesn't deny that, nobody denies that; even Wonka just wisely stays quiet about it, while Juan posts articles, coloured graphs, and short brain-damaged-from-trauma sentences which assume without argument that obviously ending TPP was a bad thing.  But nobody denies the facts of the matter: that Trump kept his promise and killed that monster.  So... I don't know; like, that's a win.  For both Reality Acceptance and Team Trump.  I don't know to which one you're more loyal, but either way, you should be whistling a happy tune, not giving 21 a hard time for posting things which are also facts and part of reality and which happen to not be so unambiguously complimentary towards Trump as his drowning of TPP in its bathwater.

----------


## devil21

> LOL, I love it, 21.  :^D
> 
> This is the best thing I remember you ever writing in your career here, or at least the one I can relate to and understand the most.
> 
>  Well, I mean, he does, right?  I mean, what do you want from him?  Prayer facing Trump Tower five times a day?  Trump got us out of the TPP.  21 doesn't deny that, nobody denies that; even Wonka just wisely stays quiet about it, while Juan posts articles, coloured graphs, and short brain-damaged-from-trauma sentences which assume without argument that obviously ending TPP was a bad thing.  But nobody denies the facts of the matter: that Trump kept his promise and killed that monster.  So... I don't know; like, that's a win.  For both Reality Acceptance and Team Trump.  I don't know to which one you're more loyal, but either way, you should be whistling a happy tune, not giving 21 a hard time for posting things which are also facts and part of reality and which happen to not be so unambiguously complimentary towards Trump as his drowning of TPP in its bathwater.


Thanks.

There's also the part where the falling apart of TPP was foreshadowed by the Rothschild's magazine, The Economist (World in 2017 cover, Hermit tarot card), before Trump was even sworn in.  Someone could question whether TPP was decided to be scrapped and the credit merely given to Trump in order to gain credibility at the start of his administration.

----------


## H_H

> Thanks.
> 
> There's also the part where the falling apart of TPP was foreshadowed by the Rothschild's magazine, The Economist (World in 2017 cover, Hermit tarot card), before Trump was even sworn in.  Someone could question whether TPP was decided to be scrapped and the credit merely given to Trump in order to gain credibility at the start of his administration.


Yeah, there's endless conspiracy theories out there, one could go down that rabbit-hole forever, so I try to just stick with facts.  

Of course, above you're just giving some legitimate tangible facts (magazine covers, etc.) which are easily verifiable, and then it's up to the reader what to make of them.  So I like that.  Also, I do respect that you're not just a consumer of conspiracy models, but roll your own, which is very commendable.

----------


## devil21

> Yeah, there's endless conspiracy theories out there, one could go down that rabbit-hole forever, so I try to just stick with facts.  
> 
> Of course, above you're just giving some legitimate tangible facts (magazine covers, etc.) which are easily verifiable, and then it's up to the reader what to make of them.  So I like that.  Also, I do respect that you're not just a consumer of conspiracy models, but roll your own, which is very commendable.


Thanks for the kind words and Happy New Year to you.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL, I love it, 21.  :^D
> 
> This is the best thing I remember you ever writing in your career here, or at least the one I can relate to and understand the most.
> 
>  Well, I mean, he does, right?  I mean, what do you want from him?  Prayer facing Trump Tower five times a day?  Trump got us out of the TPP.  21 doesn't deny that, nobody denies that; even Wonka just wisely stays quiet about it, while Juan posts articles, coloured graphs, and short brain-damaged-from-trauma sentences which assume without argument that obviously ending TPP was a bad thing.  But nobody denies the facts of the matter: that Trump kept his promise and killed that monster.  So... I don't know; like, that's a win.  For both Reality Acceptance and Team Trump.  I don't know to which one you're more loyal, but either way, you should be whistling a happy tune, not giving 21 a hard time for posting things which are also facts and part of reality and which happen to not be so unambiguously complimentary towards Trump as his drowning of TPP in its bathwater.


I always side with reality over anything else, I pushed D21 on this because his post implies that Japan dropping tariffs on others but not us is a bad thing and Trump's fault when in fact it is an unfortunate side effect of something good Trump did, we didn't walk into the trap so we don't get the bait.

----------


## Swordsmyth

*American manufacturing jobs have boomed to a more than 20-year high  as President Trump has imposed a wide range of tariffs on imported  steel, aluminum, and Chinese products — dooming predictions made by free  traders that have yet to pan out.* U.S. manufacturers added 284,000 jobs in the last year, the most jobs  added in the sector in a single year since 1997, as Breitbart News’s  Economics Editor John Carney notes. In December 2018, alone, about 32,000 factory jobs were created.
 American manufacturing is vital to the prosperity of communities, as  every one manufacturing job supports about 3.6 American jobs in other  sectors of industry.


The U.S. manufacturing jobs boom comes as free trade economists,  billionaire donors, and establishment media pundits have routinely  claimed that Trump’s 25 percent tariff on imported steel and ten percent  tariff on aluminum would cripple the American economy.
 They said Trump's promise to bring back  manufacturing jobs was a "con," told us we were dupes for believing in a  manufacturing revival. 
 It just couldn't be done. It was impossible.
 But we're America. The impossible country. So we did it anyway.https://t.co/GnWXcDCq0P pic.twitter.com/Kp3TAGJ1dB
 — John Carney (@carney) January 4, 2019In November 2018, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter  to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer claiming that Trump’s  tariffs on imported products “endangers the jobs of millions of workers”  in industries that have grown to rely on cheap foreign imports.
  Months ago, the chairman of Cummins, a fortune 500 company, wrote an op-ed in the _New York Times_ claiming that even short-term tariffs would cripple American industry.
 “We see no upside in the implementation of tariffs,” Cummins  Chairman Tom Linebarger wrote. “They are a tax, and the risky  proposition of entering a trade war could slow down the economy. Even  putting up short-term barriers with trading partners in China and Europe  can cause long-term losses in market share, resulting in lost jobs in  the United States.”
 The free traders at the Tax Foundation wrote their research predicted  that not only would Trump’s tariffs crush American industries, but they  would also decrease Americans’ wages.
 “These tariffs increase production costs for U.S. manufacturers,  placing them at a competitive disadvantage, and will, on net, destroy  more output, wages, and employment in the United States than they  create,” Tax Foundation analysts wrote.
 For U.S. wages, the opposite has panned out. In December, Americans’  wages grew 3.2 percent in December 2018 compared to last year.

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...cturing-booms/

----------


## Swordsmyth

March 23, 2018

 Amid the  outcry over President Trump’s trade taxes on Chinese products, set to  begin today, a new report reveals that the Asian economic giant imposes  tariffs more than twice as high as the United States. 
            On average, China’s tariff on products is 3.54 percent, according to the World Bank. 

               Average applied tariff rate across all products, 2016: 
 Canada 0.8%
 Japan 1.4% 
 EU 1.6% 
 U.S. 1.6%
 China 3.5% 
 Mexico 4.4%
 India 6.3%
 Brazil 8.0%https://t.co/HK7Lk98eYU pic.twitter.com/WT6HRe9lpY
— Pew Research Global (@pewglobal)                March 22, 2018 




By comparison, the U.S. average is 1.61 percent. That  is among the lowest in the world and also about the lowest ever charged  by the country. 
            “Since the turn of the 21st century, U.S. average tariff  rates have consistently been at or near their lowest levels in the  nation’s history; today, they’re also among the lowest in the world,”  said an analysis of the world data by the Pew Research Center. 
            “According to the World Bank, the average applied U.S.  tariff across all products was 1.61 percent; that was about the same as  the average rate of 1.6 percent for the 28-nation EU, and not much  higher than Japan’s 1.35 percent. Among other major U.S. trading  partners, Canada’s average applied tariff rate was 0.85 percent, China’s  was 3.54 percent and Mexico’s was 4.36 percent,” it added. 



More at: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...higher-than-us

----------


## Swordsmyth

Three U.S. crude oil cargoes are currently headed to China in what  could be the first Chinese purchase of American crude since the trade  war escalated last summer and since the ‘trade-war truce’ of three  months began in December, Reuters reported on Tuesday, quoting ship brokers and tanker-tracking data.
Although  crude oil is not on China’s tariff list, Chinese buyers have been  staying away from U.S. crude oil purchases since the summer of 2018,  when the trade war escalated.
According to EIA data,  the United States didn’t export any crude oil to China in August,  September, and October, compared to 384,000 bpd in July and a  record-high 510,000 bpd in June.
After  the United States and China called a trade-war truce in early December  and pledged to immediately begin trade negotiations in view of possible  deal within 90 days, Chinese refiners are said to have started to look  for opportunities to buy U.S. crude oil until March 1, when the  negotiating period expires.
According to ship brokers who spoke to  Reuters and to Refinitiv Eikon vessel tracking data, three cargoes left  Galveston, Texas, in December and are currently heading to China. One  tanker is expected to arrive in China late in January and two others are  planned to arrive in late February or early March, although the final  destinations could change.  

More at: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...-To-China.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

China has extended the olive branch back to the United States by  offering a path to eliminate Washington’s burgeoning trade deficit with  the country, Bloomberg reported Friday.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg  reported Friday that China has offered to significantly boost its  purchase of U.S. goods over a six-year period in an effort to re-balance  trade between the two superpowers. By increasing its annual imports  from the United States, Beijing would reduce its trade surplus to zero  by 2024. That would require a spending boost of more than $1 trillion.
Last year, Beijing’s surplus with the U.S. stood at $323 billion.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bye-b...160627486.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

The  United States is pushing for regular reviews of China's progress on  pledged trade reforms as a condition for a trade deal - and could again  resort to tariffs if it deems Beijing has violated the agreement,  according to sources briefed on negotiations to end the trade war  between the two nations.A  continuing threat of tariffs hanging over commerce between the world's  two largest economies would mean a deal would not end the risk of  investing in businesses or assets that have been impacted by the trade  war.
"The  threat of tariffs is not going away, even if there is a deal," said one  of three sources briefed on the talks who spoke with Reuters on  condition of anonymity.
Chinese  negotiators were not keen on the idea of regular compliance checks, the  source said, but the U.S. proposal "didn't derail negotiations."
A Chinese source said the United States wants “periodic assessments” but it's not yet clear how often.
“It  looks like humiliation," the source said. "But perhaps the two sides  could find a way to save face for the Chinese government."

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-p...182900413.html

----------


## devil21

> China has extended the olive branch back to the United States by  offering a path to eliminate Washington’s burgeoning trade deficit with  the country, Bloomberg reported Friday.
> 
> Citing sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg  reported Friday that China has offered to significantly boost its  purchase of U.S. goods over a six-year period in an effort to re-balance  trade between the two superpowers. By increasing its annual imports  from the United States, Beijing would reduce its trade surplus to zero  by 2024. That would require a spending boost of more than $1 trillion.
> Last year, Beijing’s surplus with the U.S. stood at $323 billion.
> 
> More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bye-b...160627486.html


Another nail in the global dollar's coffin, if true.  Trade deficits are a requirement for dollar global reserve so it's more like bye-bye global dollar reserve.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Treasury Secretary suggests easing tariffs to try to get China trade deal.  Boss says no. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/19/-tru...ith-china.html




> *Trump says deal 'could very well happen' with China, but denies he's considering lifting tariffs*
> 
> President Donald Trump said on Saturday there has been progress toward a trade deal with China, but denied that he was considering lifting tariffs on Chinese imports.
> 
> "Things are going very well with China and with trade," he told reporters at the White House, adding that he had seen some "false reports" indicating that U.S. tariffs on Chinese products would be lifted.
> 
> *"If we make a deal certainly we would not have sanctions and if we don't make a deal we will,*" Trump said. "We've really had a very extraordinary number of meetings and a deal could very well happen with China. It's going well. I would say about as well as it could possibly go."
> 
> Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the United States on Jan. 30 and 31 for the next round of trade negotiations with Washington.
> ...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Treasury Secretary suggests easing tariffs to try to get China trade deal.  Boss says no. 
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/19/-tru...ith-china.html


It has been denied that the Treasury Secretary suggested that.

Trump is right.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Apple  Inc.’s main assemblers are shifting more output to India and Southeast  Asia as trade tensions threaten to escalate costs in their longstanding  production base of China.Hon  Hai Precision Industry Co., known also as Foxconn, said over the  weekend it’s investing more than $200 million in India and Vietnam.  Smaller rival Pegatron Corp. said Sunday it’s moved to Indonesia some  manufacturing of networking gear hit by rising U.S. tariffs on Chinese  imports, and is now exploring bases in Vietnam and India as well.
While  neither explicitly said they’re shifting production of Apple products,  the twin announcements underscore the extent to which the Taiwanese  companies that make most of the world’s electronics are reconsidering a  reliance on the world’s second-largest economy. From iPhone assemblers  like Foxconn and Pegatron to laptop maker Compal Electronics Inc.,  they’re bracing for a fundamental shift in an arrangement that’s served  them well since the 1980s.
“We  have begun shipping from Batam island, Indonesia, in January,” Pegatron  Chief Executive Officer Liao Syh-jang told reporters on Sunday.  “Whether the U.S. will decide to go ahead with new tariffs on March 1  will be a key impact on the speed of the company’s further  diversification.”


More at: https://news.yahoo.com/apple-apos-pa...013213185.html

----------


## H_H

Going full autarchy would probably be highly beneficial in the long term for the health and well-bring of the people of the United States of America. Autarchy means national self-sufficiency. Just cut off all trade with everyone. This situation happens during an all-out war, due to logistical realities —not being _able_ to trade with anyone — but it could also be enacted as a matter of conscious policy. 

This would result in a lower level of economic prosperity for the USA, all else equal, as a thousand Mises Institute lectures can explain to you. It might, however, seem to you, alert societal observer, that more prosperity is the very last thing the people of America need. So while the conventional thinking is that any reduction in the sacred GDP is an unalloyed catastrophic bad, if you are a strange and baffling breed we call “independent thinker,” you may think it would be a good.

It also would result in increased independence, both nationally and for American fathers and their families. Everything anyone in America wants to buy — and there is an awful long list of such things, let me tell you — would have to be made by a fellow American. And so finally the insatiable appetite for consumption would be matched — precisely — by an equally insatiable appetite for production. 

It’s simple economic law. Watch some Mises if you don’t agree/understand.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Well I just found out Friday that I'm temporarily laid off from work because of the raised tariffs.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well I just found out Friday that I'm temporarily laid off from work because of the raised tariffs.


   Great news! Getcha some of those free unemployment greenbacks and steak dinner food stamps and take a well deserved break. Follow that passion for your hobby of choice. Spend time with family. Post more on RPF's!

----------


## EBounding

> Well I just found out Friday that I'm temporarily laid off from work because of the raised tariffs.


Would it make you feel better to know China is hurting too?

But seriously, I'm really sorry to hear that.

----------


## axiomata

> Well I just found out Friday that I'm temporarily laid off from work because of the raised tariffs.


What line of work are you in, maybe RPF might have some connections?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Great news! Getcha some of those free unemployment greenbacks* and steak dinner food stamps* and take a well deserved break. Follow that passion for your hobby of choice. Spend time with family. Post more on RPF's!


Can you buy steak dinner for $1.40? 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-a...d-on-the-table

----------


## phill4paul

> Can you buy steak dinner for $1.40? 
> 
> https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-a...d-on-the-table


   No. But, I can for $249.

----------


## TheTexan

Making America Great Again, one tariff at a time

----------


## CCTelander

> Making America Great Again, one tariff at a time



The "Greatness" just keeps piling up, doesn't it?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Well I just found out Friday that I'm temporarily laid off from work because of the raised tariffs.


I'm very sorry to hear that you are being laid off.

That said, many people lost jobs because we didn't defend ourselves in the trade wars and not every company that is blaming the tariffs is telling the truth.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Going full autarchy would probably be highly beneficial in the long term for the health and well-bring of the people of the United States of America. Autarchy means national self-sufficiency. Just cut off all trade with everyone. This situation happens during an all-out war, due to logistical realities not being _able_ to trade with anyone  but it could also be enacted as a matter of conscious policy. 
> 
> This would result in a lower level of economic prosperity for the USA, all else equal, as a thousand Mises Institute lectures can explain to you. It might, however, seem to you, alert societal observer, that more prosperity is the very last thing the people of America need. So while the conventional thinking is that any reduction in the sacred GDP is an unalloyed catastrophic bad, if you are a strange and baffling breed we call independent thinker, you may think it would be a good.
> 
> It also would result in increased independence, both nationally and for American fathers and their families. Everything anyone in America wants to buy  and there is an awful long list of such things, let me tell you  would have to be made by a fellow American. And so finally the insatiable appetite for consumption would be matched  precisely  by an equally insatiable appetite for production. 
> 
> Its simple economic law. Watch some Mises if you dont agree/understand.


Liberty and wealth are often in opposition to eachother, many people always choose wealth, they usually end up with neither.

----------


## H_H

> many people always choose wealth, they usually end up with neither.


Normal people, if they won the lottery, would do.... what?

House?
Boat?
Private Island?

But how do any of these things help to make your bloodline stronger 100 years from now?  Do the normies ever think of _that?

_And...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Normal people, if they won the lottery, would do.... what?
> 
> House?
> Boat?
> Private Island?
> 
> But how do any of these things help to make your bloodline stronger 100 years from now?  Do the normies ever think of _that?
> 
> _And...


You must spread some reputation around..........................

----------


## Swordsmyth

Chinese state-owned firms bought at least 1 million tonnes of U.S.  soybeans on Feb. 1, a day after high-level bilateral talks yielded  progress toward a trade deal and a Chinese commitment to buy more U.S.  soybeans.
 The purchases are slated for shipment between April and July, with a  large share expected from U.S. Gulf Coast export terminals, three  traders with knowledge of the deals said.
 One trader with direct knowledge of the deals said total purchases  were around 2.2 million tonnes. The other two traders said the sales  were similar to three recent waves of buying in which state-owned firms  booked 1 million to 1.5 million tonnes of soybeans.

More at: https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-...y_2787646.html

----------


## devil21

> Well I just found out Friday that I'm temporarily laid off from work because of the raised tariffs.


Can you elaborate?

----------


## devil21

> Normal people, if they won the lottery, would do.... what?
> 
> House?
> Boat?
> Private Island?
> 
> But how do any of these things help to make your bloodline stronger 100 years from now?  Do the normies ever think of _that?
> 
> _And...


Somebody has been reading Rofschild threads

----------


## H_H

> Somebody has been reading Rofschild threads


Astute, he is.

----------


## Swordsmyth

*US trade deficit narrows much more than expected in a win for Trump*

----------


## Swordsmyth

China will purchase 10 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said Friday. 
            The announcement comes as the White House is a trying to  reach a broader trade deal with Beijing by next month. President Trump  announced Friday that he will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at  Mar-a-Lago, Florida, for one-on-one talks. 
            "In (an) Oval Office meeting today, the Chinese committed  to buy an additional 10 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans. Hats off  to @potuS for bringing China to the table. Strategy is working. Show of  good faith by the Chinese. Also indications of more good news to come," Perdue tweeted. 

More at: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...on-in-soybeans

----------


## Swordsmyth

China has agreed to buy up to $1.2 trillion in goods from the United  States as part of the current negotiations to end the trade war between  the countries, CNBC reported on Friday, citing sources familiar with the  situation.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/china-agreed-...193327396.html

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *US trade deficit narrows much more than expected in a win for Trump*





> *But on a year-over-year basis, the gap rose by 10.4 percent*.





> The U.S trade deficit with its global partners fell in November for the first time after* five straight months of increases* as the shortfall with China and several other countries declined.





> The decline was* largely due to a slide in imports*, which fell 2.9 percent to $259.2 billion. Exports edged lower to $209.9 billion, a 0.6 percent drop.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/us-t...for-trump.html

There was that surge in orders of imports to try to get product in before the tariffs kicked in.

March 1st scheduled increase in tariffs on Chinese goods (raising the current 10% ones on $250 billion in goods was due to rise to 25% on the same ones) is delayed for now.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> China has agreed to buy up to* $1.2 trillion in goods from the United  States* as part of the current negotiations to end the trade war between  the countries, CNBC reported on Friday, citing sources familiar with the  situation.
> 
> More at: https://news.yahoo.com/china-agreed-...193327396.html


Over how many years? We exported $187 billion to them last year. If that is over ten years, it would be a decline in US exports to China.  Or  will China suddenly buy ten times what they already do? Hardly likely.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *China will purchase 10 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans*, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said Friday. 
>             The announcement comes as the White House is a trying to  reach a broader trade deal with Beijing by next month. President Trump  announced Friday that he will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at  Mar-a-Lago, Florida, for one-on-one talks. 
>             "In (an) Oval Office meeting today, the Chinese committed  to buy an additional 10 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans. Hats off  to @potuS for bringing China to the table. Strategy is working. Show of  good faith by the Chinese. Also indications of more good news to come," Perdue tweeted. 
> 
> More at: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...on-in-soybeans


In 2017, they were buying 31 million metric tons.  This is less than a third of that.  Winning by selling less than we were?  http://www.nopa.org/resources/datafa...ybean-exports/

----------


## devil21

Trump backtracks on March 1 tariff deadline.  

The formal end to the global reserve dollar must not be quite ready yet.  That's what all of this is about.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Chinese manufacturing hits a three year low as Trump Tariffs take hold.

----------


## Zippyjuan

US manufacturing not exactly booming right now either.   https://www.freightwaves.com/news/is...-in-during-feb




> New orders declined 2.7 percentage points to 58.2 percent, according to the ISM report. Production declined to 54.8 percent, a 5.7 percentage point decrease. Inventories rose slightly to 52.8 percent. Prices paid fell slightly to 49.4 percent, the second straight month of declines in raw materials prices after nearly three years of increases.

----------


## Swordsmyth

A tanker capable of carrying up to 600,000 barrels of oil is  discharging U.S. Eagle Ford crude oil into China’s eastern port of  Qingdao on Friday, Reuters reported, quoting Refinitiv ship-tracking  data and trade sources, in what would be the first Chinese import of  American crude oil in months.
The Aframax tanker the Kara Sea is  discharging the light crude Eagle Ford in the Chinese port, after the  U.S.-origin oil had been transferred to the Kara Sea tanker from  supertanker Olympic Luck, Refinitiv analyst Emma Li told Reuters.
The  Kara Sea has been chartered by BP and the receiver of the Eagle Ford  crude is independent Chinese refiner Hongrun Petrochemical based in the  Shandong province, Refinitiv’s analyst said.
According to Reuters, the cargo of Eagle Ford will likely be included in China’s February import volumes by the Chinese customs.
Other ship-tracking data suggest that U.S. crude oil appears to be heading to China after  many months of China abstaining from buying American oil amid the trade  dispute, despite the fact that crude oil is not on Beijing’s tariff  list.
China could soon import crude oil directly shipped from the United States,  CNBC reported earlier this week, citing tanker-tracking data from ClipperData.

More at: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...In-Months.html

----------


## axiomata

Thanks Obama. (He did one thing right. )

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Chinese manufacturing hits a three year low as Trump Tariffs take hold.


I hope you posted this as an example of how the tariffs are hurting America.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I hope you posted this as an example of how the tariffs are hurting America.


LOL

----------


## Swordsmyth

While a few will blame the total and utter collapse in China exports in February on the lunar new year's early date this year,* the scale of the miss is simply stunning.*

*For a few brief seconds, everything was awesome* as  Bloomberg's initial headline proclaimed a big RISE in exports, but they  quickly corrected - causing heart attacks across every tape-reading algo  in the world...
 This is how you blow up a few million worth of algo servers:

CHINA FEB. EXPORTS RISE 16.6% Y/Y IN YUAN TERMS; EST. 6.6%

CORRECT: CHINA FEB. EXPORTS -16.6% Y/Y IN YUAN TERMS; EST. 6.6%
 — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 8, 2019*Exports plunged 20.7 percent in February* while imports fell 5.2 percent, leaving a trade surplus of $4.12 billion, the customs administration said Friday.


  Economists forecast both exports and imports would shrink, although not as much as the fall. *The Lunar New Year break fell about 10 days earlier than last year,* likely boosting January’s shipments and weighing on February’s.
*But Chinese imports from the US crashed the most on record...*

  In addition to the shutdown that happens each year, February was an  uncertain period for Chinese exporters, with negotiations through the  month on whether the U.S. would raise tariffs from March 1.


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...injection-ever

----------


## Swordsmyth

On March 15, China's legislature passed a highly anticipated foreign  investment law that will replace the existing three laws that govern  foreign investment in the country. The law — which will go into effect  on Jan. 1, 2020 — includes provisions to bar forced technological  transfers, and emphasizes equal treatment for foreign investment and  intellectual property protections. It also provides a mechanism to  settle disputes by foreign investors. Furthermore, the legislation  includes a measure that prohibits administrative staff from leaking  "confidential information" — presumably an effort to address foreign  investors' concerns over China's espionage practices. The new law does,  however, leave ambiguity around the national security review process,  which stipulates that the acquisition of Chinese companies by foreign  investors are subject to Beijing's anti-monopoly law. 

Despite its intent, ambiguities within the law leave room for  controversy. Given Beijing's vague jurisdiction of national security and  weak judicial independence, Chinese authorities have ample ability to  restrict foreign investments. 

But the biggest challenge will be actually implementing and enforcing  the law — especially at the subnational level. Although the law  emphasizes local responsibilities and stipulates broad punitive  mechanisms, the provisions outlining regulatory jurisdictions,  authorities and supervisory mechanisms for local governments' remain  either vague or absent. Legal experts believe that local-level  regulations and guidance for application will be followed, but  significant loopholes remain. And then there is the questions of  supervision, enforcement and judicial mechanisms to regulate local  compliance on key issues. And because many of the obstacles to foreign  investment go beyond the judicial aspect, the actual power of the law  itself is limited. 

More at: https://worldview.stratfor.com/artic...ase-us-demands

----------


## Swordsmyth

*Trump Says "Tariffs Will Stay On"**"tariffs could be left on China for a long period of time, until China complies with the deal."*

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...iffs-will-stay

----------


## devil21

> *Trump Says "Tariffs Will Stay On"**"tariffs could be left on China for a long period of time, until China complies with the deal."*
> 
> More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...iffs-will-stay


That sounds like my original contention that "tariffs" are actually the cover story for dollar devaluation which leads to higher cost of imports.

----------


## Swordsmyth

*US Trade Deficit Shrinks By Most in 10 Years As China Gap Tumbles*

----------


## Swordsmyth

Chinese  officials on Monday announced an immediate ban on the production and  distribution of all “fentanyl-related substances,” fulfilling a promise  that President Xi Jingping made to President Trump last year following a  years-long Department of Justice pressure campaign.
Speaking  at a press conference in Beijing, officials representing three  government agencies announced that they would expand the existing ban on  some 25 fentanyl variants to all forms of the drug.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/china-bans-fe...161937812.html

----------


## AZJoe

*USDA has paid out $7.7 billion to help farmers [as of January 2019]  hit by Trump's tariffs*

“Under the trade dispute, soybean *exports to China alone have plummeted by 22 million tonnes, or over 90 percent,” said the USDA*. …

*The Department of Agriculture has paid out $7.7 billion* so far to help farmers impacted by the ongoing tariff war with China, according to William Northey, Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation.

The funds represent a portion of the $12 billion relief package that President Donald Trump pledged in July  to offset the losses … in response to Washington's tariffs on Chinese goods. …

Instead of making America great again, the president’s policies are “going to make it 1929 again," said Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska (R-NE) …

*the temporary stopgap would be delivered in three ways: Direct assistance, for producers of soybeans, cotton, dairy, corn and hogs; a food purchase program under which the government will buy surpluses of beef, legumes and other products; and a trade promotion program*. [Trump's Soviet Ministry of Trade Control Program] …

“Under the trade dispute, [soybean] exports to China alone have plummeted by 22 million tonnes, or over 90 percent,” said Robert Johansson, chief economist of the USDA, speaking in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. …

U.S. farm exports to China are expected to fall by $1.9 billion in 2019, according to the USDA.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> *USDA has paid out $7.7 billion to help farmers [as of January 2019]  hit by Trump's tariffs*
> 
> “Under the trade dispute, soybean *exports to China alone have plummeted by 22 million tonnes, or over 90 percent,” said the USDA*. …
> 
> *The Department of Agriculture has paid out $7.7 billion* so far to help farmers impacted by the ongoing tariff war with China, according to William Northey, Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation.
> 
> The funds represent a portion of the $12 billion relief package that President Donald Trump pledged in July  to offset the losses … in response to Washington's tariffs on Chinese goods. …
> 
> Instead of making America great again, the president’s policies are “going to make it 1929 again," said Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska (R-NE) …
> ...


We shouldn't hand out welfare, they don't need it and it's wrong anyway.

I'm not going to cry for the massively subsidized agriculture industry that isn't really hurting anyway.

----------


## AZJoe

*Trump’s Manipulation of Economy through Trade Wars Proves Failure of Central Planning Once Again: America’s Trade Deficit at a Ten Year High*

Donald Trump stated that trade wars as a good thing and are “easy to win”, but the end of year statistics for 2018 tell a considerably different story. *Not only was America’s year end trade deficit with China at an all-time high of -$419.2 billion*, but the total US *trade deficit finished at a ten year high of -$621 billion*. Additionally, the U*S ran up record deficits both with the European Union and with neighboring Mexico*. … Donald T*rump’s protectionist onslaught … has not achieved its intended outcome. The inverse is in fact true*. …

*protectionist measures do little more than sever one’s own economy from mutually dependent supply chains whilst cutting off domestic producers from lucrative foreign markets* that are forced to levy retaliatory tariffs. Finally, as *tariffs are a tax on imported goods, trade wars have the effect of creating consumer price inflation* on goods that most consumers in a country like the United States can scarcely go without. … *protectionism is equally bad for exporters, consumers and domestic manufacturers* that rely heavily on international supply chains in order to produce their finished goods. …

*according to the latest figures, the trade war against China could cost the average US consumer upwards of $850 extra per annum*.  All the while, US farmers are being artificially subsidized by the American taxpayer to let their unsold crops … At the same time, the manufacturing sector that was supposed to be aided by the trade war continues to* slump*.  …

Thus, in spite of the US feeling the pain of the trade war, US producers and consumers have yet to receive any of the alleged benefits associated with protectionism. … Manipulating the market through devaluing currencies, taxing the consumer or over-regulating enterprise simply does not change the real life needs of businesses of all sizes nor of consumers.

The only way to reduce the size of trade deficits is to create mutual free trading deals … Only a speedy win-win resolution to the trade war can help to mitigate the negative effects wrought by Donald Trump’s protectionist zeal. Thus far, the trade war has failed to achieve any positive goals whilst the negative impacts of protectionism have already become self-evident.

----------


## Swordsmyth

US exports outpace imports, shatter expectations. More winning.

----------


## Swordsmyth

*President Trump will be pleased* with this set of numbers as the apparent front-running of trade tariffs has now worn off and the US trade balance (deficit) *shrinks to its smallest deficit since June 2018.*




*The deficit with China decreased dramatically* with imports from China fell 3.6 percent in February from the prior month while *exports to the nation rose 21.6 percent.*


  For some context, this is the biggest YTD reduction in the China trade deficit on record...


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ts-china-surge

----------


## Swordsmyth

Chinese Unipec, the trading arm of state oil giant Sinopec, will this  week receive the first cargo of U.S. crude since shipments were  suspended last September, Reuters reports, citing a source in the know that wished to remain unnamed.
Reuters  data shows that the load is carrying 2 million barrels of West Texas  Intermediate (WTI), and is currently waiting at the port of Qingdao to  unload its cargo.
The suspension of oil shipments to China  resulted from the heat-up in trade talks between Washington and Beijing.  Now that the two are at an advanced state in the negotiations with U.S.  officials optimistic about a deal, things may be changing.
It’s  interesting to note that the Reuters report comes on the heels of other  reports concerning the removal of Iran sanction waivers by the U.S.  administration. The latest update  has it that China, along with Turkey, has openly defied the removal of  waivers and will continue to import Iranian crude. This will certainly  have reverberations at the trade negotiations table.


More at: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...September.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

Steve  Bannon, the former White House strategist whom some credit for  President Donald Trump's unexpected 2016 victory, could not be happier  with his former boss' tough tariff talk on China. "I  happen to think today was the most important day of Donald Trump's  presidency," Bannon said Monday on Fox Business Network's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," in response to Dobbs' praise of Trump for "standing up" to Chinese President Xi Jinping. 
On Sunday, Trump said on Twitter that by the end of the week he was going to raise tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods. 
U.S.  Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer confirmed in a briefing Monday  that the administration plans to implement the hike on Friday, according to The Wall Street Journal. 
Dobbs  and Bannon praised the president for not caving to the "relentless  pressure" from experts and business groups that warned of the potential negative economic impacts of raising the tariffs and potentially escalating a budding trade war.
"This is the man we elected, period. This is a great president," Dobbs said. 
"Listen,  he's president of the United States because of the rejection of  working-class people and middle-class people" and "the managed decline  of our country at the hands of people like Hillary Clinton," Bannon  said. 
"These  globalists and elitists were very comfortable with the managed decline,  particularly vis-a-vis the rise of China. And Donald Trump confronted  that, particularly in the upper Midwest. This is the reason he won  states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin." 
Bannon said that under the free trade policies of the past decades "the jobs went to China, and the opioids came in."


Bannon  said Trump sees tariffs as "more than taxes" while as he argued the  trade maneuver is "about self-empowerment of the working class."
Bannon  also claimed China "reneged on every deal" under the presidencies  of Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama. Trump, on the other hand,  said "I’m not going to do this," Bannon explained.
"I think this is a very big week in American economic history." 

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/apos-today-mo...124522505.html

----------


## Zippyjuan

https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/trum...perts-say.html




> *Trump steel tariffs cost $900,000 for every job created, experts say*
> 
> President Donald Trump has shown little interest in removing the steel and aluminum tariffs he imposed more than a year ago despite growing evidence Americans are paying a hefty price for these tariffs and increasing pressure from Republicans in Congress to remove them.
> 
> U.S. consumers and businesses are paying more than $900,000 a year for every job saved or created by Trump steel tariffs, according to calculations by experts at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The cost is more than 13 times the typical salary of a steelworker, according to Labor Department data, and it is similar to other economists' estimates that Trump's tariffs on washing machines are costing consumers $815,000 per job created.
> 
> "It's very high. It's arresting," said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute who did the steel tariff cost calculation. "The reason it's so high is that steel is a very capital intensive industry. There are not many workers."
> 
> Trump has said repeatedly that the metals tariffs are necessary for national security, for good-paying jobs and for leverage in trade negotiations. There was hope among Republicans and business leaders that Trump would remove the tariffs - at least on Canada and Mexico - once the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement negotiations were done. But the tariffs remain, a warning sign for Chinese leaders who want Trump to remove his tariffs on their country's products as part of the deal the two sides are currently negotiating.
> ...


More at link.  

And about that $1 billion for a new steel mill in Pennsylvania- it is to replace an older one which will be shut down. The company says the new mill will not increase their production capacity so it won't add any jobs (aside from construction workers) and more automation may cost jobs at the plant from where they are now.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/trum...perts-say.html
> 
> 
> 
> More at link.  
> 
> And about that $1 billion for a new steel mill in Pennsylvania- it is to replace an older one which will be shut down. The company says the new mill will not increase their production capacity so it won't add any jobs (aside from construction workers) and more automation may cost jobs at the plant from where they are now.


And the Chinese trade war has cost us much more and would end up costing us much more yet if we let it go on.

----------


## Swordsmyth

The headline US trade balance printed in line with expectations at a $50 billion deficit,* marginally 'worse' than the prior month's.*

*Overall exports increased 1% to $212 billion, boosted by a 39% jump in soybean shipments*. Imports climbed  1.1% to $262 billion on gains in oil, food, vehicles and  pharmaceuticals. The overall merchandise-trade deficit widened 0.7% to  $72.4 billion.
  However, likely of more interest to President Trump, *the trade gap with China shrank to $20.75 billion in March - the lowest since March 2014*,  offering the administration a chance to claim his tariff war is  yielding the desired results just as negotiations reach a critical  stage.



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...les-5-year-low

----------


## Zippyjuan

So how much have tariff revenues reduced our National Debt so far?

----------


## phill4paul

> What country are you from?
> 
> It is so sad that the US does not make anything anymore. Automation is a bigger problem as far as jobs go than China.


  What does the lower half of that graph represent? You really need to at least supply some information.


  Edit. Ahh. For some reason the total gif did not show in the original post.

   Edit again..this is a completely different graph than originally posted. WTF?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> They aren't going to do $#@!. You still keep avoiding the fact that we are the* largest consumer nation in the world*. 70+% of GDP. China WANTS a slice of that. They've had the whole pie for too long.


China GDP is $13 trillion a year.  We buy about $500 billion from them. They can survive without the USA.  The tariff war is helping them in their goal to be less reliant on exports.(we are actually 29% of global consumption which is a pretty good sized chunk for just one nation-China is the tied with Germany as the third biggest and rising- Japan is #2).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I guess Ron Paul is anti- American too. He opposes tariffs. As does his son.


Ron and Rand are misguided about defensive tariffs and they support uniform tariffs to reduce/replace other taxes, the rest of their records make it quite clear they love their country and their countrymen, the rest of your record shows that yous are anti-American and that is what motivates you about this.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> China GDP is $13 trillion a year.  We buy about $500 billion from them. They can survive without the USA.  The tariff war is helping them in their goal to be less reliant on exports.


They are a house of cards Ponzi scheme and they will collapse without the money they have been stealing from us through trade warfare.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> They are a house of cards Ponzi scheme and they will collapse without the money they have been *stealing from us through trade warfare.*


More quotes from the Internet Guidebook?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Ron and Rand are misguided about defensive tariffs and they support uniform tariffs to reduce/replace other taxes, the rest of their records make it quite clear they love their country and their countrymen, the rest of your record shows that yous are anti-American and that is what motivates you about this.


Ron also opposes that border wall thing.  He must REALLY hate America!

----------


## phill4paul

> China GDP is $13 trillion a year.  We buy about $500 billion from them. They can survive without the USA.  The tariff war is helping them in their goal to be less reliant on exports.(we are actually 29% of global consumption which is a pretty good sized chunk for just one nation).


   They make up 21% of our imports. Would you be willing to lose 20+% of exports to a consumer nation?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Ron also opposes that border wall thing.  He must REALLY hate America!


Ron voted for that border wall thing and his reasons for his change of heart have nothing to do with opposing border security and supporting the invasion, unlike you.

----------


## Danke

> *Trump’s Manipulation of Economy through Trade Wars Proves Failure of Central Planning Once Again: America’s Trade Deficit at a Ten Year High*
> 
> Donald Trump stated that trade wars as a good thing and are “easy to win”, but the end of year statistics for 2018 tell a considerably different story. *Not only was America’s year end trade deficit with China at an all-time high of -$419.2 billion*, but the total US *trade deficit finished at a ten year high of -$621 billion*. Additionally, the U*S ran up record deficits both with the European Union and with neighboring Mexico*. … Donald T*rump’s protectionist onslaught … has not achieved its intended outcome. The inverse is in fact true*. …
> 
> *protectionist measures do little more than sever one’s own economy from mutually dependent supply chains whilst cutting off domestic producers from lucrative foreign markets* that are forced to levy retaliatory tariffs. Finally, as *tariffs are a tax on imported goods, trade wars have the effect of creating consumer price inflation* on goods that most consumers in a country like the United States can scarcely go without. … *protectionism is equally bad for exporters, consumers and domestic manufacturers* that rely heavily on international supply chains in order to produce their finished goods. …
> 
> *according to the latest figures, the trade war against China could cost the average US consumer upwards of $850 extra per annum*.  All the while, US farmers are being artificially subsidized by the American taxpayer to let their unsold crops … At the same time, the manufacturing sector that was supposed to be aided by the trade war continues to* slump*.  …
> 
> Thus, in spite of the US feeling the pain of the trade war, US producers and consumers have yet to receive any of the alleged benefits associated with protectionism. … Manipulating the market through devaluing currencies, taxing the consumer or over-regulating enterprise simply does not change the real life needs of businesses of all sizes nor of consumers.
> ...


As AF and others have said, many Americans would rather pay a consumption tax over an Income Tax to fund the Federal Government.  Tarriffs could do that.

----------


## phill4paul

> As AF and others have said, many Americans would rather pay a consumption tax over and Income Tax to fund the Federal Government.  Tarriffs could do that.


   I'm there. I'd much prefer it.

----------


## AZJoe

> As AF and others have said, many Americans would rather pay a consumption tax over and Income Tax to fund the Federal Government.  Tarriffs could do that.


Taxes are theft!

Do you want tariffs or income taxes - well with tax loving idiot Trump and Congress and the Republicans and the Democrats you get both!

Its not a replacement. It is outright stupid and dishonest to imply the income tax was eliminated by these new tarrifs. 
These tarrifs are in addition to the income tax.  And not only has the income tax not been ended by the implementation of these new tariffs, but neither tax and spend and deficit loving Idiot Trump, nor Congress are lobbying to end the income tax. Don't be stupid.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Ron voted for that border wall thing and his reasons for his change of heart have nothing to do with opposing border security and supporting the invasion, unlike you.


More guidebook key wording.  Invasion. Ron later said that the wall was the weakest reason he voted for that bill and he regretted that part of it. 

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/blog/2...e-and-amnesty/




> Here’s part of an interview Ron Paul did with John Stossell:
> 
> Question for Ron Paul: You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?
> 
> Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don’t like amnesty. *So I voted for that bill, but I didn’t like the fence. I don’t think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.*
> 
> Question: What should we do?

----------


## phill4paul

> Taxes are theft!
> And neither Tax Loving Idiot Trump, nor Congress are lobbying to end the income tax.


  Tariffs aren't theft. Unless you _choose_ to pay for tariffed goods.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Tariffs aren't theft. Unless you _choose_ to pay for tariffed goods.


Tariffs are taxes.  Paid by US consumers and companies. You don't avoid them by buying non- tariffed goods.  Even US makers raised their prices on washing machines when imported ones were hit by tariffs- by almost $100 a unit.  The steel and aluminum tariffs are paid for everything you buy made with steel or aluminum.  Due to tariffs, we now have the highest steel prices in the world- putting manufacturers using it at a competitive disadvantage.  More winning!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Taxes are theft!
> 
> Do you want tariffs or income taxes - well with tax loving idiot Trump and Congress and the Republicans and the Democrats you get both!
> 
> Its not a replacement. It is outright stupid and dishonest to imply the income tax was eliminated by these new tarrifs. 
> These tarrifs are in addition to the income tax.  And not only has the income tax not been ended by the implementation of these new tariffs, but neither tax and spend and deficit loving Idiot Trump, nor Congress are lobbying to end the income tax. Don't be stupid.


We just got an income tax cut and if we take back the House we can get more.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> As AF and others have said, many Americans would rather pay a consumption tax over and Income Tax to fund the Federal Government.  Tarriffs could do that.


With spending where it is, we need a 200% tariff on everything imported including food.  That means three times the current price. And since imports will drop significantly, the taxes will have to be even higher. Tariffs are hidden taxes- they hide in the price you pay for what you buy.  At least you get to see how much you pay with income taxes (and half of income tax filers end up owing no net income tax- they would get hit extremely hard by a 200% tariff on everything- all prices would soar).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Tariffs are taxes.  Paid by US consumers and companies. You don't avoid them by not buying non- tariffed goods.  Even US makers raised their prices on washing machines when imported ones were hit by tariffs.  The steel and aluminum tariffs are paid for everything you buy made with steel or aluminum.  Due to tariffs, we now have the highest steel prices in the world- putting manufacturers using it at a competitive disadvantage.  More winning!


I'd rather have my money go to American manufacturers and workers than the government and we will win overall instead of the overall loss that collaborating with China's trade war caused us.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> With spending where it is, we need a 200% tariff on everything imported including food.  That means three times the current price. And since imports will drop significantly, the taxes will have to be even higher. Tariffs are hidden taxes- they hide in the price you pay for what you buy.  At least you get to see how much you pay with income taxes (and half of income tax filers end up owing no net income tax- they would get hit extremely hard by a 200% tariff on everything- all prices would soar).


Aside from the spending cut issue there is the point that every dollar shifted to tariffs instead of other taxes makes things better even if you never completely get rid of the other taxes.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Aside from the spending cut issue there is the point that *every dollar shifted to tariffs* instead of other taxes *makes things better* even if you never completely get rid of the other taxes.


Since most people don't actually pay income taxes, they would see their taxes paid go up.  Are you better off if you get to pay more taxes?   If you are rich you would be better off since you spend a smaller percent of your income buying things.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> What does the lower half of that graph represent? You really need to at least supply some information.
> 
> 
>   Edit. Ahh. For some reason the total gif did not show in the original post.
> 
> *Edit again..this is a completely different graph than originally posted. WTF*?


Better one. Includes not just higher levels of manufacturing but falling jobs- due to automation of industries.  Tariffs won't get rid of automation.  They will encourage it as companies continue to seek to lower costs.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Since most people don't actually pay income taxes, they would see their taxes paid go up.  Are you better off if you get to pay more taxes?   If you are rich you would be better off since you spend a smaller percent of your income buying things.


If the welfare trash actually have to pay some taxes that is a good thing too.

----------


## Danke

> Taxes are theft!
> 
> Do you want tariffs or income taxes - well with tax loving idiot Trump and Congress and the Republicans and the Democrats you get both!
> 
> Its not a replacement. It is outright stupid and dishonest to imply the income tax was eliminated by these new tarrifs. 
> These tarrifs are in addition to the income tax.  And not only has the income tax not been ended by the implementation of these new tariffs, but neither tax and spend and deficit loving Idiot Trump, nor Congress are lobbying to end the income tax. Don't be stupid.


Wow, did you read my post? I said "could."

If one thinks we need a federal government, it has to be funded somehow.  I'd say tariffs over our current Income Tax.  Of course Spending is the biggest problem and needs to be reduced.

----------


## AZJoe

> Tariffs aren't theft. Unless you _choose_ to pay for tariffed goods.


This is the most moronic thing ever said on the forums. Don't be that moron.

When did people on RPF start going batsh*t lunacy with the socialist statist arguments. 

This fallacious lunacy can be applied to virtually any statist socialist program. 
This stupid argument has b
Income tax is not a tax unless you _choose_ to earn income. 
Property tax is nto a tax unless you _choose_ to own property.
Sale tax is not theft unless you _choose_ to buy something. 
Gas taxes are not a tax unless you _choose_ to use transportation or anything at all that uses transportation.
Ammunition tax is only a tax if you _choose_ to buy ammunition. 
Obamacare fines are only fines if you _choose_ not to buy Obamacare. 

And the lunatic argument doesn't stop with taxes. You can apply it to anything -
Gun registration is not registration unless you _choose_ to own a gun.
Heck Civil Asset Forfeiture is not theft unless you _choose_ to own things the police want to take. 
Red flag laws are not oppressive unless you _choose_ to own a gun. 
University speech code penalties and sanctions are not penalties and sanctions unless you _choose_ to say something not approved. 

That is the irrational non-logic of this most idiotic of idiotic socialist-statist arguments.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If the welfare trash actually have to pay some taxes that is a good thing too.


Not just "welfare trash" but the middle class as well.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Better one. Includes not just higher levels of manufacturing but falling jobs- due to automation of industries.  Tariffs won't get rid of automation.  They will encourage it as companies continue to seek to lower costs.


It's nice that you pretend that all jobs were lost to automation but it just isn't true, we will get jobs back even if some are lost to automation.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Not just "welfare trash" but the middle class as well.


They pay income taxes.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> They pay income taxes.


Which would be higher with tariffs.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Which would be higher with tariffs.


You have lost track of the point, we just got an income tax cut and we should shift as much of the income tax burden to tariffs as we can.

----------


## AZJoe

> Wow, did you read my post? I said "could."
> 
> If one thinks we need a federal government, it has to be funded somehow.  I'd say tariffs over our current Income Tax.  Of course Spending is the biggest problem and needs to be reduced.


Well did you read what you responded to? Arguing tariffs could eliminate the income tax is a great fantasy but has nothing to do with the post you responded to because the tariffs discussed where neither eliminating income tax, nor proposed for that purpose. they were in addition to the income tax and implemented for socialist special internet false protectionist fallacy.

Its like taking a comment criticizing the ATF's abuses at the Bundy Ranch and the responding that , "well the ATF could be used to replace the FBI and that would be good." That has nothing to do with the ATF abuses the comment was about. Likewise claiming tariff taxes could replace income taxes has nothing to do with imposing abusive tariffs in addition to the income taxes.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Well did you read what you responded to? Arguing tariffs could eliminate the income tax is a great fantasy but has nothing to do with the post you responded to because the tariffs discussed where neither eliminating income tax, nor proposed for that purpose. they were in addition to the income tax and implemented for socialist special internet false protectionist fallacy.


We just had a tax cut and countering the Chinese government's manipulation of the marketplace is not a socialist special internet false protectionist fallacy, that's what China is doing that Trump is canceling out.

----------


## AZJoe

> [protectionists taxes] is not a socialist special interest false protectionist fallacy


Yes it is.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> We just had a tax cut and countering the Chinese government's manipulation of the marketplace is not a socialist special internet false protectionist fallacy, that's what China is doing that Trump is canceling out.


Whole string of cliches from the Internet Guide Book in that one.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes it is.


Defensive tariffs are not "protectionist", China is the protectionist.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Whole string of cliches from the Internet Guide Book in that one.


You are getting really lame when you can't counter an argument these days.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Defensive tariffs are not "protectionist", China is the protectionist.


More from the guide book.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> More from the guide book.


Another admission that you have no argument.

----------


## AZJoe

> Defensive tariffs are not "protectionist", China is the protectionist.


This is just willful blind repeat of NPC mantra's now. 

Labeling a tax a "defensive tariff" does change the fact it is a tax. 
and using such a label de facto confirms unequivocally it is implemented for special interest socialist purposes. Favoring special interests at the cost of other importers, manufacturers, consumers. That is straight out redistribution.  

This is same trite rogue argument used over and over by leftists, socialists and statist. Just relabel a tax or redistribution or fee or regulation as a "fairness" measure. 
"Its defensive for to level the playing field because certain segments can't compete or cath up otherwise." That is the same mantra chanted for every "defensive" fairness measure - affirmative action, welfare, regulations, special interest favoritism, etc. 
It is the same as calling something  "fairness measure" or redistribution measure" for fairness. Redistribution is what it is.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> This is just willful blind repeat of NPC mantra's now. 
> 
> Labeling a tax a "defensive tariff" does change the fact it is a tax. 
> and using such a label de facto confirms unequivocally it is implemented for special interest socialist purposes. Favoring special interests at the cost of other importers, manufacturers, consumers. That is straight out redistribution.  
> 
> This is same trite rogue argument used over and over by leftists, socialists and statist. Just relabel a tax or redistribution or fee or regulation as a "fairness" measure. 
> Its defensive. It is the same as calling something  "fairness measure" or redistribution measure" for fairness. Redistribution is what it is.


You are the one repeating what you have been told without thinking.

If we started out with a free market and the Chinese government intervenes then we no longer have a free market and if we cancel out the Chinese intervention that is not the same thing as them imposing it and it returns us to as close to free market conditions as we can get.

If China invaded us and we sent an army to stop them we wouldn't be aggressors and land where our troops were stationed would not be "occupied".

----------


## AZJoe

Dr. Ron Paul discussing the fallacy of tarrifs on Fax Business this past week.

----------


## phill4paul

> Tariffs are taxes.  Paid by US consumers and companies. You don't avoid them by buying non- tariffed goods.  Even US makers raised their prices on washing machines when imported ones were hit by tariffs- by almost $100 a unit.  The steel and aluminum tariffs are paid for everything you buy made with steel or aluminum.  Due to tariffs, we now have the highest steel prices in the world- putting manufacturers using it at a competitive disadvantage.  More winning!


  Tariffs are Voluntary taxes. To have government you must have taxation. I'd rather the peddlers of foreign wares pay them and fall flat. Once the steel industry in America ramps up after having been eviscerated then domestic steel prices come down. Remember when it was cheaper to float entire bridge pieces across the sea because we could not produce them any longer here? Because the Chinese made them cheaper without any of the labor or EPA laws that destroyed OUR plants? 

  The globalists are calling for OUR capitulation?

  I'm for this...

   Ban every import from China, not tariff, BAN, unless their companies comply with every fatwah imposed on U.S. industry and allow inspection teams.

   Now THAT is MAGA. No more of this NIMBY bull$#@!.

----------


## AZJoe

> You are the one repeating what you have been told without thinking.
> 
> If we started out with a free market and the Chinese government intervenes then we no longer have a free market and if we cancel out the Chinese intervention that is not the same thing as them imposing it and it returns us to as close to free market conditions as we can get.
> 
> If China invaded us and we sent an army to stop them we wouldn't be aggressors and land where our troops were stationed would not be "occupied".


My god, Socialist advocate SS just double downs on his advocacy for more socialist intervention in the market and and more and bigger government of more control and and manipulation and market distortions. That is absurd. 

First of all, the US does nto have anywhere close to a free market. And the response to market intervention, statism and socialism elsewhere is not to embrace market intervention, socialism and statism in US. That is absurd. The response should be as Dr. Paul points out in the recent interview jsut posted, more free market. Want to compete - eliminate USD agencies and depart,ments, end the income tax, remove regulations, list trade barriers, eliminate trade restrictions, remvoe licensing, eliminate subsidies, reduce the size of government instead of making it bigger and more interventionist as SS advocates. That is absurd.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I'd rather the peddlers of foreign wares pay them


Consumers pay them.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> My god, Socialist advocate SS just double downs on his advocacy for more socialist intervention in the market and and more and bigger government of more control and and manipulation and market distortions. That is absurd. 
> 
> First of all, the US does nto have anywhere close to a free market. And the response to market intervention, statism and socialism elsewhere is not to embrace market intervention, socialism and statism in US. That is absurd. The response should be as Dr. Paul points out in the recent interview jsut posted, more free market. Want to compete - eliminate USD agencies and depart,ments, end the income tax, remove regulations, list trade barriers, eliminate trade restrictions, remvoe licensing, eliminate subsidies, reduce the size of government instead of making it bigger and more interventionist as SS advocates. That is absurd.


I'm all for reducing government intervention in the US but allowing the ChiComs to intervene doesn't get us any closer to a free market  (it gets us farther away from one) and canceling out their manipulations does.

You are still ignoring the logic and just repeating what someone else tells you.

----------


## phill4paul

> My god, Socialist advocate SS just double downs on his advocacy for more socialist intervention in the market and and more and bigger government of more control and and manipulation and market distortions. That is absurd. 
> 
> First of all, the US does nto have anywhere close to a free market. And the response to market intervention, statism and socialism elsewhere is not to embrace market intervention, socialism and statism in US. That is absurd. The response should be as Dr. Paul points out in the recent interview jsut posted, more free market. Want to compete - *eliminate USD agencies and depart,ments, end the income tax, remove regulations, list trade barriers, eliminate trade restrictions, remvoe licensing, eliminate subsidies, reduce the size of government instead of making it bigger* and more interventionist as SS advocates. That is absurd.


  Let me make one thing clear. There is fantasy and reality.

  Let me make it painfully clear. 

  THAT $#@! IS NOT HAPPENING. EVER.

  Because of globalists that have conned you into thinking that if you adhere to your ideology, and "keep fighting the good fight," all will work out eventually.

  Get it? Got it? Good.

   NOT HAPPENING.

   While you are standing on ideology the globalists continue to take from America and Americans. 

   And, honestly, you are a piss poor cash register libertarian if you think the way to go is just to let trade negotiations stand as is.

   If you think that the measures you mention (the bolded) are attainable then you are an ideologist without a firm grasp in reality.

   If you oppose an extra $100 dollars on a washer dryer set in the short term, then you are a piss poor cash register libertarian. 

   So which of the two are you? A globalist that believes America needs to suck cock at a fraction of the price, or an ideologist piss poor libertarian that likes cheap $#@! and $#@! every American that is just now being employed in industry?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Let me make one thing clear. There is fantasy and reality.
> 
>   Let me make it painfully clear. 
> 
>   THAT $#@! IS NOT HAPPENING. EVER.
> 
>   Because of globalists that have conned you into thinking that if you adhere to your ideology, and "keep fighting the good fight," all will work out eventually.
> 
>   Get it? Got it? Good.
> ...


Ron Paul is a piss poor cash register Libertarian I guess.  He opposes tariffs.  As does his son.

----------


## phill4paul

> Consumers pay them.


 Not if they don't by them. Voluntary. Involuntary. Do I need to bring up Miriams for these word definitions for you?

----------


## phill4paul

> Ron Paul is a piss poor cash register Libertarian I guess.  He opposes tariffs.  As does his son.


   So you can't argue? But, of course you can't. Your world is made of graphs, charts and Ron/Rand quotes.

   Zip, you've never done a thing here except throw out this kinda bull$#@!. That's why you are in the red. Just more bull$#@! from thread to thread to thread. Can't make an honest post of your own. Here's a neg rep just because....

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Not if they don't by them. Voluntary. Involuntary. Do I need to bring up Miriams for these word definitions for you?


Not so simple as you would like it to sound.  If they are hidden in the prices of things, how do you know what to avoid?  How do you avoid the steel and aluminum tariffs? Don't buy anything with steel and aluminum in them?  What about higher prices on items not subject to tariffs which were caused by tariffs on a different item?  When washing machines got hit with tariffs, domestic producers raised their prices by similar amounts since they could without fearing imports undercutting them.  All buyers paid even those who avoided buying the ones with the direct tariff. They raised dryer prices too- even though they were not subject to tariff.   I suppose you could avoid tariff's impact by not buying anything at all. But is that real?  Do you check the list of items subject to tariffs before you buy anything?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> So you can't argue? But, of course you can't. Your world is made of graphs, charts* and Ron/Rand quotes.*
> 
>    Zip, you've never done a thing here except throw out this kinda bull$#@!. That's why you are in the red. Just more bull$#@! from thread to thread to thread. Can't make an honest post of your own. Here's a neg rep just because....


You are right.  It is silly of me to quote Ron Paul on a Ron Paul website. Whatever could I have been thinking?  I am sorry.

Facts and graphs are silly too.  Who needs facts?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You are right.  It is silly of me to quote Ron Paul on a Ron Paul website. Whatever could I have been thinking?  I am sorry.


Using them as an appeal to authority is no less a fallacy because this is Ron Paul Forums, they are not infallible.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It was obvious that you just made it up out of thin air.
> 
> 
> You either don't understand or you are pretending not to, China's trade warfare COSTS US and you are ignoring those costs that are on the other side of the calculation.
> 
> And you purposely ignored my point about* how many people the costs are divided by.*


Let's divide some.  That was just one tariff on one industry too. So we also must multiply times the other tariffs. Article calculations assume the tariffs continue to the end of the year (seven months).  Costs will rise the longer it goes on. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/trum...-estimate.html




> *Trump's new tariffs will cost Americans about $500 per household, by one estimate*
> 
> The ongoing trade war with China could cost the average American family hundreds of dollars.
> 
> It all depends on how extreme the White House gets with protectionist policies. But Oxford Economics laid out various scenarios that,* at the high end, could cost U.S. households as much as $800.*
> 
> On the lower end, if the 25% tariffs that went into effect Friday are permanent and China retaliates, the U.S. economy could lose $62 billion in economic output by next year, according to Oxford Economics. That total translates to an equivalent loss of $490 per American household.
> 
> In a more extreme example, the firm considered the administration imposing 25% tariffs on all imports from China — not just the current $200 billion. Should China retaliate, Oxford Economics estimates that the U.S. economy would be about $100 billion smaller by 2020. That would translate to an $800 cost per household.
> ...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Let's divide some.  That was just one tariff on one industry too. So we also must multiply times the other tariffs. 
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/trum...-estimate.html


$500 isn't much to be resolved by the benefits of stopping ChiCom intervention in our market and ending the damage their meddling causes to Americans.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> $500 isn't much to be resolved by the benefits of stopping ChiCom intervention in our market and ending the damage their meddling causes to Americans.


Are the same cliches all you can come up with?

----------


## phill4paul

> Not so simple as you would like it to sound.  If they are hidden in the prices of things, how do you know what to avoid?  How do you avoid the steel and aluminum tariffs? Don't buy anything with steel and aluminum in them?  What about higher prices on items not subject to tariffs which were caused by tariffs on a different item?  When washing machines got hit with tariffs, domestic producers raised their prices by similar amounts since they could without fearing imports undercutting them.  All buyers paid even those who avoided buying the ones with the direct tariff. They raised dryer prices too- even though they were not subject to tariff.   I suppose you could avoid tariff's impact by not buying anything at all. But is that real?  *Do you check the list of items subject to tariffs before you buy anything?*


  Do you? I don't care. I buy what I buy. Sometimes I pay premium for premium. Doesn't matter the manufacturer. Sometimes I buy low cost for $#@! that is one off. 

  But, you're right. $#@!s INSANE. Eight years ago I got an 18 gauge 2 in 1 nailer/stapler from Harbor Freight for 15.99. Made in China. After eight years of severely practical use ( about 100x more than someone that bought it as a one off ) it petered out. So I go to Harbor Freight to get a new one. OMERGERDS! It now costs $19.99. Good Lord! That like an 20% increase. $#@!ING TARIFFS. RAT BASTARD ORANGE MAN. Lol. No. 
  I had a Harbor Freight 20% discount coupon and it cost me the same as it did before the tariff. Who paid the cost difference? Wasn't me.

----------


## Swordsmyth



----------


## ATruepatriot

> Do you? I don't care. I buy what I buy. Sometimes I pay premium for premium. Doesn't matter the manufacturer. Sometimes I buy low cost for $#@! that is one off. 
> 
>   But, you're right. $#@!s INSANE. Eight years ago I got an 18 gauge 2 in 1 nailer/stapler from Harbor Freight for 15.99. Made in China. After eight years of severely practical use ( about 100x more than someone that bought it as a one off ) it petered out. So I go to Harbor Freight to get a new one. OMERGERDS! It now costs $19.99. Good Lord! That like an 20% increase. $#@!ING TARIFFS. RAT BASTARD ORANGE MAN. Lol. No. 
>   I had a Harbor Freight 20% discount coupon and it cost me the same as it did before the tariff. Who paid the cost difference? Wasn't me.


Something important in what you say here. Since someone along the way from manufacture to end user is making a 100% profit or more, and sales slow because they raised the price due to tariffs, Then they WILL decide to be satisfied with a lower 75% profit margin or not sell any. The "cost increase" to end user is just a scare tactic, Someone in the supply chain will have to take the hit for that 20% or the costs incurred from loss of sales will be much greater than just 20% overall in that chain. There is still persistent overhead that requires a constant cashflow to cover and a 50% loss in sales just ain't going to keep that overhead covered.

----------


## AZJoe

> I'm all for reducing government intervention in the US _but_ ...



There is that leftist mantra again - and it is diametrically opposed to everything Dr. Ron Paul espouses.
Such nutty fallacies over to the Bernie Sanders forum where they will be appreciated by the blind faithful of the cult of government intervention. 

"I'm all for reducing government intervention _BUT_ ... "We need government intervention to save us from free trade, low cost, high quality and general increase in the standard of living. 
We need more taxes here to make things fair.
We need the government to level the playing field.
We need government regulation, licensing, laws, subsidies and special tariff taxes, etc.  to protect this group or even the playing field for that group or make things more fair for that group.
and on and on for every other government intervention and tax and regulation. ...
NO WE DON'T!

Such leftist pro statist propaganda mantras are odious.  

These are the false mantras of the statists, the big government lovers, the regulators, the socialists, the interventionists, and they are all wrong. 
We need government to get out of the way. Want to be more competitive? - get rid of the federal licensing and federal subsidies and federal special interest tariff protections, and the income tax, and the eliminate most of the federal departments entirely, and end foreign welfare, and close down foreign bases, and eliminate the federal deficit spending, and allow free competition in currency, ... --- i.e. the exact opposite of more intervention and taxation. Make government smaller not bigger. Get government out of the way, not more regulation and intervention. 

This is just basic sense.

----------


## AZJoe

> THAT $#@! IS NOT HAPPENING. EVER.?


Right - government is not getting smaller its getting bigger. And its because of stupid idiots that keep arguing for bigger government, more regulation, more intervention, more taxes  "in order to make us competitive" make the trade more fair" give us leverage for trade deals".

That is pure leftists big government garbage. It is lunacy. Idiocy. Stupidity. Imbecility. 
Wake up and step out of such big government interventionists propaganda. 

"I'm all for reducing government intervention _BUT_ ... "We need government intervention to save us from free trade, low cost, high quality and general increase in the standard of living. 
We need more taxes here to make things fair.
We need the government to level the playing field.
We need government regulation, licensing, laws, subsidies and special tariff taxes, etc. to protect this group or even the playing field for that group or make things more fair for that group.
and on and on for every other government intervention and tax and regulation. ...
We need more statism to protect us from statism elsewhere.
We need more socialist tariff  policies here to protect us from socialism elsewhere. 
We need subsidies here to make us competitive with socialism elsewhere.

NO WE DON'T!

It is the NPC mantra of all big government statists. Such similar false "logic" is used as an excuse 
Such nutty fallacies over to the Bernie Sanders forum where they will be appreciated by the blind faithful of the cult of government intervention. 
The exact same false logic is used for virtually every government intervention into the market.income taxes to level the playing field of the advantages of the wealthy over the unhealthy.
affirmative action and bake the damn cake laws to level the field of "privilege" or make trade fair 
We need government licensing and monopolies and regulators to protect consumers from manufacturers and distributors and providers..
and on and on with the same fallacious big government cult "logic" 

These are the false mantras of the statists, the big government lovers, the regulators, the socialists, the interventionists, and they are all wrong. 
We need government to get out of the way. Want to be more competitive? - get rid of the federal licensing and federal subsidies and federal special interest tariff protections, and the income tax, and the eliminate most of the federal departments entirely, and end foreign welfare, and close down foreign bases, and eliminate the federal deficit spending, and allow free competition in currency, ... --- i.e. the exact opposite of more intervention and taxation. Make government smaller not bigger. Get government out of the way, not more regulation and intervention.
That's the direction we should moving moving towards.

----------


## timosman

> These are the false mantras of the statists, the big government lovers, the regulators, the socialists, the interventionists, and they are all wrong. 
> We need government to get out of the way. Want to be more competitive? - get rid of the federal licensing and federal subsidies and federal special interest tariff protections, and the income tax, and the eliminate most of the federal departments entirely, and end foreign welfare, and close down foreign bases, and eliminate the federal deficit spending, and allow free competition in currency, ... --- i.e. the exact opposite of more intervention and taxation. Make government smaller not bigger. Get government out of the way, not more regulation and intervention.


Truth Bomb - You Can't Handle The Truth - https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ndle-The-Truth




>

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Left wing media gloom n doom  reporting on the rise:

*Trump Tariffs will 'kill retail', Trump's steel tariffs cost US consumers  $900,000 per job*

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There is that leftist mantra again - and it is diametrically opposed to everything Dr. Ron Paul espouses.
> Such nutty fallacies over to the Bernie Sanders forum where they will be appreciated by the blind faithful of the cult of government intervention. 
> 
> "I'm all for reducing government intervention _BUT_ ... "We need government intervention to save us from free trade, low cost, high quality and general increase in the standard of living. 
> We need more taxes here to make things fair.
> We need the government to level the playing field.
> We need government regulation, licensing, laws, subsidies and special tariff taxes, etc.  to protect this group or even the playing field for that group or make things more fair for that group.
> and on and on for every other government intervention and tax and regulation. ...
> NO WE DON'T!
> ...


You are repeating empty platitudes instead of dealing with the facts and logic.

You might as well claim that noninterventionism requires us to let a foreign army invade and not send an army of our own to drive them out.


You can't have an international marketplace without government intervention because the Chinese insist on intervening, the closest you can get to one is to cancel out their intervention unless they agree to stop intervening as the result of negotiations that result from canceling out their intervention.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Amid rising fears over US-Chinese trade tensions and mounting  tariffs, President Donald Trump said Saturday that firms could easily  avoid additional costs by producing goods in the United States.  “Such an easy way to avoid Tariffs? Make or produce your goods and  products in the good old USA. It’s very simple!” he said Saturday on  Twitter, echoing a similar message he sent Friday — and even retweeted.

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/news/trump...ducts-at-home/

----------


## Swordsmyth

China just refuses to play fair:


In an unusual move, the Chinese delegation has come clean to the  domestic press about Beijing's remaining trade-deal related demands,  exposing steep divides that could make it a final deal impossible for  Trump, who has repeatedly said he will only accept a "great" deal.
  Unsurprisingly, Liu He, the leading Chinese trade negotiator, *confirmed what Beijing has intimated time and time again*:
 _That without the complete removal of all trade-war related tariffs, Beijing will not remorse a deal._The *other two demands were related to American commitments to buy Chinese goods*, something that could also pose a problem.
 In a wide-ranging interview with Chinese media after talks in Washington ended Friday, *Vice  Premier Liu He said that in order to reach an agreement the U.S. must  remove all extra tariffs, set targets for Chinese purchases of goods in  line with real demand and ensure that the text of the deal is “balanced”  to ensure the “dignity” of both nations.*Underscoring the parlous nature of the negotiation, Representative  Robert Lighthizer said on Friday that the administration is planning to  release details of its process for imposing tariffs on $300 billion in  Chinese imports. The move will likely have the desired effect:  Communicating that Trump doesn't plan to yield on what's left of his  core demands.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ree-trade-deal

----------


## Swordsmyth

In FX, the big outlier was the offshore Chinese yuan, which fell to  its  lowest levels in more than four months at 6.90 to the dollar.



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ina-turns-ugly

As the Yuan plunges the burden of the tariffs falls on China more and  more and less and less on American consumers, it also makes it ever  harder for China's house of cards companies to pay their dollar  denominated debts.

Not to mention that Chinese companies lower their prices in an attempt to keep market share.

----------


## Swordsmyth

The U.S. Commerce Department has banned six Chinese technology  companies, a Pakistani firm and five corporations in the United Arab  Emirates from exporting sensitive U.S. technology, Reuters reported May  13. According to the U.S. government, the four Chinese firms have  violated U.S. sanctions on Iran, while the other two Chinese companies  exported controlled technologies.

More at: https://worldview.stratfor.com/situa...g-sensitive-us

----------


## Zippyjuan

> In FX, the big outlier was the offshore Chinese yuan, which fell to  its  lowest levels in more than four months at 6.90 to the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ina-turns-ugly
> 
> As the Yuan plunges the burden of the tariffs falls on China more and  more and less and less on American consumers, it also makes it ever  harder for China's house of cards companies to pay their dollar  denominated debts.
> 
> Not to mention that Chinese companies lower their prices in an attempt to keep market share.


One year ago there were 6.3 yuan to the dollar so it is up about  ten percent from then.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> One year ago there were 6.3 yuan to the dollar so it is up about  ten percent from then.


They have been propping it up but they are running out of the ability to do so, it will not be long before it drops a lot.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> You are right.  It is silly of me to quote Ron Paul on a Ron Paul website. Whatever could I have been thinking?  I am sorry.



But you are radically against Paul.  Why would you quote him?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> They have been propping it up but they are running out of the ability to do so, it will not be long before it drops a lot.


I thought you kept saying they were devaluing it to avoid tariffs.  I guess they weren't.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I thought you kept saying they were devaluing it to avoid tariffs.



Link?

----------


## phill4paul

Funny that liberals bitch about Trumps tax cuts and then turn around and bitch about tax increases on the things they buy.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I thought you kept saying they were devaluing it to avoid tariffs.  I guess they weren't.


They tried that and it caused too many problems with their dollar denominated debts so they switched to increasing subsidies/cutting prices and propping the Yuan up.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Funny that liberals bitch about Trumps tax cuts and then turn around and bitch about tax increases on the things they buy.


They love to penalize production and hate to penalize consumption.

----------


## Swordsmyth

*Trump announces deal w/ Canada/Mexico to remove steel/aluminum tariffs.*

----------


## Swordsmyth

A lot has happened since then-candidate Trump said he would label China a currency manipulator on 'day one'  should he make it to the Oval Office. So far, at least, the pledge to  hold Beijing accountable for manipulating its currency wouldn't fall  into the 'promises kept' column. _But that could soon change._

  Shortly after the Treasury Department delayed its biannual report on  suspected currency manipulators - an ominous indication that the issue  might resurface in trade talks after Beijing reportedly balked at a  pledge to keep its currency stable - *the Commerce Department on  Thursday revealed that it's planning to propose a new rule that would  allow it to impose anti-subsidy tariffs on imports from countries  suspected of undervaluing their currency.*

  The change would allow the Commerce Department to impose anti-dumping  and countervailing duties on products believed to benefit from  manipulated currencies. In effect, an artificially depressed currency  would be treated as a government subsidy.
  Though China wasn't specifically named in the Department's  announcement, it presence on the Treasury Department's manipulation  'watch list' - _which also includes Japan, South Korea, India, Germany and Switzerland_ - means Chinese companies would be obvious targets.
  And just like that, Wilbur Ross has opened up another front in the  US-China trade war - albeit one that could ensnare some of Washington's  closest allies, Reuters reports.
 "This change puts foreign exporters on notice that the Department of  Commerce can countervail currency subsidies that harm U.S. industries,"  Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement.
*"Foreign nations would no longer be able to use currency policies to the disadvantage of American workers and businesses,"* he said.Any tariffs applied under the new policies would be distinct from Trump's punitive trade-war tariffs.

The announcement was light on details, and the department didn't  delve into the criteria that could be used to determine whether a  currency subsidy is being applied. But Chinese goods would be an obvious  target: *The yuan has weakened about 8% against the dollar over the past year.* And  while analysts have blamed trade-war tensions, some suspect that  Beijing - which tightly controls the yuan - has allowed it to weaken to  offset some of the Trump administration's punitive tariffs.
  According to Bloomberg,  the plan has been kicking around the West Wing since shortly after  Trump's inauguration, having been pushed by both Ross and Peter Navarro.  The plan had reportedly fallen by the wayside, before suddenly rising  to the top of the Trump team's agenda in recent weeks (we can only  imagine why).

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...y-manipulators

----------


## Swordsmyth

*A number of recent articles suggest that Chinese  officials may reduce their purchases of U.S. government bonds. It is  very unlikely that China can do so in any meaningful way because doing  so would almost certainly be costly for Beijing. And even if China took  this step, it would have either no impact or a positive impact on the  U.S. economy.*
_Note: This is an updated version of a previously published January 2018 blog post. The original version can be accessed here._

  Suggestions by some Chinese officials that they may reduce their purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds *show just how poorly the world understands the balance of payments*. Here is what a recent _Financial Times_ article had to say:
 _It was an unnerving piece of data for investors last week, buried  halfway down an esoteric spreadsheet released by the US government that  tracks how many Treasuries foreign investors buy and sell. China, the  largest foreign creditor to the US government with total Treasury  holdings in excess of $1.2tn, sold $20bn of securities with a maturity  exceeding one year in March, according to US government data. The sales  amounted to China’s largest retreat from the market in more than two  years._The article then goes on to suggest that China’s reduced holdings of  U.S. Treasury bonds may reflect a strategic response to the escalating  trade conflict between Beijing and Washington:
 _The data reignited fears that Beijing may weaponise its holdings  as part of the trade war, wreaking havoc with the biggest bond market in  the world, pushing interest rates higher and increasing the US  government’s cost of borrowing._
_“If China starts dumping its Treasuries, it would cause huge  financial instability,” said Mark Sobel, a former Treasury department  official who spent nearly four decades at the agency, adding that he  considered this an unlikely scenario._In January 2018, I explained on this blog why  China cannot “weaponize” its holdings of U.S. government bonds. It is  not because, as many observers seem to think, that selling off the bonds  would cause havoc in the market and in doing so would undermine the  value of China’s own holdings. This is very unlikely. First of all, the  Federal Reserve could easily act to overcome any temporary volatility.  Second, as another article in the same issue of the _Financial Times_ points out, rising uncertainty is causing investors to increase their purchases of U.S. government bonds:
 _US Treasury yields plunged to their lowest level since 2017 and  shares fell more than 1 per cent on Thursday as the deepening trade  dispute between the US and China raised concerns about global economic  growth._
_The rush to the relative safety of government debt pushed the  yield on 10-year US Treasury bonds to roughly the same level as when the  Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 2015. Longer-term rates  fell below shorter-term ones, a yield curve inversion that is seen by  many traders as an indication of an impending economic downturn._I thought it would make sense to revisit and update my January 2018 post. As I explained in that entry, *the  real reason China cannot sell off its holdings of U.S. government bonds  is because Chinese purchases were not made to accommodate U.S. needs.  Rather, China made these purchases to accommodate a domestic demand  deficiency in China*: Chinese capital exports are simply the  flip side of the country’s current account surplus, and without the  former, they could not hold down the currency enough to permit the  latter.
  To see why any Chinese threat to retaliate against U.S. trade  intervention would actually undermine China’s own position in the trade  negotiations, consider all the ways in which Beijing can reduce its  purchases of U.S. government bonds:

 	Beijing could buy fewer U.S. government bonds and more other U.S.  assets, so that net capital flows from China to the United States would  remain unchanged. 	Beijing could buy fewer U.S. government and other U.S. assets, but  other Chinese entities could then in turn buy more U.S. assets, so that  net capital flows from China to the United States would stay unchanged. 	Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and  replace them with an equivalently larger amount of assets from other  developed countries, so that net capital flows from China to the United  States would be reduced, and net capital flows from China to other  developed countries would increase by the same amount. 	Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and  replace them with an equivalently larger amount of assets from other  developing countries, so that net capital flows from China to the United  States would be reduced, and net capital flows from China to other  developing countries would increase by the same amount. 	Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S. assets and  not replace them by purchasing an equivalently larger amount of assets  from other countries, so that net capital flows from China to the United  States and to the world would be reduced.
*These five paths cover every possible way Beijing can reduce official purchases of U.S. government bonds:*  China can buy other U.S. assets, other developed-country assets, other  developing-country assets, or domestic assets. No other option is  possible.

 	The* first two ways would change nothing* for either China or the United States. 	The *second two ways would change nothing for China but would cause the U.S. trade deficit to decline,* either in ways that would reduce U.S. unemployment or in ways that would reduce U.S. debt. 	Finally,* the fifth way would also cause the U.S. trade  deficit to decline in ways that would likely either reduce U.S.  unemployment or reduce U.S. debt*; but this would come at the  expense of causing the Chinese trade surplus to decline in ways that  would either increase Chinese unemployment or increase Chinese debt.
By purchasing fewer U.S. government bonds, in other words,  Beijing would leave the United States either unchanged or better off,  while doing so would also leave China either unchanged or worse off.  This doesn’t strike me as a policy Beijing is likely to pursue hotly,  and Washington would certainly not be opposed to it. Let’s consider each  possibility in turn.
*1) Beijing could buy fewer U.S. government bonds and more other  U.S. assets, so that net capital flows from China to the United States  would remain unchanged.*  This would be a non-event. Beijing would in effect simply redirect  its purchases from U.S. government bonds to other U.S. assets. Of  course, the seller of those other assets would then be forced to deploy  the proceeds of the sales elsewhere, so that directly or eventually the  proceeds would be used to buy the U.S. government bonds that Beijing  sold. The only thing that would change, in this case, is that Beijing  would have swapped riskless U.S. assets for risky U.S. assets.
  In that case, there would be no net impact on overall U.S. interest  rates and a very small impact on relative interest rates. Because this  outcome represents nothing more than a swap by Beijing out of lower-risk  assets into higher-risk assets, with no net change in demand for U.S.  assets, the result might be at most a small rise in yields on riskless  assets matched by an equivalent tightening of credit spreads.
  There would be no change in overall U.S. investment except to the  extent that tightening credit spreads would cause a small rise in risky  U.S. investments. What is more, Beijing’s decision would leave the U.S.  capital account surplus unchanged, so it could not have an impact on the  U.S. current account or trade deficits. Finally, Beijing’s decision  would leave the Chinese capital account deficit unchanged, so it could  not have an impact on the Chinese current account or trade surpluses.
*2) Beijing could buy fewer U.S. government and other U.S.  assets, but other Chinese entities could then in turn buy more U.S.  assets, so that net capital flows from China to the United States would  stay unchanged.*  Again, this would largely be a non-event. The volume of Chinese  capital flows to the United States would be unaffected, but there would  be minor changes in the composition of assets to which the flows are  directed. As in the previous case, there would be no net impact on  overall U.S. interest rates and a very small impact on relative interest  rates. Again, the result might be at most a small rise in yields on  riskless assets matched by an equivalent tightening of credit spreads.
  Again, as in the previous case, there would be no change in overall  U.S. investment, except to the extent that tightening credit spreads  cause a small rise in risky U.S. investments. Beijing’s decision would  also leave the U.S. capital account surplus unchanged, so it could not  have any impact on the U.S. current account or trade deficits. Finally,  Beijing’s decision would leave the Chinese capital account deficit  unchanged, so it could not have any impact on the Chinese current  account or trade surpluses.
*3) Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S.  assets and replace them with an equivalently larger amount of assets  from other developed countries, so that net capital flows from China to  the United States would be reduced, and net capital flows from China to  other developed countries would increase by the same amount.*  In this case, China’s overall capital account deficit and current  account surplus would remain unchanged, but there would be a reduction  in its bilateral capital account deficit and current account surplus  with the United States, and an increase in its capital account deficits  and current account surpluses with the rest of the developed world. The  reduction in the U.S. current account deficit would mean a reduction in  the excess of U.S. investment over U.S. savings. If U.S. investment were  constrained by an inability to access savings, this reduction would  occur in the form of lower U.S. investment. Because this is not the  case. Given that U.S. businesses have easy access to as much capital as  they need to fund investment, the adjustment would occur in the form of  higher U.S. savings.
  Savings can be forced up in many different ways, almost always  involving either less debt or lower unemployment. For example, a  reduction in capital inflows can deflate asset bubbles and so discourage  consumption through wealth effects, such a reduction can lower  consumption by raising interest rates on consumer credit, or this  reduction could even take place by encouraging stronger consumer lending  standards. A reduction in capital inflows can also increase savings by  reducing unemployment. One way or another, in economies like the United  States that do not suffer from weak access to capital, a reduction in  foreign capital inflows will automatically increase domestic savings.
  It may be harder than we think for China to redirect capital flows  from the United States to other developed economies. Continental Europe,  Japan, and the UK are the only developed economies large enough to  absorb a significant change in the volume of capital inflows, but none  of them are eager to absorb the current account implications. Some  economists, misunderstanding the nature of the account identity that  ties net capital inflows to the gap between investment and savings, will  undoubtedly argue that these inflows would cause investment in Europe,  Japan, and the UK to rise, but this is wrong. It would only be true if  investment in these economies had previously been constrained by scarce  savings, but because this is clearly not the case in today’s  environment, the impact of higher capital inflows into developed  economies could only be to reduce domestic savings.
  For developed economies, in other words, significantly higher capital  inflows from abroad would either cause savings to decline as the  inflows strengthen their currencies and reduce exports—causing either  unemployment or consumption to rise—or, if their central banks act to  sterilize the inflows, to increase imports by increasing consumer debt.  If continental Europe, Japan, and the UK are unwilling to accept higher  unemployment or higher debt, they would be unwilling to allow unlimited  Chinese access to domestic investment and may quickly take steps either  to retaliate or to redirect the flows to the United States.
  In the latter case, of course, it would again be a non-event. To the  extent that developed countries do not redirect Chinese capital inflows  to the United States, however, Chinese sales of U.S. government bonds  would affect the U.S. economy, but largely in positive ways. First of  all, and contrary to popular perception, a reduction of Chinese capital  flows to the United States would not cause U.S. interest rates to rise  except to the extent that it would cause U.S. economic growth to pick  up. Because the reduction of the U.S. capital account surplus would  result in an increase in U.S. savings, this would fully match the  reduction in Chinese savings that had previously been imported by the  United States. This is just the logical consequence of the balance of  payments constraints.
  There would be no direct change in overall U.S. investment, and there  would be an increase in U.S. savings, driven by either lower  unemployment or a reduction in consumer debt. There might be an indirect  change in U.S. investment eventually as the American trade deficit  declines. Remember that because Beijing’s decision would reduce the  overall U.S. capital account surplus, it would also automatically reduce  the U.S. current account and trade deficits, for reasons that I discuss  in an earlier blog entry.  Finally, because Beijing’s decision would leave the Chinese capital  account deficit unchanged, it would have no impact on the Chinese  current account or trade surpluses.
*4) Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S.  assets and replace them with an equivalently larger amount of assets  from other developing countries, so that net capital flows from China to  the United States would be reduced, and net capital flows from China to  other developing countries would increase by the same amount.*  In this case, as in the previous, China’s overall capital account  deficit and current account surplus would remain unchanged, but there  would be a reduction in its bilateral capital account deficit and  current account surplus with the United States, and an increase in its  capital account deficits and current account surpluses with the  developing world. As explained above, the reduction in the U.S. current  account deficit would occur through an increase in U.S. savings.
  There is no difference between this case and the previous one as far  as its impact on the United States or on China. Interest rates in either  country would remain unchanged, the U.S. trade deficit would decline,  and China’s trade surplus would remain unchanged.
  There is one important difference to the global economy, however.  Because investment in developing countries is often constrained by  difficulty accessing global savings, a redirection of Chinese capital  from the United States to developing countries would boost investment in  those countries. This would increase global growth and would benefit  both developed economies and developing economies, including the United  States. But the reason this is unlikely to happen to any large extent is  that China has had a very bad experience with its investments in  developing countries and may not be eager to raise them significantly  more than it has already planned.
*5) Beijing and other Chinese entities could buy fewer U.S.  assets and not replace them by purchasing an equivalently larger amount  of assets from other countries, so that net capital flows from China to  the United States and to the world would be reduced.*  Finally, China could reduce its overall capital account deficit by  reducing the amount of capital directed to the United States and not  replacing it with capital directed elsewhere. China, in other words,  would export less capital abroad. This would mean, by definition, that  China must either reduce domestic savings or increase domestic  investment. This would also mean, of course, that Beijing must run lower  current account and trade surpluses.
  One way savings can decline quickly is if a drop in exports causes  unemployment to rise. The only other way is if there is a surge in  consumer debt. For investment to rise quickly, there almost certainly  has to be either a rise in unsold inventory as exports drop or a rise in  nonproductive investment in infrastructure. In either case, this would  mean a rising debt burden.
  As in the previous two cases, there would be no direct change in  overall U.S. investment, and there would be an increase in U.S. savings,  the latter driven either by lower unemployment or a reduction in  consumer debt. There might be an indirect change in U.S. investment  eventually as the American trade deficit declines. This is because as  Beijing’s decision reduces the overall U.S. capital account surplus, it  also would automatically reduce the U.S. current account and trade  deficits. Most importantly for China, Beijing’s decision would reduce  the Chinese capital account deficit and so it would necessarily also  result in a reduction in the Chinese current account or trade surpluses.
*CONCLUSION* *Even if Beijing forced institutions like the People’s Bank of  China to purchase fewer U.S. government bonds, such a step cannot  credibly be seen as meaningful retaliation against rising trade  protectionism in the United States.* As I have showed, Beijing’s  decision would have no impact at all on the U.S. balance of payments,  or it would have a positive impact. It would have almost no impact on  U.S. interest rates, except to the extent perhaps of a slight narrowing  of credit spreads to balance a slight increase in riskless rates.
  It would also have no impact on the Chinese balance of payments in  the case that it leaves the U.S. balance of payments unaffected. *To  the extent that it would result in a narrower U.S. trade deficit, there  are only three possible ways this might affect the Chinese balance.*

 	First, China could export more capital to developed countries, in  which case the decision would have no immediate impact on China’s  overall balance of payments, but it would run the risk of angering its  trade partners and inviting retaliation. 	Second, China could export more capital to developing countries, in  which case the decision would have no immediate impact on China’s  overall balance of payments, but it would run the very high risk of  increasing its investment losses abroad. 	Or third, China could simply reduce its capital exports abroad, in  which case it would be forced into running a lower trade surplus, which  could only be countered, in China’s case, with higher unemployment or a  much faster increase in debt.





https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...treasury-bonds

----------


## Swordsmyth

U.S. imports from China dropped 12 percent year on year in the first  quarter of 2019, in contrast to rises with Vietnam (up 38 percent),  Taiwan (up 22 percent), South Korea (up 17 percent) and Bangladesh (up  13 percent), according to data released June 6 by the U.S. Census  Bureau.

More at: https://worldview.stratfor.com/situa...-first-quarter

----------


## Swordsmyth

For many years China has been allowed to maintain a mercantilist  dictatorship and protectionist model under the excuse that its high  growth made it attractive.
  Shortly before the US launched its set of tariffs, the Chinese government accelerated *two dangerous policies* that we cannot ignore: intensifying capital controls , limiting the outflow of dollars from the country, and increasing the list of banned companies and sites,  two measures that proved that the Chinese government was unlikely to  open  its economy, rather the opposite. These measures intensified in  the last year and a half. Two other factors show China’s decision to  halt the opening of its system. The “Made In China 2025 Plan” and the removal of the two-term limit on the presidency, effectively allowing Xi Jinping to remain in power for life.
  Between 2004 and 2018, the United States filed 41 complaints against  China at the World Trade Organization, focused on 27 different areas.  The vast majority of these WTO resolutions are not enforced (” Paper Compliance: How China Implements WTO Decisions.”  The previous strategy of looking the other way and expecting the  Chinese economy to open up little by little met the reality of increased* interventionism.*


A senior official of the US Administration explained to me several  months ago that there were two opposing opinions in the White House. The  first claimed that starting a trade war *would sink the US dollar,* make  US bond yields soar and throw the economy into a recession. The second  estimated that the risk to the US economy was small and  manageable. These were proven right with the US 10-year bond at 2.13%,  its demand (bid-to-cover) comfortably doubling supply despite the end of  the Federal Reserve purchases, and the dollar (DXY Index) at a  conveniently strong level, adding *very solid* employment level, *wages, and economic growth*. The  US dollar strengthened its position as the world reserve currency at  88% share of transactions while the yuan was only 4%, according to the BIS.
  Meanwhile, the proponents of a “gold-backed” yuan faced the reality  of a Chinese central bank that injected and increased the money supply  in a more aggressive way than the US Federal Reserve.  China is not  following sound money policies. The PBOC is copying the same policies of  the Fed and BOJ by the book. It is not even remotely close to a gold  standard, as gold reserves are less than 0.25% of M2 money supply.
  The gold-backed-yuan mirage faded with *two consecutive devaluations*, a currency that is used in less than 4% of global transactions and an extremely aggressive monetary policy.


*“Firing blanks”*Many have mentioned that China could sell its US treasury holdings or  threaten with its rare earth supply, essential for the manufacture of  technological equipment.
  China is not the largest holder of US bonds in the world, not even close. It’s the US. In fact, China has already reduced part of its holdings in US bonds and yields fell*.*
  No, China could not _weaponize its_ US debt holdings because it would run out of reserves and sink the economy and the yuan with it (read this excellent analysis ). *China’s FX reserves have fallen by 21%* from the highs and the vast majority of them cannot be used.
  The only solution for China would be to eliminate its capital control  and let the yuan float, but then it could face a huge devaluation that  would lead the country to a *spiral of bankruptcies* which  may, in turn, lead to more yuan printing, a yuan that is not used  worldwide and with diminishing demand. Recession or financial crisis.


*What about rare earths?*  In a magnificent article called ” _The False Monopoly_ “, the authors debunk *the myth* of the alleged US dependence on China, but there is an additional factor.  None of the Chinese miners in this sector generate returns above the  cost of capital. Either they are loss-making or losing relative to  working capital costs. We know this because they already tried both _blanks_ in the past and they did not work.
  The confidence of the _hawks_ in the United States  administration was strengthened by the evidence that “the Chinese  currency is not even wanted by the Chinese” given the evidence of  capital outflows and a huge percentage of *loans backed by copper* and other commodities. China’s dependence on the US dollar turned out to be double: via FX reserves and via commodities. Their vast reserves are much smaller and less accessible than many thought.
*The technological battle*  There is a fourth factor added to the high trade surplus, capital  controls, and lack of legal security and property rights. The technology  battle.
  70% of the software used in China is pirated from the US. The negative impact for the North American economy, only in *the area of ​​intellectual property,* is $600 billion (“China: Effect of Intellectual Property Infringement and Indigenous Innovation Policies on the US Economy “) a larger figure than the trade surplus that China has with the US.
  It is not just a battle for control of technology, but security. The  American technological giants are private companies and most of their  leaders are critical of the White House Administration. *The technological giants in China are either government-owned*, semi-*state owned* or concessions to members of the communist party.
  The wrongly-called trade war is much more than tariffs. There are *many additional forms of protectionism,* and  capital controls, restrictions on currency, lack of separation of  powers and respect for intellectual property are also forms of  protectionism.
  The United States has discovered the Achilles heel of China. *The same one Japan had in the 80s* when  it seemed that it was going to invade the world. Its dependence on the  US dollar to maintain its large domestic imbalances, a very fragile  house of cards of excess capacity, real estate bubble and unproductive  spending.
  Does the United States have anything to lose? A lot, but much less  than China. According to Oxford Economics, the impact on US GDP of a  total and prolonged trade war would be between 50% and 70% higher in  China than in the US, and we have to add *the domino effect of bankruptcies in China*  Global fund flows move to the US and out of emerging economies.
  The strength of the United States is to have a safer, open economy where currency remains *a global reserve,* not  because of military power, but because the rest of the currencies fall  into the trap of carrying out the same monetary imbalances as the US but  without  its free market, openness and real demand for currency.
  China’s Achilles heel has been to *try to be a reserve currency whilst* *maintaining capital controls and increasing state intervention*,  playing to be the US without its dynamism, openness and free market.   Its only card was a debt-fueled high-growth economy. Chinese officials  knew it was impossible, but thought that being the “engine of world  growth” would allow them to get away with it. They have met with a  customer, the United States, which is the only one that supports its  huge trade surplus ( *China has a trade deficit* with most of its other partners), and that does not depend so much on exports. The US exports less than 12% of its GDP.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...more-trade-war

----------


## Swordsmyth

In response to the Trump administration's trade war with China, major  tech companies are preparing to relocate key manufacturing operations.  According to _Bloomberg_, Google is moving production of its US-bound Nest thermostats and motherboards to Taiwan. _The Wall Street Journal_ reports that Nintendo is shifting at least some production of its Switch console to Southeast Asia. 

Some companies are better prepared than others to shift out of China  if necessary. Apple Inc. partner Foxconn Technology Group said it would  be able to manufacture all US-bound iPhones outside of China  if it were forced to do so. Wistron Corp., a company that makes servers  for Facebook and Microsoft, is reportedly looking to shift some  production away from China, though it hasn't shared specifics.
The trade wars are impacting Chinese companies, too, most notably, Huawei. In addition to losing Android support and being cut off from American chipmakers, Huawei has reportedly slowed its manufacturing operations. According to the _South China Morning Post_, Foxconn has stopped Huawei phone production on several lines in response to reduced orders.

More at: https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/12/...na-trade-wars/

----------


## Zippyjuan

> In response to the Trump administration's trade war with China, major  tech companies are preparing to relocate key manufacturing operations.  According to _Bloomberg_, Google is moving production of its US-bound Nest thermostats and motherboards to Taiwan. _The Wall Street Journal_ reports that Nintendo is shifting at least some production of its Switch console to Southeast Asia. 
> 
> Some companies are better prepared than others to shift out of China  if necessary. Apple Inc. partner Foxconn Technology Group said it would  be able to manufacture all US-bound iPhones outside of China  if it were forced to do so. Wistron Corp., a company that makes servers  for Facebook and Microsoft, is reportedly looking to shift some  production away from China, though it hasn't shared specifics.
> The trade wars are impacting Chinese companies, too, most notably, Huawei. In addition to losing Android support and being cut off from American chipmakers, Huawei has reportedly slowed its manufacturing operations. According to the _South China Morning Post_, Foxconn has stopped Huawei phone production on several lines in response to reduced orders.
> 
> More at: https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/12/...na-trade-wars/


More jobs being moved to America!   Wait- they are not coming here.  Instead we will pay more to import them from somebody else.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> More jobs being moved to America!   Wait- they are not coming here.  Instead we will pay more to import them from somebody else.


Some will come here and the rest won't be sending money to our greatest enemy so that they can use it to continue to destroy our economy and impose communism on the world.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Some will come here and the rest won't be sending money to our greatest enemy so that they can use it to continue to destroy our economy and impose communism on the world.


Everything in your post describes moving to another Asian country- not the US.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Everything in your post describes moving to another Asian country- not the US.


It isn't a comprehensive list of companies that are leaving or will leave China.

----------


## AZJoe

> China just refuses to play fair: ...


Just more leftist-socialist economic whining.  (WAHHHH). If trading with China is just so "unfair" then why is it Japan has a trade surplus with China? Why is it that Korea has a trade surplus with China? Why is it that Germany has a trade surplus with China? Australia, Malaysia, Brazil and others all maintains a trade surplus with China. 

ITs the same old crying that markets are "unfair" so we need government intervention to protect our US manufacturing again the ability to obtain low-cost qualify materials to make themselves more competitive. 

When it is remarkably faster and easier to sety up a business or manufacturing in China than the US that is a reflection of the US self-sabotage, nothing to blame China.

China is not responsible for USA's loss of competitiveness. You can blame the US government for that along with to a lesser extent various state governments with their income taxes, the regulations and reporting and red tape, and minimum wage laws and withholdings regulations and regulatory requirements, and unemployment tax and ss tax and medicare tax and 10.000 other requirements, and import and export requirements and filings and tariffs and excise taxation and reportings and 10,000 other burdens and requirements piled on. It is death by a 1,000 cuts. 

Now these same protectionist leftist mindset statists want to fix the problems cause by government regulation and taxation by adding more government regulation and taxation in the form of tariffs and trade wars and sanctions and imperial decrees of what business can buy and sell and from and to whom. Pure idiots. You can also blame the statists protectionists because it is their mindset that led to all these handicaps imposed on American businesses to make us less competitive. 

We need rent controls to protect against unfair rents by landlords.
We need minimum wage laws to protect against unfair wages by employers. 
We need caps to protect against unfair price gouging. 
And now the Trumpette leftists are crying we need to tax American importers, business, and manufacturing with high tariff taxes to protect them against unfairly taking advantage of low cost imports to make themselves more competitive.

"Yeah more government and more taxes is the answer."

Trump is an idiot.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Just more leftist-socialist economic whining.  (WAHHHH). If trading with China is just so "unfair" then why is it Japan has a trade surplus with China? Why is it that Korea has a trade surplus with China? Why is it that Germany has a trade surplus with China? Australia, Malaysia, Brazil and others all maintains a trade surplus with China. 
> 
> ITs the same old crying that markets are "unfair" so we need government intervention to protect our US manufacturing again the ability to obtain low-cost qualify materials to make themselves more competitive. 
> 
> When it is remarkably faster and easier to sety up a business or manufacturing in China than the US that is a reflection of the US self-sabotage, nothing to blame China.
> 
> China is not responsible for USA's loss of competitiveness. You can blame the US government for that along with to a lesser extent various state governments with their income taxes, the regulations and reporting and red tape, and minimum wage laws and withholdings regulations and regulatory requirements, and unemployment tax and ss tax and medicare tax and 10.000 other requirements, and import and export requirements and filings and tariffs and excise taxation and reportings and 10,000 other burdens and requirements piled on. It is death by a 1,000 cuts. 
> 
> Now these same protectionist leftist mindset statists want to fix the problems cause by government regulation and taxation by adding more government regulation and taxation in the form of tariffs and trade wars and sanctions and imperial decrees of what business can buy and sell and from and to whom. Pure idiots. You can also blame the statists protectionists because it is their mindset that led to all these handicaps imposed on American businesses to make us less competitive. 
> ...


Other countries aren't as stupid and collaborationist as our leaders have been and China has targeted us because they want to rule the world and we are in their way.
ChiCom government intervention in the marketplace is as bad or worse than domestic government intervention in the marketplace, they tariff our industries and use non-tariff barriers more than any other country in the world and they subsidize their industries, in order to protect ourselves from their economic warfare we must cancel out their intervention or ban trade with them entirely, canceling out their intervention is preferable.

Our own taxes and regulations are a problem but they aren't the only problem but even if they were that doesn't make allowing the destruction of America and its conquest by globalists and communists while we try to fix it is a good idea.

It used to be accepted that you can't have open borders while you have a welfare state and it is just as true that you can't have free trade while you have a regulatory state but it seems that some libertarians think that the destruction of America is a good thing and that it will result in increased liberty.
They are the idiots.

----------


## AZJoe

> I... you can't have free trade while you have a regulatory state b....


So more government is the answer as usual of the leftist statists. The answer is to oppose free trade, and expand government and increase taxation and more government regulation. 

And this is a perfect example of the kind of statist idiocy that is destroying our nation and destroying US competitiveness. Simultaneously recognizing that government regulation, taxation and interference in the markets is hindering US competitiveness and so the solution is a call for bigger government, more regulation, more taxation, more intervention in the markets. Brilliant, just brillant. 

And people wonder why US has lost so much of its competitive edge. Its this leftist mindset, whether by Bernie Sanders protectionists or the Trump delusion cult socialist protectionists. They are all big government central planning crony socialist statists.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So more government is the answer as usual of the leftist statists. The answer is to oppose free trade, and expand government and increase taxation and more government regulation. 
> 
> And this is a perfect example of the kind of statist idiocy that is destroying our nation and destroying US competitiveness. Simultaneously recognizing that government regulation, taxation and interference in the markets is hindering US competitiveness and so the solution is a call for bigger government, more regulation, more taxation, more intervention in the markets. Brilliant, just brillant. 
> 
> And people wonder why US has lost so much of its competitive edge. Its this leftist mindset, whether by Bernie Sanders protectionists or the Trump delusion cult socialist protectionists. They are all big government central planning crony socialist statists.


Is a tourniquet good for the human body?
Might you need it to save your life?

It used to be accepted that you can't have open borders while you have a  welfare state and it is just as true that you can't have free trade  while you have a regulatory state but it seems that some libertarians  think that the destruction of America is a good thing and that it will  result in increased liberty.
They are the idiots. 						




Let's just go ahead and have open borders in a welfare state and free trade in a regulatory state and let the most liberty oriented society in the world be destroyed and replaced with a communist dictatorship because perfect free trade (which we can't have thanks to Chinese intervention anyway) is ideal in a perfect libertarian country that we don't have.
And let's let all accident victims with a torn artery bleed out because a tourniquet is bad for their circulation.

----------


## AZJoe

> Other countries aren't as stupid and collaborationist as our leaders have been and China has targeted us because they want to rule the world and we are in their way. ..


OMG. Aside the saturday morning cartoon level lunacy of this comment, ..

So other, much smaller, countries are fully able to cope with China’s alleged currency manipulation or tariffs or subsidies but not the USA. That merely confirms it is US government’s own policies stifling the nation’s competitiveness. Can’t blame China for the problems caused by Washington and various state governments. Although some spamming Socialismsmyth surely will.

Again, China is not to blame for US loss of competitiveness. 

While China spends its money building the largest most advanced highway system in the world, and the largest most advanced and high speed train system in the world, the newest most advance and efficient air and naval cargo ports in the world, and building win-win infrastructure to expand, improve, reduce costs and increase speed of multi-way trade across Eurasia, the government in Washington allows the US infrastructure to continually age and deteriorate while depleting trillions upon trillions upon trillions of resources wasted on overseas occupations, invasions, bombing, destruction, regime changes, color revolutions,  proxy wars etc. Meanwhile burdening the US economy with an unfathomable $22 trillion in acknowledged debt and incomprehensible $80k+ trillion in actual GAAP government debt.

US says it wants to lead the world in trade but then wastes all its resources and efforts on foreign empire and bombs and wars and subsidizing the MIC, meanwhile going around the world threatening every other nations if they don’t do what US says and telling them who they can buy from or sell to and will be punched if they don’t obey the despot. Meanwhile the China invests in trade infrastructure, trade routes, and projects to increase trade capacity and trade efficiency and making win-win trade deals with the rest of the world.

US government is solely to blame for its destruction of US competitiveness. And the Trump delusion cult joins hand in hand with the leftists, the socialists, the neoconservatives, the neoliberals to continue these policies of self-destruction because Trump is now leading the charge down the very same path of self-destruction.

----------


## AZJoe

To borrow an analogy of the US economy and Asian economies from a wise economist, it is akin to an American and 5 Asians on an island. One Asian collects fish and shellfish each day to provide food, another hunts and traps and obtains a few animals each week to also provide food and leather, another builds clothing and bags from the hides, another weaves sandals and shoes and blankets from reads and grasses. 

The American sits around all day and at the end of the day grabs some loos grass and cuts notches for 1 5 and 10 and says here will uses the grass stems as money so each day you can sell the product of your labor to me in exchange for the grass stems I create. Further, once you sell stuff to me you can also use the grass as currency amongst yourself to trade with each other. The American just keeps printing the grass currency each day and proclaims he is the engine of the Island economy; Without him nothing would function and the economy would come to a halt; He is the consumer providing the demand so everyone can work.

That is the US economy compared to others. Who is the one that getting taken advantage of? Who is the one benefitting? Trump and the nitwits would complain that the American is being taken advantage of because he has a trade deficit with the Asians. The trade deficit comes from the money printing and the other economies accepting it. In the US the driver of the trade deficit comes from the never-ending money expansion and perpetual and never ending and accelerating debt spending.

----------


## Ender

> OMG. Aside the saturday morning cartoon level lunacy of this comment, ..
> 
> So other, much smaller, countries are fully able to cope with Chinas alleged currency manipulation or tariffs or subsidies but not the USA. That merely confirms it is US governments own policies stifling the nations competitiveness. Cant blame China for the problems cause by Washington and various state governments. Although some spamming Socialismsmyth surely will.
> 
> Again, China is not to blame for US loss of competitiveness. 
> 
> While China spends its money building  built the largest most advanced highway system in the world, and the largest most advance and high speed train system in the world, the newest most advance and efficient air and naval cargo ports in the world, and building win-win infrastructure to expand improve reduce costs and increase speed multi-way trade across Eurasia, the government in Washington allows the US infrastructure to continually age and deteriorate while depleting trillions upon trillions upon trillions of resources wasted on overseas occupations, invasions, bombing, destruction, regime changes, color revolutions,  proxy wars etc. Meanwhile bordering the US economy with an unfathomable $22 trillion in acknowledged debt and incomprehensible $80k+ trillion in actual GAAP government debt.
> 
> US says it wants to lead the world in trade but then wastes all its resources and efforts on foreign empire and bombs and wars and subsidizing the MIC, meanwhile going around the world threatening every other nations if they dont do what US says and telling them who they can buy from or sell to and will be punched if they dont obey the despot. Meanwhile the China invests in trade infrastructure, trade routes, and projects to increase trade capacity and trade efficiency and making win-win trade deals with the rest of the world.
> ...


*ON. THE. NOSE.*

----------


## Swordsmyth

> OMG. Aside the saturday morning cartoon level lunacy of this comment, ..
> 
> So other, much smaller, countries are fully able to cope with China’s alleged currency manipulation or tariffs or subsidies but not the USA. That merely confirms it is US government’s own policies stifling the nation’s competitiveness. Can’t blame China for the problems cause by Washington and various state governments. Although some spamming Socialismsmyth surely will.
> 
> Again, China is not to blame for US loss of competitiveness. 
> 
> While China spends its money building  built the largest most advanced highway system in the world, and the largest most advance and high speed train system in the world, the newest most advance and efficient air and naval cargo ports in the world, and building win-win infrastructure to expand improve reduce costs and increase speed multi-way trade across Eurasia, the government in Washington allows the US infrastructure to continually age and deteriorate while depleting trillions upon trillions upon trillions of resources wasted on overseas occupations, invasions, bombing, destruction, regime changes, color revolutions,  proxy wars etc. Meanwhile bordering the US economy with an unfathomable $22 trillion in acknowledged debt and incomprehensible $80k+ trillion in actual GAAP government debt.
> 
> US says it wants to lead the world in trade but then wastes all its resources and efforts on foreign empire and bombs and wars and subsidizing the MIC, meanwhile going around the world threatening every other nations if they don’t do what US says and telling them who they can buy from or sell to and will be punched if they don’t obey the despot. Meanwhile the China invests in trade infrastructure, trade routes, and projects to increase trade capacity and trade efficiency and making win-win trade deals with the rest of the world.
> ...


You can't ignore the effect of Chinese tariffs, non-tariff barriers and subsidies, bad as some US policies are they are not responsible for the additional damage done by China's economic warfare.

And other smaller countries have been able to defend themselves even thou they have much worse domestic policies because instead of collaborating with the enemy they fought back and because China has not targeted them to the same extent as it has targeted the US because they do not stand in the way of China ruling the world  like we do.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> To borrow an analogy of the US economy and Asian economies from a wise economist, it is akin to an American and 5 Asians on an island. One Asian collects fish and shellfish each day to provide food, another hunts and traps and obtains a few animals each week to also provide food and leather, another builds clothing and bags from the hides, another weaves sandals and shoes and blankets from reads and grasses. 
> 
> The American sits around all day and at the end of the day grabs some loos grass and cuts notches for 1 5 and 10 and says here will uses the grass stems as money so each day you can sell the product of your labor to me in exchange for the grass stems I create. Further, once you sell stuff to me you can also use the grass as currency amongst yourself to trade with each other. The American just keeps printing the grass currency each day and proclaims he is the engine of the Island economy; Without him nothing would function and the economy would come to a halt; He is the consumer providing the demand so everyone can work.
> 
> That is the US economy compared to others. Who is the one that getting taken advantage of? Who is the one benefitting? Trump and the nitwits would complain that the American is being taken advantage of because he has a trade deficit with the Asians. The trade deficit comes from the money printing and the other economies accepting it. In the US the driver of the trade deficit comes from the never-ending money expansion and perpetual and never ending and accelerating debt spending.


Sure, just ignore the fact that one Asian and his minions are telling the American that he can't sell anything to the other Asians and cuts more grass than the American and gives it to the Asians for everything they sell to the American.
Also ignore that before all that started the American used to make and sell more than any of the Asians before the head Asian started cheating.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Since the trade war began last year, analysts have been closely  parsing every production-related decision by Apple and its suppliers,  seeing them as bellwethers of the global consumer-tech industry: Will  the American tariffs permanently restructure the global supply chain?  Increasingly it's looking that way. Because not long after a Foxconn executive warned that the largest manufacturer of iPhones in mainland China was ready to help Apple shift production elsewhere, Nikkei  reports that suppliers for iPhones, iPads, MacBooks and Apple Ear Pods  have all drawn up plans to move 15%-30% of production outside of the  mainland, with India, Vietnam, Mexico and Malaysia looking like the top  alternatives.


  At this point, even if Washington doesn't follow through with plans  to slap tariffs on another $300 billion in goods, companies, including  Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, Quanta Computer, iPad maker, Compal  Electronics, and AirPods makers Inventec, Luxshare-ICT and Goertek have  all been asked by Apple to evaluate options outside of China.
  Other suppliers are watching these companies, and monitoring where they go.
 "We need to know where those big assemblers are heading to so that we  can initiate our plan too," an executive at an Apple component supplier  told Nikkei.Apple supplier Wistron has assembled cheaper iPhones in India since  2017, and Foxconn started assembling more iPhones there this year, but  volumes have been very small.* More than 90% of Apple's products are still assembled in China.* And last year, *the number of mainland Chinese and Hong Kong-based suppliers surpassed the number from the US and Japan for the first time,* accounting for 41 of the top 200 suppliers.


     This is the biggest reason why Apple needs its suppliers to write up  plans for long-term "diversification" of production. But trade tensions  aren't the only issue with China: Apple also raised demographic issues  like lower birth rates. Ultimately, millions of jobs in China are at  risk.
 The California-based tech giant's request was triggered by the  protracted trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, but multiple  sources say that even if the spat is resolved there will be no turning  back. Apple has decided the risks of relying so heavily on manufacturing  in China, as it has done for decades, are too great and even rising,  several people told Nikkei.
*"A lower birthrate, higher labor costs and the risk of overly  centralizing its production in one country. These adverse factors are  not going anywhere,"* said one executive with knowledge of the  situation. "With or without the final round of the $300 billion tariff,  Apple is following the big trend [to diversify production]," giving  itself more flexibility, the person added.

*China has been the production base on which Apple's global success has been built over the past two decades.*  The country has not only been able to rally hundreds of thousands of  skilled workers at short notice to fill rapidly rising orders as the  company grew, but an extensive and complex ecosystem of components,  logistics and talent has built up in and around Apple manufacturing  sites.

*Some 5 million Chinese jobs rely on Apple's presence in the  country, including those of more than 1.8 million software and iOS App  developers,* according to a study available on the company's website. Apple itself employs 10,000 staff in China, the company said.


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-outside-china

----------


## AZJoe

> Just more leftist-socialist economic whining.  (WAHHHH). If trading with China is just so "unfair" then why is it Japan has a trade surplus with China? Why is it that Korea has a trade surplus with China? Why is it that Germany has a trade surplus with China? Australia, Malaysia, Brazil and others all maintains a trade surplus with China. 
> 
> Its the same old crying that markets are "unfair" so we need government intervention to protect our US manufacturing again the ability to obtain low-cost qualify materials to make themselves more competitive.  ... 
> 
> China is not responsible for USA's loss of competitiveness. ...
> 
> Now these same protectionist leftist mindset statists want to fix the problems cause by government regulation and taxation by adding more government regulation and taxation in...





> OMG. Aside the saturday morning cartoon level lunacy of this comment, ..
> 
> So other, much smaller, countries are fully able to cope with China’s alleged currency manipulation or tariffs or subsidies but not the USA. That merely confirms it is US government’s own policies stifling the nation’s competitiveness. Can’t blame China for the problems caused by Washington and various state governments. Although some spamming Socialismsmyth surely will.
> 
> Again, China is not to blame for US loss of competitiveness. 
> 
> While China spends its money building the largest most advanced highway system in the world, and the largest most advanced and high speed train system in the world, the newest most advance and efficient air and naval cargo ports in the world, and building win-win infrastructure to expand, improve, reduce costs and increase speed of multi-way trade across Eurasia, the government in Washington allows the US infrastructure to continually age and deteriorate while depleting trillions upon trillions upon trillions of resources wasted on overseas occupations, invasions, bombing, destruction, regime changes, color revolutions,  proxy wars etc. Meanwhile burdening the US economy with an unfathomable $22 trillion in acknowledged debt and incomprehensible $80k+ trillion in actual GAAP government debt.
> 
> US says it wants to lead the world in trade but then wastes all its resources and efforts on foreign empire and bombs and wars and subsidizing the MIC, meanwhile going around the world threatening every other nations if they don’t do what US says and telling them who they can buy from or sell to and will be punched if they don’t obey the despot. Meanwhile the China invests in trade infrastructure, trade routes, and projects to increase trade capacity and trade efficiency and making win-win trade deals with the rest of the world.
> ...





> *ON. THE. NOSE.*


Also the fact that the US is running trade deficits, not just with China, but _ALL_ of its largest trading partners [Canada, Mexico, Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, India, Taiwan, Brazil, the EU, also reveals that China is not to blame and the issue lies squarely with the US. 

The real primary driver of the trade deficit is the US fiat currency expansion enabled by the US government abuse of the reserve currency status. The following analogy highlights the principle.




> To borrow an analogy of the US economy and Asian economies from a wise economist, it is akin to an American and 5 Asians on an island. One Asian collects fish and shellfish each day to provide food, another hunts and traps and obtains a few animals each week to also provide food and leather, another builds clothing and bags from the hides, another weaves sandals and shoes and blankets from reads and grasses. 
> 
> The American sits around all day and at the end of the day grabs some loos grass and cuts notches for 1 5 and 10 and says here will uses the grass stems as money so each day you can sell the product of your labor to me in exchange for the grass stems I create. Further, once you sell stuff to me you can also use the grass as currency amongst yourself to trade with each other. The American just keeps printing the grass currency each day and proclaims he is the engine of the Island economy; Without him nothing would function and the economy would come to a halt; He is the consumer providing the demand so everyone can work.
> 
> That is the US economy compared to others. Who is the one that getting taken advantage of? Who is the one benefitting? Trump and the nitwits would complain that the American is being taken advantage of because he has a trade deficit with the Asians. The trade deficit comes from the money printing and the other economies accepting it. In the US the driver of the trade deficit comes from the never-ending money expansion and perpetual and never ending and accelerating debt spending.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Also the fact that the US is running trade deficits, not just with China, but _ALL_ of its largest trading partners [Canada, Mexico, Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, India, Taiwan, Brazil, the EU, also reveals that China is not to blame and the issue lies squarely with the US. 
> 
> The real primary driver of the trade deficit is the US fiat currency expansion enabled by the US government abuse of the reserve currency status. The following analogy highlights the principle.


Everybody abuses us on trade but the Chinese do so more than most and that is why the deficit with China has been so huge.

----------


## devil21

> Everybody abuses us on trade but the Chinese do so more than most and that is why the deficit with China has been so huge.


Only someone without a firm grasp of the situation thinks that printed up digits in a computer sent out in exchange for real, finished goods is a case where the printer is the one being abused.  But don't worry SS, the tables will be turned soon enough and when the Foxconn factories open up here, you'll really have good reason to complain of abuse.

----------


## Zippyjuan

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/26/trum...e-are-now.html




> President Donald Trump expressed optimism Wednesday for a trade deal with China but said* he’s happy with the way things are going and is still considering putting tariffs on all Chinese imports.*
> 
> The president, in an interview with Fox Business, said he is “very happy with where we are now. *We’re taking in a fortune,* and frankly [it’s] not a very good thing for China, but it is a good thing for us.”
> 
> His comments came the same morning that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC he is optimistic that progress can be made during the president’s scheduled meeting on Saturday with China’s Xi Jinping. Stocks opened higher Wednesday amid the more hopeful tone, though they were off their highs of the morning following Trump’s comments.
> 
> While Trump stressed the importance of getting a deal, he also said tariffs have been good for the U.S. economy.
> 
> “I view tariffs differently than a lot of other people,” he said, noting that since the U.S. has levied 25% duties on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods “our market has gone through the roof.”
> ...


Noting that US companies and consumers are the ones paying the tariff fees to the US government. 




> since the U.S. has levied 25% duties on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods *“our market has gone through the roof.*”


Have stocks "gone through the roof" since 25% duties were imposed? That round of tariffs went into effect August 27th, 2018.  Dow Jones was at 25,964.  Today it has soared all the way to 26,580- an increase of 616 points- or just 2.3% in ten months.  Not exactly "soaring".  Meanwhile US economic growth continues to slow.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Only someone without a firm grasp of the situation thinks that printed up digits in a computer sent out in exchange for real, finished goods is a case where the printer is the one being abused.  But don't worry SS, the tables will be turned soon enough and when the Foxconn factories open up here, you'll really have good reason to complain of abuse.


The Chinese print money in greater quantities than we do and we produce and export as little as we do (which is a lot more than you want to admit) because of Chinese economic warfare.

But Xi would be angry if you mentioned that.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/26/trum...e-are-now.html
> 
> 
> 
> Noting that US companies and consumers are the ones paying the tariff fees to the US government.


Except that the Chinese are lowering their prices to keep marketshare.





> Have stocks "gone through the roof" since 25% duties were imposed? That round of tariffs went into effect August 27th, 2018.  Dow Jones was at 25,964.  Today it has soared all the way to 26,580- an increase of 616 points- or just 2.3%.  Not exactly "soaring".  Meanwhile US economic growth continues to slow.


Things are going much better than the Chinese propagandists told us they would and they will be much worse if we go back to collaborating with our own destruction.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Except that the Chinese are lowering their prices to keep marketshare.
> 
> .


link?

----------


## devil21

> The Chinese print money in greater quantities than we do and we produce and export as little as we do (which is a lot more than you want to admit) because of Chinese economic warfare.
> 
> But Xi would be angry if you mentioned that.


Chinese printing of yuan matters because we import so much yuan into the country?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Chinese printing of yuan matters because we import so much yuan into the country?


It subsidizes their exports and penalizes any exports we would make to them.
It is part of their campaign to destroy our economy.

----------


## devil21

> It subsidizes their exports and penalizes any exports we would make to them.
> It is part of their campaign to destroy our economy.


Explain it to me.  While also bearing in mind that the dollar to yuan conversion rate today is the exact same ratio as it was 11 years ago.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Explain it to me.  While also bearing in mind that the dollar to yuan conversion rate today is the exact same ratio as it was 11 years ago.


Where do the Yuan go?
They go out to the world market to buy things for Chinese companies in competition with our companies after being given to Chinese companies to subsidize them so they can remain profitable even when they dump goods at home or abroad.

----------


## devil21

> Where do the Yuan go?
> They go out to the world market to buy things for Chinese companies in competition with our companies after being given to Chinese companies to subsidize them so they can remain profitable even when they dump goods at home or abroad.


And that is different than what the Federal Reserve has been doing with the dollar in China in what way?  Do remember that you said that the Chinese are abusing us by accepting our dollars in exchange for finished goods exported here.  So what you're really saying is that the Chinese are doing exactly what we've been doing for about 50 years.  And somehow we're the ones being abused by that.  SS logic

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And that is different than what the Federal Reserve has been doing with the dollar in China in what way?


Did I say it was different?
I said they have done even more of it in addition to all the other ways they block our exports to them and subsidize their exports to us.





> Do remember that you said that the Chinese are abusing us by accepting our dollars in exchange for finished goods exported here.


Whatever you are remebering you are "remembering" wrong, I never said that.




> So what you're really saying is that the Chinese are doing exactly what we've been doing for about 50 years.  And somehow we're the ones being abused by that.  SS logic


They are doing much more to abuse us than we have ever done to them.

----------


## devil21

> Did I say it was different?
> I said they have done even more of it in addition to all the other ways they block our exports to them and subsidize their exports to us.


Yet the dollar to yuan ratio is the same as was 11 years ago and hasn't fluctuated more than about 15% in the last 25 years.  Doesn't that mean both central banks are both currently printing at the same speed and at the same speed that they were 11 years ago?  What advantage is China gaining exactly by printing at the same speed we are?




> Whatever you are remembering you are "remembering" wrong, I never said that.


Your quote:  "Everybody abuses us on trade but the Chinese do so more than most and that is why the deficit with China has been so huge."

Again, the deficit with China is because we send them dollars and they send us goods.  Do you even dollar reserve standard bro?  Never mind the absurdity of claiming that "everybody abuses us on trade", seeing how "everybody" has also been accepting the printed up digits in exchange for real products.  You have a strange notion of what constitutes "abuse".




> They are doing much more to abuse us than we have ever done to them.


You just love playing the victim, don't you?  Everybody abuses poor little Swordsmyth.  The immigrants, the Chinese, Democrats, "everybody".  But apparently never the people that facilitate all of it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yet the dollar to yuan ratio is the same as was 11 years ago and hasn't fluctuated more than about 15% in the last 25 years.  Doesn't that mean both central banks are both currently printing at the same speed and at the same speed that they were 11 years ago?  What advantage is China gaining exactly by printing at the same speed we are?


It doesn't mean that:

https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status...56440353169408

----------


## Swordsmyth

Though China wasn't the only Asian nation where manufacturing  activity slumped last month, according to a slate of almost unilaterally  disappointing PMI readings  released earlier this week, the tend over the past year is increasingly  clear: The trade war is President Trump's to win, as more tech  companies resolve to move at least some production outside of the  mainland.



  And in the latest warning to Beijing that the trade war is having a real, and perhaps irreversible, impact, Nikkei Asian Review  reports that HP, Dell and Amazon are joining the wave of  consumer-electronics manufacturers who are planning to shift production  elsewhere.
  The burgeoning exodus, which also reportedly includes a half-dozen  Apple suppliers (most notably Foxconn), Nintendo, Sony and others is  threatening China's status as _the_ global manufacturing hub.

  HP and Dell, *the world's No. 1 and No. 3 laptop  manufacturers, who are responsible for a combined 40% of the world's  production, are planning to shift 30% of their production elsewhere.*
  Lenovo Group, Acer and Asustek Computer are also evaluating plans to  shift production elsewhere. And Amazon is planning to shift at least  some of the production for its Kindle e-reader and Echo assistant. For  all of these companies, the focus would mostly be on products bound for  the US.
  HP *has already drawn up plans to move some 20% to 30% of production outside China,* and  is reportedly looking to build out a new supply chain in Thailand and  Taiwan. The move could begin as soon as the end of the current quarter,  though Nikkei's sources cautioned that it's not set in stone.


Dell, meanwhile, has already started a "pilot run" of notebook  production in Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines, though it still has  reservations about a possible shortage of skilled workers.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-leaving-china

----------


## Swordsmyth

The largest supplier of consumer goods in the world - China's Li  & Fung - has said that Chinese factories are becoming "urgent and  desperate" as US retailers move out of the country amid the ongoing  trade war, according to Bloomberg, and more factory shut downs are likely to follow as the trade war continues.

  Companies like Li & Fung Ltd., which designs, sources and  transports consumer goods from Asia for some of the world’s biggest  retailers, are being pushed by their American clients to shift  production out of China.
  Spencer Fung, chief executive officer said: *“U.S. clients are  definitely very, very worried. Everyone is making razor-thin margins  already and most people have a huge percentage in China. So if the  biggest source increases the price by 25%, they are worried.”*
  And although he didn’t specify Walmart by name, the US retailer is  the company's second largest customer, accounting for 7.6% of its  revenue.


Because of its position as a liaison connecting American retail  companies to Asian factories, Fung has a clear perspective of the shifts  taking place around the world due to the trade war. While trade deal  talks have "resumed" following a recent ceasefire, there are signs that  the global supply chain, traditionally very reliant on China as the  factory to the world, is being permanently transformed. Companies like  Intel, Apple, and Amazon have all said they are reviewing their global  supply chain.
  Fung continued, talking about President Trump and his Twitter habits:  "Nobody’s investing, nobody’s buying. The trade war is causing people  to stop investment because they don’t know where to put the money. Many  people put the money into Vietnam with one tweet."
  Looking ahead, China’s contribution to Li & Fung's total sourcing  will fall from 59% in 2015 to less than 50% this year for the first  time.
  Meanwhile, *at the same time as Chinese factories are suffering, other Asian hubs have become beneficiaries.* Americans have already seized all the manufacturing capacity in Vietnam as a result.
  “Vietnam, for example, is full, completely full. There’s no extra capacity for the U.S. companies to get in,” Fung said. 


  To  preserve market share, Chinese factories are slashing prices out of  sheer desperation, creating an opportunity for European and Japanese  consumer brands. Fung is advising clients to take advantage of these  prices.


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-and-desperate

----------


## Swordsmyth

*Import/Export Prices Tumble*

----------


## Swordsmyth

Some Chinese companies are seeking new purchases of U.S. agricultural  products, China's official Xinhua news agency said on Sunday, citing  authorities, as Beijing and Washington look for ways to end a protracted  trade war.

Chinese businesses have made inquiries with U.S. exporters to buy crops  and agricultural products and applied for the lifting of tariffs, Xinhua  said, citing Chinese authorities. China's Customs Tariff Commission  will arrange for experts to appraise the Chinese companies' tariff  exclusion applications, Xinhua said.

Hu Xijin, the editor in chief of China's nationalist Global Times  newspaper, tweeted in English earlier on Sunday that Chinese importers  have started arrangements for purchasing U.S. agricultural products, and  suggested that the United States and China could soon resume in-person  trade talks.
"This is a prominent part from Chinese side as the  two countries have signaled goodwill to each other recently. It also  indicates China-U.S. trade consultations will restart soon," Hu said.
Trump  said on Friday that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had a very good  talk with his Chinese counterpart the day before. He has also touted  U.S. economic performance, and said China is "not doing very well".
China  has confirmed that Vice Premier Liu He and Commerce Minister Zhong Shan  spoke by phone on Thursday with Mnuchin and Trade Representative Robert  Lighthizer regarding "further consultations, as well as the  implementation of presidential consensus reached in Osaka".
China  made its biggest purchase of U.S. sorghum since April earlier this  month, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data issued on  Thursday.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/1-chinese-com...111753425.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

It might seem an unlikely time for U.S. farmers to look to China for  more business but the devastating impact of African swine fever on the  Chinese pork industry is trumping concerns about trade wars and tariffs.Experts  estimate the disease will wipe out about a third of China's pork  production this year, or 18 million tonnes. That's twice the amount of  pork exported worldwide every year and enough to feed U.S. consumers for  almost two years.
The U.S. trade war with China initially forced  U.S. pork exporters to scour the world for new markets but as the swine  fever crisis deepens they're gearing up for new opportunities to supply  the Chinese market later this year and next.
The catch for U.S.  hog farmers is that if they want to take advantage of the surge in  Chinese pork demand, they can't feed their pigs with the growth drug  ractopamine which is widely used in the United States but banned in  China.
In recent years, the European Union has provided roughly  two-thirds of China's pork imports, excluding offal, with Germany,  Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark the main suppliers, according to  Chinese customs data.
Potential demand is so huge, however, that  the EU alone can't satisfy it. U.S. producers of ractopamine-free pigs  could benefit, either by supplying China or making up shortfalls in  other regions targeting the Chinese market.
Sixth-generation Iowa  hog farmer Mike Paustian would certainly like to benefit from producing  pigs without ractopamine, even though it helps pigs quickly build lean  muscle instead of fat.
Paustian said his buyer at Tyson Foods  Inc., the biggest U.S. meatpacker, was considering paying a premium for  pork free of ractopamine, which is also banned in the European Union,  and that could push some farmers to stop using it.


Rival U.S. pork producer Smithfield Foods, which is owned by China's  WH Group, already raises all of the hogs on its company-owned and  contract farms without the drug.
Traders and analysts said  Smithfield was reconfiguring its U.S. processing operations to direct  meat to China, which produced half the world's pork before swine fever  decimated the industry.
Diana Souder, a Smithfield spokeswoman,  declined to comment on the specific changes but said the company  upgraded a plant in Smithfield, Virginia as "part of a broader  initiative to better organise our production to meet demand".
"Not  just Smithfield, but every U.S. pork processor will be shipping more  product to China and the demand side is just expected to be strong,  certainly into 2020," Smithfield CEO Ken Sullivan told analysts on a  call.
The ongoing trade war between Beijing and Washington hit  U.S. pork exports to China last year when its market share halved to 7%  from 14% a year earlier, according to Chinese customs data.
But as  African swine fever swept across China during the second half of 2018,  expectations for demand started to pick up - even though duties on U.S.  pork going to China were raised to 62% from 12% last year as part of  tit-for-tat trade sanctions.
According to data from the U.S. Meat  Export Federation, U.S. pork exports to China and Hong Kong rose 33% in  May from a year earlier to 45,442 tonnes - though exports for the first  five months of 2019 were still 7% lower than in 2018.
David  Williams, head of strategic sourcing and commodities risk management at  U.S. company CTI Foods, said U.S. hog farmers had already benefited  indirectly from swine fever as it had driven up pork prices generally.
The  price rises were sorely needed because many U.S. farmers had expanded  output to supply a string of new U.S. processing plants, just as  separate U.S. trade disputes with Mexico and China hit trade volumes.
"They got a lifeboat," said Williams, adding that increasing demand from China could be an added bonus.
"They're  going to have to get this pork from somewhere," said Williams, who  formerly led export sales and futures trading for Cargill's meat  business unit. "The U.S. is going to benefit, so is Brazil and Europe."
He said monthly U.S. pork exports to China could treble by the end of 2019, assuming the two countries strike a trade deal.


Demand from China is expected to remain strong next year as a plunge  in the number of breeding sows means it will take time to rebuild the  country's pig stock. As many as half of China's sows may have died,  according to industry estimates shared with Reuters.

Pork prices  in China have already risen substantially since March and the  agricultural ministry has said they could surge by 70 percent in the  coming months as a result of the outbreak. Pork accounts for more than  60% of Chinese meat consumption.
"The rebuilding of China's sow  herd could also take several years given the potential recontamination  risk," ratings agency Fitch said in a July 9 report, which noted swine  fever was having a positive impact on Smithfield's debt ratings.
China  is not the only country hit. There have been outbreaks of swine fever  in Vietnam, Cambodia, Mongolia, North Korea and Laos. It has also  already spread across parts of central and eastern Europe and even been  found in wild boars in Belgium.
EU export prospects would suffer a  massive blow if the disease, which does not harm people, reached top  European exporting nations such as Germany or Spain.
European  industry sources said a surge in Chinese buying earlier this year had  largely emptied warehouses and the flow of pork exports, while still  steady, was not quite as strong now due to limited supplies.


Given the potential for a protracted trade war, U.S. farmers may  still be wary of being overly dependent on Chinese trade. Canadian pork  exporters initially benefited from the surge in demand by exporting more  ractopamine-free pigs.
But Chinese officials found ractopamine in  a Canadian pork shipment in June. Three Canadian exporters have now  been banned from selling to China and Beijing has called for all  Canadian meat imports to be suspended.
Canada's share of China's pork imports ranged from 11% to 14% in the 2016-2018 period, Chinese customs data shows.


Another major pork exporter, Brazil, is expecting to increase  shipments by more than 20% in 2019 to almost 800,000 tonnes thanks to  Chinese demand, producer group ABPA has said.
Brazil allows the  use of ractopamine but has been exporting pork free of the growth drug  for about six years, Rui Vargas, a director at ABPA said. More companies  are adopting ractopamine-free protocols to export pork, he said,  declining to name any.
The magnitude of lost pork production in China, however, means some Chinese consumers may need to change their diets.
"Consumers  will need to shift part of their pork consumption to other products.  This should result in a higher demand for other proteins, particularly  poultry meat," the European Commission said.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/insight-u-far...010000320.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

The United States has shipped several million tonnes of soybeans to  China since the two countries' leaders met in June, Chinese state media  said on Sunday, an apparent sign of goodwill before trade talks in  Shanghai this week.

China  has made enquiries to U.S. suppliers for the purchase of soybeans,  cotton, pork sorghum and other agricultural products since July 19, and  some sales have been made, state broadcaster CCTV said, citing China's  National Development and Reform Commission and Ministry of Commerce.
"As  long as the American agricultural products are reasonably priced and of  good quality, it is expected that there will be new purchases," the  report said.
Companies  involved in the sales have applied for exclusions to tariffs on  agricultural goods with Chinese customs officials, it said.
It  added that the moves show China's willingness to promote U.S. products  and make good on a consensus reached between presidents Donald Trump and  Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Osaka in June.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-shi...114149495.html

----------


## devil21

More tariffs announced today and stocks tanked.  Metals shot up.  10-25%+ higher cost on imported products for Americans incoming.

"Tariffs are a disaster.  We're cooked." - American Apparel CEO, interview on CNBC today.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> More tariffs announced today and stocks tanked.  Metals shot up.  10-25%+ higher cost on imported products for Americans incoming.
> 
> "Tariffs are a disaster.  We're cooked." - American Apparel CEO, interview on CNBC today.


We will do just fine as we have with the previous tariffs, tell Xi we appreciate his concern but he should be worried about his own economy that is going to collapse.

----------


## Swordsmyth

New    federal earnings figures for ALL Americans, including minorities, are    panicking the Left, because they are so good for Donald Trump

A cluster of economic reports just released confirm the continuing   strength of the U.S. economy. This is especially impressive in light of   the perceived global slowdown, including the economic powerhouses of   Germany and China.
Wednesday’s report from accounting firm ADP   showed job growth across all sectors of the economy in July, as well  as  across all sizes of businesses. The goods-producing sector — mining,   construction, and manufacturing — added 9,000 jobs last month, while  the  services sector — transportation, education, healthcare, and   hospitality — gained 146,000 jobs. Small businesses (1-49 employees)   hired 11,000 new people in July; medium-sized businesses (50-499   employees) added 67,000 workers; and large businesses (over 500   employees) brought on 78,000 people.
 This was in line with expectations and well above the estimated 100,000 new jobs needed to keep up with population growth.
 Thursday’s report from the Labor Department showing further declines   in initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits confirmed the   health of the labor market. 

This was expected as Fed Chairman Jerome Powell noted in his remarks   following the board’s decision to cut the Fed Funds rate by one-quarter   of one percent: “People who live and work in low-and middle-income   communities tell us that many who have struggled to find work are now   getting opportunities to add new and better chapters to their lives.”        	   
  Indeed those “new and better chapters” are characterized by   remarkable growth in real (inflation-adjusted) wages, as noted by the   U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA): “Wages in the United States   increased 5.48 percent in June 2019 over the same month in the previous   year.” According to the BEA, wage growth has been increasing since last   December, staying at or above five percent on an annualized basis  since  February. Put another way, a worker earning $20 an hour a year  ago is  now making $21 an hour. In addition, he is keeping most of it in  his  pocket as inflation remains benign, at well below two percent.
 Parsing the BEA report reveals another bright spot: Based on slightly   different metrics, the number of employed workers increased by 247,000   last month, 91,000 higher than ADP’s report. Further the number employed   full-time increased by 453,000 last month, while the number of   part-time workers fell by 174,000. This confirms that not only are there   more full-time workers, many part-time workers are being promoted to   full-time status.
 All of which continues to be reflected in healthy consumer  confidence,  as reported by the University of Michigan’s index. It moved  higher in  July to 98.4 from July 2018’s 97.9, while its Index of  Consumer  Expectations jumped by 3.2 percent, from 87.3 in July a year  ago to  90.1. Said Michigan’s chief economist Richard Curtin: “Consumer   sentiment remained … at quite favorable levels since the start of 2017.”

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...of-u-s-economy

----------


## Swordsmyth

Wow. Go Wilburine!  U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has slapped a  whopping $4.4 billion countervailing duty on Chinese cabinet  manufacturers.  The rate of manufacturing subsidy identified within the ‘_wood cabinet_‘  study shows a massive 229% subsidy rate via discounted land, free  lumber, electricity, raw materials, direct grants from government and  discounted loans from Chinese banks to enhance export incentives.

The current study and duty only applies to wood cabinets and  vanities, but if you ever wondered how come Chinese furniture is so  cheap, well, it’s not a stretch to consider those same subsidy rates  likely apply to their household furniture and wood products.
(Bloomberg) Add $4.4 billion in imported cabinets to the long list of Chinese goods slapped with U.S. levies in the escalating trade dispute between Washington and Beijing.
 The Commerce Department said Tuesday it will ask the U.S. Customs and  Border Protection to collect cash deposits from importers of the wooden  cabinets and vanities from China based on subsidy rates of as much as  229%. Commerce issued a preliminary determination in response to a  petition filed earlier this year by the American Kitchen Cabinet  Alliance, alleging at least $2 billion in harm from the Chinese shipments.The petition alleged dumping margins of more than 200%.  Tim Brightbill, a trade lawyer from Wiley Rein LLP in Washington  representing the industry, said in March that Chinese exporters get  double-digit subsidy margins based on the number of programs supporting  their domestic industry, including discounted land, electricity, raw  materials, grants, discounted loans and export incentives.
 “Today’s determination gives the American kitchen cabinet industry  the hope it needs in our fight against China’s unfair trade practices,”  Stephen Wellborn, director of product and research development at U.S.  manufacturer Wellborn Cabinet and a member of the American alliance,  said in an emailed statement.  (more)
That $4.4 billion is a pretty hefty duty within a relatively small  manufacturing sector.   Can you imagine if anyone has filed a  trade/manufacturing complaint against the much larger ‘wood furniture’  and household goods?  Jumpin’ ju-ju bones.
 In related news a lot more exporters operating manufacturing in China  are starting to see the writing on their noses, realizing that Trump  tariffs are only going to get worse, and are making plans to get the  heck out of China, ASAP.
(CMP)  Traditional export manufacturers in China’s Pearl and Yangtze River  Delta regions already struggling under the weight of existing tariffs  levied by the Trump administration expect the new tariffs on US$300  billion of Chinese imports to cause their businesses to shrink, force  them to lay off workers, and for some, speed up relocation plans. (more)



Think  of China like a big lake filled with U.S. dollars and economic value;  the result of our purchases of their products.   Through his ASEAN  discussions with Vietnam, S Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia,  Japan, et al, President Trump has stealthily built a thin levy, an ASEAN  dam of sorts, that will direct the China lake of economic value into  Southeast Asia.

 At any given moment Trump can blow that dam by triggering bigger  tariffs. The exodus will benefit those who partnered with Trump.   Vietnam’s economy has jumped over eight percent so far this year…. almost exclusively as a result of companies leaving China.
 China has no substantive tools in their economic armory to defend  against President Trump in a one-on-one battle.   And Trump keeps  landing body blows, the latest was the seizure of all Venezuelan  assets.  The number one investor in Venezuela is China (by a mile).   China owns 49% of PDVSA Venezuela’s state owned oil company as an  example.
 The labeling of China as a currency manipulator opens the door to  even more sanctions, and Beijing has no measurable way to respond.   Beijing can threaten other trade partners, but more than China everyone  wants access to the U.S. market; so no-one wants to become a target for  Trump by standing near Xi Jinping or engaging in transnational shipping.


More at: https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ese-companies/

----------


## Swordsmyth

As if China did not have its hands full with a trade war, a plunging  yuan and growing civil unrest in Hong Kong, which is fast becoming the  potential epicenter for the next global crisis (and which Steve "The Big Short" Eisman thinks  is the next black swan), it now also has deflation to worry about at a  time when its ability to boost liquidity in the system is severely  limited... or maybe it's surging inflation.

  On Friday, China's National Bureau of Statistics reported that  Producer Price Index, i.e. factory prices, fell 0.3% in July from a year  ago, missing the modest 0.1% decline expected by analysts. This was the  first annual decline in China's PPI in three years - since August 2016 -  and just like back then, was largely the result of tumbling commodity  prices which in turn depressed both manufacturing and raw material goods  prices. And with oil sliding, and iron ore especially plunging, not to  mention the whole trade war thing, it does not seems like a rebound here  is imminent at all. 
  Worse, since PPI is closely linked to corporate profitability, the  decline suggests that China is badly lagging in the credit impulse arena  despite having started off 2019 with a bang and some of the biggest  increases in Total Social Financing on record.
  So what's the big deal: China has always been able to boost  inflation, all it had to do was turn on the credit spigot and inject a  few trillion in new bank and shadow loans into the economy.
  Well, maybe in the past this was the case, but this time it will have  a big headache, because even as PPI declined for the first time in  three years, consumer prices jumped 2.8%, and coming in hotter than the  2.7% expected. This was tied for the highest annual headline inflation  since February 2018, and before that one would have to go all the way to  2013 to find a hotter CPI print.

  A continuation of recent trends, the bulk of the inflation was the  result of sharply higher food prices, which surged 9.1% Y/Y as China  continues to battle the rapid spread of "pig ebola"  which some expect will eradicate half of China's entire pig population, leading to even higher prices.
  Sure enough, pork prices soared 27% in July from a year ago, the  highest in three years, but that wasn't even the worst of it: the prices  of fresh fruit soared by 39%, the highest since 2006!



  This combination of lower factory gate prices and soaring consumer  prices is, needless to say, the worst possible outcome for Beijing,  whose firepower to stimulate the economy using conventional means is  severely limited; that this comes at a time when China is caught in an  ever escalating trade war with the US certainly doesn't help.

Who knows: a few more downward nudges to the Chinese economy, and Trump  may win the trade war against Beijing well before the 2020 presidential  election.

More at:  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...nflation-soars

----------


## Swordsmyth

"We're not going to be doing business with Huawei," President Donald Trump told reporters on Friday, according to Bloomberg. 
Trump's  announcement will prohibit US agencies and companies from buying Huawei  telecoms products, unless the US and China can come to an agreement  over trade. Trump said "China wants to do something, but I'm not doing  anything yet. 25 years of abuse — I'm not ready so fast."
Trump's statement comes amid China's refusal to buy US agricultural goods — a move that's said to be in retaliation of Trump's tariffs on imports from China.
The US is also reportedly delaying US companies from doing business with Huawei, according to a Bloomberg report. 

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/trump-announc...145152721.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

Jeffrey  Peterson says in a twitter thread that he watches Asian news feeds and  what comes out in them is the shock and confusion of the Chinese that a  President is standing up to them and looking out for America for once.

----------


## Swordsmyth

laptop maker Inventec Corp. said it will to shift production of  notebooks for the U.S. market out of China within months, adding to the  tech industry’s exodus as the world’s two largest economies escalate  their trade war.Inventec plans to move its entire American-bound  laptop operation to its home base of Taiwan within two to three months,  President Maurice Wu said on a post-earnings call Tuesday. Wu’s company  assembles Apple Inc.’s AirPods and produces notebook computers for HP,  which accounts for an estimated third of its revenue.
Underscoring  the difficulty of making such long-term production decisions, President  Donald Trump said just hours later that the U.S. would push back  implementation of tariffs on Chinese-made laptop and other products to  December from September. But tech companies aren’t waiting for a trade  resolution. From Inventec to Apple-assembler Hon Hai Precision Industry  Co., Taiwanese companies that make most of the world’s electronics are  reconsidering their reliance on the world’s No. 2 economy as  Washington-Beijing tensions simmer.
“The trade war is very painful  for us,” Wu said, concluding a call during which executives shared how  production shifts have hurt the company’s efficiency and margins.
Rising  tariffs on Chinese-made products threaten to wipe out their margins and  up-end a well-oiled, decades-old supply chain. Microsoft Corp.,  Amazon.com Inc., Sony Corp. and Nintendo Co. are said to be among those  now weighing their options away from the line of fire, such as Southeast  Asia and India. Alphabet Inc.’s Google has already shifted much of its  production of U.S.-bound motherboards to Taiwan, Bloomberg News has  reported.
Inventec’s shift marks one of the most dramatic  relocations since Trump announced his decision to slap 10% tariffs on  $300 billion of Chinese imports -- including consumer gadgets from  smartphones to notebooks -- originally slated for next month. Spurred on  by clients, which include household names like Dell Technologies Inc.  and Nintendo, many Taiwanese contract manufacturers are now drawing up  contingency plans, shifting select assembly operations or exploring  alternative venues.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/very-painful-...093211924.html

----------


## Swordsmyth



----------


## CaptainAmerica

> I already have their shotguns.


keep your 100 yard inaccuracy. Ill keep my 600-800 yard m1a scout squad by sprinfield armory. China garbage .

----------


## fedupinmo

> keep your 100 yard inaccuracy. Ill keep my 600-800 yard m1a scout squad by sprinfield armory. China garbage .


Yes, the Type 59 is quite inaccurate at 100 yards.
That reminds me... I forgot one. 



BTW the AR-10 is much more accurate than the M1A, is more modular and has many more scope mounting choices. You can also almost buy two of them before you can get your M1A updated with the proper mil-spec M14 parts.

Here's another Chinese I should have bought when I had the chance:

----------


## devil21

A local metal supplier quoted me DOUBLE the price for the exact same raw stainless steel products (stainless angle) that they charged back in November.  I asked why the double price?  Answer was "Tariffs, sorry".

But no, "tariffs" aren't passed on to the end buyer, right Donald?

I'm sure most would unquestioningly pay that doubled price but when I called them out for doubling it, when metal tariffs are only a ~15% increase, they lowered the price to around that 15% increase.  I didn't bother to ask if the steel was actually sourced from outside the US in the first place.  So what I saw was a tariff presumably being passed on to me and attempted price gouging on top of it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> A local metal supplier quoted me DOUBLE the price for the exact same raw stainless steel products (stainless angle) that they charged back in November.  I asked why the double price?  Answer was "Tariffs, sorry".
> 
> But no, "tariffs" aren't passed on to the end buyer, right Donald?
> 
> I'm sure most would unquestioningly pay that doubled price but when I called them out for doubling it, when metal tariffs are only a ~15% increase, they lowered the price to around that 15% increase.  I didn't bother to ask if the steel was actually sourced from outside the US in the first place.  So what I saw was a tariff presumably being passed on to me and attempted price gouging on top of it.


You got conned. (why doesn't that surprise me?)




> US Import and Export prices surprisingly rose  MoM (Imports +0.2% vs  -0.1% exp and Exports +0.2% vs -0.1% exp), but,  both import and export  prices have deflated YoY for three straight  months...
> 
> 
> 
> More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...straight-month
> 
> I thought tariffs were going to kill us all with rising prices?

----------


## phill4paul

> You got conned. (why doesn't that surprise me?)


 No $#@!. So because a local retailer told him the price was doubled devil21 assumes it's tariffs. Then the supplier comes down 85% on his price and devil21 thinks he's a shrewd negotiator. $#@!! Didn't ever occur to him that if the tariffs really hit that hard they would be taking a loss with an 85% markdown. I'd have told 'em to $#@! off and found another supplier.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No $#@!. So because a local retailer told him the price was doubled devil21 assumes it's tariffs. Then the supplier comes down 85% on his price and devil21 thinks he's a shrewd negotiator. $#@!! Didn't ever occur to him that if the tariffs really hit that hard they would be taking a loss with an 85% markdown. I'd have told 'em to $#@! off and found another supplier.


And he is SO sure that the second price is because of the tariffs because ORANGE MAN BAD.

It never occurred to him that if his supplier lied the first time he is probably lying the second time.

It's a very old game to see how far you can push someone and then "back down" if they resist. 2 steps forward, 1 step back. It leaves the mark thinking he won.

----------


## phill4paul

> And he is SO sure that the second price is because of the tariffs because ORANGE MAN BAD.
> 
> It never occurred to him that if his supplier lied the first time he is probably lying the second time.
> 
> It's a very old game to see how far you can push someone and then "back down" if they resist. 2 steps forward, 1 step back. It leaves the mark thinking he won.


  Hey, he got 85% off the asking price and walked away believing he was a shrewd negotiator. Win/win.

----------


## devil21

@Swordsmyth     @phill4paul
I'm just playing Donald's (and yours) perception game of tariffs.  I've said many times on RPF that I have yet to find much, if any, real evidence of tariffs being imposed, in the form of legal executive orders or otherwise.  Hence my use of "tariffs".  My hypothesis in the above post was that a tariff of 15% had raised the raw price but the seller was gouging on top of it (thanks Donald, MAGA by giving retailers an excuse to gouge the average person?)

That seems like a reasonable conclusion.  But by both of your conclusions, tariffs are having no price impact and only grant retailers the ability to price gouge under an official story, courtesy of Donald.  Sounds like a win for the little guy   Fortunately I knew that the price shouldn't be any higher than 15% if there was indeed a higher raw price passed on to the seller.  I don't know how many others weren't aware and paid the price gouge cost.  Tariffs or not, higher prices is obviously the impact.

----------


## specsaregood

> No $#@!. So because a local retailer told him the price was doubled devil21 assumes it's tariffs. Then the supplier comes down 85% on his price and devil21 thinks he's a shrewd negotiator. $#@!! Didn't ever occur to him that if the tariffs really hit that hard they would be taking a loss with an 85% markdown. I'd have told 'em to $#@! off and found another supplier.


FWIW,  Up until Aug 1st, Iron Ore prices had just about doubled in the past year.  Its dropped significantly in the past couple weeks; but that price change in the iron ore would definitely have affected steel prices (independent of tariffs).
https://www.marketindex.com.au/iron-ore

----------


## devil21

> FWIW,  Up until Aug 1st, Iron Ore prices had just about doubled in the past year.  Its dropped significantly in the past couple weeks; but that price change in the iron ore would definitely have affected steel prices (independent of tariffs).
> https://www.marketindex.com.au/iron-ore


Thanks.  That has been my ongoing hypothesis regarding "tariffs".  They're a cover story for dollar devaluation that leads to higher domestic prices of materials and finished goods.  If any retailers decide to further price gouge that's an extra kick in the gut on top of being lied to about why prices are rising.

----------


## specsaregood

> Thanks.  That has been my ongoing hypothesis regarding "tariffs".  They're a cover story for dollar devaluation that leads to higher domestic prices of materials and finished goods.  If any retailers decide to further price gouge that's an extra kick in the gut on top of being lied to about why prices are rising.


It was more than just the dollar and tariffs.  Iron Ore was specifically hit hard because production was shutdown because of the big dam disaster in Brazil and a number of the biggest mines have been taken offline during the year for safety inspections.

----------


## devil21

> It was more than just the dollar and tariffs.  Iron Ore was specifically hit hard because production was shutdown because of the big dam disaster in Brazil and a number of the biggest mines have been taken offline during the year for safety inspections.


Good info, thanks.  I don't feel "conned" at all, though I'm sure SS thinks he knows a con when he sees one.  Birds of a feather and all.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Home Depot’s  suppliers are trying to head off some of the increased costs from  rising tariffs by moving at least some of their production out of China,  executives told investors Tuesday.
 “I’m not aware of a single  supplier who was not moving some form of manufacturing outside of  China,” said Ted Decker, executive vice president of merchandising. “So  we have suppliers moving production to Taiwan, to Vietnam, to Thailand,  Indonesia and even back into the United States.”

More at: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/home...-of-china.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

*Since the trade war began last March, the renminbi has  weakened 13% against the U.S. dollar, neutralizing some of the tariffs  imposed by the U.S. on imports from China.*

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-slows-46-june


They also cut prices and increased subsidies.

----------


## phill4paul

STILL not out tariffed.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Drudge spreading gloom n doom again  instead of celeberating success of tariffs and trade war:*








READ HIS LIPS:  NO MORE TAX CUTS...
POLL:  69%  would hold Trump responsible if recession...
Budget deal sends deficit soaring...
**To exceed $12 trillion through 2029...
*
* 
*
*JOB GROWTH REDUCED BY 501,000*

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Drudge spreading gloom n doom again  instead of celeberating success of tariffs and trade war:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lies and distortions.

But that's what Drudge is paid to do.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> *Since the trade war began last March, the renminbi has  weakened 13% against the U.S. dollar, neutralizing some of the tariffs  imposed by the U.S. on imports from China.*
> 
> More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-slows-46-june
> 
> 
> They also cut prices and increased subsidies.


Bump to counter slide.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Lies and distortions.
> 
> But that's what Drudge is paid to do.


**  In hindsight, was not attacking Drudge a mistake?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> **  In hindsight, was not attacking Drudge a mistake?


Yes, you spam your garbage over and over.
Almost as if you are paid to do it and post Drudge's logo all over.

----------


## Swordsmyth

China's yuan fell to fresh 11-year lows on Thursday amid worries  about the deepening Sino-U.S. trade war, despite support from major  state-owned banks in both the spot and forwards markets.Spot yuan ended the domestic session down 0.34% at 7.0875 per dollar, its weakest such close since March 14, 2008.


Prior to the market opening, the People's Bank of China (PBOC) set  the midpoint rate at 7.049 per dollar prior to market open, weaker than  the previous fix of 7.0433.
State-run banks seen were receiving  dollar liquidity in the forwards market before selling the greenback in  the onshore spot market, two traders with knowledge of the matter said.
One  of them said state banks were seen selling dollars at around 7.07 yuan  in the spot market to prevent sharper losses in the local unit.
The  moves injected a note of caution into the market, fueling speculation  that authorities may be trying to put a floor under the yuan, the trader  added.
But selling picked up again in the afternoon, prompting  investors to place stop-loss orders in their short dollar positions,  according to a trader at a Chinese bank.

In the offshore market, the yuan was trading at 7.0923 per dollar as of 0850 GMT, off 0.34%.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/yuan-falls-fr...091840896.html

----------


## EBounding

Nice.  His most muscular move yet in the Awesome Trade War!  Ordering American companies around!  The democratically elected government of China will not be able to handle this kind of pressure!  Expect their surrender in the next few weeks (or days)!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Oh no! It fell one quarter of one percent!


Little drops of water and little grains of sand make the mighty ocean and the mighty land.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Two surveys of Chinese manufacturing show demand is weak amid a mounting tariff war with Washington over trade and technology.A  monthly purchasing managers' index released by a business magazine,  Caixin, rose to 50.4 from July's 49.9 on a 100-point scale on which  numbers above 50 show activity increasing.
That indicates "renewed improvement" but said a gauge of new orders fell to its lowest level this year, the magazine said.
A  separate survey released Saturday by an industry group, the China  Federation of Logistics & Purchasing, showed activity declining to  49.5 from July's 49.7. It said market demand was "relatively weak."
Chinese  exporters are struggling in the face of U.S. tariff hikes. Exports to  the United States, their biggest market, fell 6.5% in July.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/surveys-show-...050356675.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

US could use imperial Chinese debt to ‘simply default’ on Beijing’s $1 trillion of US bond holdings

----------


## Swordsmyth

The Ministry of Industry and Trade is drafting a policy that will  define a product as "made in Vietnam" if it has a domestic  manufacturing added value of 30 percent of its price. Vietnam has not  had a clear standard on what locally made goods is, the ministry said  last month. 
 	The new policy will stop local manufacturers setting their own  standards on using the "made in Vietnam" label for their products.  Products made with imported material with slight changes will not  qualify to claim Vietnamese origin.  
 	Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc has already signed a decision to  prevent the circumvention of trade defense measures, and local  government bodies are implementing this order.
 	A representative of the Vietnam Directorate of Market Surveillance said  Friday that the agency is focusing on reviewing companies that have  posted a sudden rise in imports from China.

More at: https://ampe.vnexpress.net/news/busi...e-3965243.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

The U.S. Commerce Department said on Wednesday it imposed duties on  Chinese and Mexican structural steel after making a preliminary  determination that producers in both countries had dumped fabricated  structural steel on the U.S. market at prices below fair market value.The  department said it imposed duties of up to 141% on Chinese structural  steel and up to 31% on Mexican structural steel and will begin  collecting cash deposits for imports based on those rates.
Commerce said it had found that imports of Canadian fabricated structural steel did not violate U.S. anti-dumping laws.
Most  Chinese steel products have largely been excluded from the U.S. market  by prior Commerce Department anti-dumping duties and President Donald  Trump's 25% punitive tariffs. The latest order seeks to prevent Chinese  downstream structural steel assemblies from skirting those duties and  entering the United States.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/u-imposes-dut...051355862.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

The Vietnamese government has vowed to increase its imports from the  United States, including coal, natural gas and agricultural products,  the Financial Times reported Sept. 6.

More at: https://worldview.stratfor.com/situa...ase-us-imports

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The Vietnamese government has vowed to increase its imports from the  United States, including coal, natural gas and agricultural products,  the Financial Times reported Sept. 6.
> 
> More at: https://worldview.stratfor.com/situa...ase-us-imports


From the link:




> Why It Matters: The decision to increase imports from the United States is likely an attempt by the Vietnamese government to avoid more severe U.S. tariff threats as Washington is looking to reduce its trade deficit with Vietnam.
> 
> Background:* Vietnam's trade surplus has been growing exponentially in recent years and is expected to increase further because companies are relocating there to avoid the fallout from the U.S.-China trade war.*


The TPP which Trump walked away from would have reduced the US trade deficit with Vietnam.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> From the link:


And?

That's part of winning.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And?
> 
> That's part of winning.


Yay! Winning!  I thought winning was getting rid of trade deficits?  




> Vietnam's trade surplus has been growing exponentially in recent years and is expected to increase further because companies are relocating there to avoid the fallout from the U.S.-China trade war.

----------


## phill4paul

> The U.S. Commerce Department said on Wednesday it imposed duties on  Chinese and Mexican structural steel after making a preliminary  determination that producers in both countries had dumped fabricated  structural steel on the U.S. market at prices below fair market value.The  department said it imposed duties of up to 141% on Chinese structural  steel and up to 31% on Mexican structural steel and will begin  collecting cash deposits for imports based on those rates.
> Commerce said it had found that imports of Canadian fabricated structural steel did not violate U.S. anti-dumping laws.
> Most  Chinese steel products have largely been excluded from the U.S. market  by prior Commerce Department anti-dumping duties and President Donald  Trump's 25% punitive tariffs. The latest order seeks to prevent Chinese  downstream structural steel assemblies from skirting those duties and  entering the United States.
> 
> More at: https://news.yahoo.com/u-imposes-dut...051355862.html


  U.S. Steel and NuCor will probably fire up their furnaces they cooled on this news. Think there was only five though Zip tried to make it sound they were shuttering entire plants.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yay! Winning!  I thought winning was getting rid of trade deficits?


Winning is:

#1 stopping China from destroying us and taking over the world
#2 repairing our economy and reducing trade deficits

In case you missed it, this does both, Vietnam is going to buy more of our stuff to reduce the trade deficit.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> U.S. Steel and NuCor will probably fire up their furnaces they cooled on this news. Think there was only five though Zip tried to make it sound they were shuttering entire plants.


More winning.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Winning is:
> 
> #1 stopping China from destroying us and taking over the world
> #2 repairing our economy and reducing trade deficits
> 
> In case you missed it, this does both, Vietnam is going to buy more of our stuff to reduce the trade deficit.


How much stuff?  Article is very short on details.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The TPP which Trump walked away from would have reduced the US trade deficit with Vietnam.


It also would have surrendered our sovereignty.



> 


That's just stupid, we are winning easily.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> How much stuff?  Article is very short on details.


More than China, if you want details go find them.
It says it is quoting FT.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It also would have surrendered our sovereignty.
> 
> That's just stupid, we are winning easily.


Actually it would have given the US more control.  Read it sometime instead of just posting the keyword phrases.

----------


## phill4paul

> Yay! Winning!  I thought winning was getting rid of trade deficits?


    Gotta choose your enemies. Vietnam is no where near the threat of China. You should be happy we're trading with a global partner. One that is not in the game to crush us financially and militarily. Vietnam is not subsidizing it's industries, like steel and stolen solar panel technology, to dump on the U.S. market destroying American industry. You really do not get what is happening, do you?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Actually it would have given the US more control.  Read it sometime instead of just posting the keyword phrases.


It would have given globalists more control.

----------


## Swordsmyth

The U.S. Commerce Department said on Tuesday that it found that  imports of ceramic tile from China are unfairly subsidized and it  imposed preliminary duties on them ranging from about 104% to 222%.The decision affects tile imports worth about $483.1 million in 2018, the Commerce Department said in a statement.
The  agency opened its anti-subsidy and anti-dumping investigation of  Chinese tile imports in May after receiving a petition from a coalition  of eight U.S. tile producers claiming injury.


Glazed ceramic floor and wall tiles from China, which are popular  items at major U.S. home supply chains, including Home Depot, Lowe's and  Floor & Decor, are also currently subject to a 25% tariff as part  of the U.S. Trade Representative's "Section 301" penalties on China.  This rate is scheduled to increase to 30% on Oct. 1.
Commerce said  it would impose a preliminary anti-subsidy duty of 222.24% on tile from  Temgoo International Trading Ltd and 103.77% on all other Chinese  ceramic tile exporters and producers.
A final determination in the  investigation is expected around Jan. 21, 2020. The U.S. International  Trade Commission is working on a separate probe to determine whether  U.S. producers suffered injury from the Chinese imports.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/1-u-sets-prel...155642401.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

J.P. Morgan estimates  that President Trump’s tariffs will cost American families up to $1,000  next year. We have heard this before and we’ll hear it again. But the  fact is that tariffs have not yet—nor will they likely—increase the cost  of living.
 Further, the myopic obsession with the  price of goods ignores the more pressing problem: millions of Americans  remain chronically unemployed, and millions more have been reduced to  surviving on part-time McJobs and welfare. Turns out, cheap goods aren’t  so cheap if you don’t have a job.
*Crying Wolf* Every time President Trump threatens to impose more tariffs on China  liberals lose their marbles. Tariffs will make Americans poor! Tariffs  will turn America into a fascist dictatorship! Tariffs will—dare I say  it—_ruin Christmas_!


 Time and again, reality proves the doomsayers wrong. Tariffs have not  increased the cost of living in America. This is obvious to anyone who  paid attention back in 2018, when Trump imposed effective tariff rates  of 40 percent on imported washing machines. What happened?
 Nothing.
 
 I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating. According to  the Consumer Price Index (CPI) the cost of laundry equipment increased  by 6.8 percent in 2018. The inflation rate was 2.44 percent. In 2019,  the cost of laundry equipment _decreased_ by 0.48 percent, compared  to an expected inflation rate of 2 percent. Yes, washing machines  prices rose slightly faster than inflation—but nowhere near 40 percent.


 In any event, we don’t even know if tariffs caused the increase.  Prices in 2012 rose by 8.56 percent. And guess what? There were no  tariffs to blame. The 2018 price change may just be a random walk. Children find faces in clouds: economists find meaning in randomness.
 The reason tariffs barely affect consumer prices is that they aren’t levied on retail prices. They are levied on the _first sale price_—the  price paid to foreign vendors by American companies or their agents. As  such, tariffs are applied on a very small base rate, which harms  foreign producers without really affecting American consumers.
 And of course, tariffs can be completely avoided by simply buying American-made products.


 I will not go into too much detail on this point as I have written about it _ad nauseam_. Suffice it to say that the _Washington Post_ does  not appear to have the faintest understanding of how tariffs actually  work—they really do seem to think tariffs are just sales taxes.
 Lastly, global free trade is underpinned by the theory of _comparative advantage._ The problem for free traders—of which they are blissfully unaware—is that _comparative advantage_ is _domain-specific_, meaning that it only applies when certain preconditions are satisfied.
 One of these preconditions is that capital is immobile, i.e.  industries cannot simply pick up and move from country to country.  Obviously, capital _is_ mobile—American factories move to China all  the time. As such, comparative advantage does not apply and free trade  lacks any sort of theoretical justification.
 The only reason the _Washington_ _Post_ or Conservatism,  Inc. support free trade is because they are ignorant, or on the payroll  of the international banks who are profiteering America’s dispossession.
*Upstairs, Downstairs* The free-trade brigade focuses exclusively on the effect of tariffs on consumption. In doing so, they miss the forest for the trees.
 In reality, every consumer is also a producer, and therefore what  harms producers—for example, moving millions of jobs to  China—necessarily harms consumers down the road. In fact, production _always_ precedes  consumption for the simple fact that you cannot consume what you have  not produced. You cannot spend what you do not earn.
 You cannot reap what you do not sow.
 The truth of this logic is readily apparent when you look at the actual data. Take, for example, NAFTA.  In 1993, President Bill Clinton promised that the North American Free Trade Agreement would create “a million [American] jobs in the first five years.” How?
 NAFTA would eliminate America’s tariff wall with Mexico so that both  nations could trade freely. This would allow them to maximize their  respective comparative advantages and produce more material wealth.  Win-win. Right?
 Wrong.
 Multinational corporations relocated their factories _en masse_ to  Mexico—the prospect of saving billions by hiring low-cost Mexican labor  was just too good to pass up. Conversely, very few industries moved  from Mexico to America. In total, a net 840,000 American manufacturing jobs have been displaced by NAFTA and the resultant trade deficit.
 On top of this, America lost all of the service jobs that depended upon those factories. This is because manufacturing is an _anchor industry_: factories, like mines or oilfields, generate new exportable wealth and in doing so support _predicate industries_.
 Predicates, like restaurants or banks, are important because they  diversify the economy and make it more efficient, however, they are not  self-sustaining. This is why hairdressers and lawyers move to mining  towns, but not vice versa.
 The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that each dollar of  manufacturing output supports roughly $1.48 in spinoff service  output—this is called a multiplier effect. When the lost predicate jobs are accounted for it becomes clear that NAFTA cost America a net 2.1 million jobs.
 The problem of offshoring is not unique to NAFTA. Market asymmetries  have caused many millions of American jobs to move abroad. China is the  biggest culprit and is responsible for the bulk of the 8 million American manufacturing jobs which have been lost—never mind the millions of predicate jobs.
 We often forget about the other sectors which are vulnerable to offshoring, however.  For example, over 1 million  people in the Philippines work in call centers—most of whom service  American clients. Likewise, hundreds of thousands of coding jobs have  been offshored to India.
 The list goes on and on.
 To make matters worse, these millions of jobless Americans saturated  the labor market. Some found new jobs, although they didn’t pay as well  as the lost jobs. A study from Princeton University  found that the average wage cut for displaced manufacturing workers was  17.5 percent—waiting tables does not pay as much as building cars!
 Without tariffs to level the playing field between America and the  Third World, multinational corporations will continue to move their  factories, call centers, and laboratories abroad. At this point, very  few industries are safe from the ravages of globalization.
 America will hemorrhage jobs. Small towns will decay. And the middle class will die.
*Tartini’s Trill* Some claim that offshoring has actually improved America’s economy  because it has actually bolstered consumption—the benefit of cheap goods  outweighs the harms caused by job loss.
 The argument is devious but wrong. The only reason that America has  been able to offshore production without simultaneously decreasing its  consumption is that we have thus far been able to buoy our consumption  by raffling off our assets and debt to Third World buyers.
 For example, American sells $150 _billion_ in real estate to  foreigners every single year. Likewise, foreigners have bought up  roughly 38 percent of all American corporate shares and 44 percent of  our national public debt. In exchange, we got Halloween masks and saved a  few bucks on our iPhones. We sold our souls for foreign luxuries.
 Of course, this paradigm is not sustainable—soon we will run out of  assets and debt to sell. When that happens, the bubble will burst and we  will wish we had not spent our economic summer idly consuming while the  Chinese worked hard, storing fat for the winter. Then, we will sing for  our supper.
 After all, the Devil always claims his prize.


https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/11/a...inese-imports/

----------


## phill4paul

> [/CENTER]
>  I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating. According to  the Consumer Price Index (CPI) the cost of laundry equipment increased  by 6.8 percent in 2018. The inflation rate was 2.44 percent. In 2019,  the cost of laundry equipment _decreased_ by 0.48 percent, compared  to an expected inflation rate of 2 percent. Yes, washing machines  prices rose slightly faster than inflation—but nowhere near 40 percent.


   2015, Kenmore 26132, $650
   2019, Kenmore 26132, $513

   Turiffs breakin' muh bank!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> 2015, Kenmore 26132, $650
>    2019, Kenmore 26132, $513
> 
>    Turiffs breakin' muh bank!


WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

----------


## Swordsmyth

President Trump’s tweet  that he was delaying by two weeks an increase of tariffs on some $250  billion of Chinese imports is right out of the Harvard Law School’s  Program on Negotiation (PON). Tweeted the President: “At the request of  Vice Premier of China, Liu He, and due to the fact that the People’s  Republic of China will be celebrating their 70th Anniversary on October  1st, we have agreed, as gesture of good will, to move the increased  Tariffs on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods (25% to 30%), from October  1st to October 15th.”
 This is laughable on its face but indicative of the sort of  hard-bargaining both sides are engaging in. It’s laughable because only  the communists in China are celebrating that 70th anniversary of their  oppression of the Chinese people. It’s a communist dictatorship, after  all, and any celebration will be carefully planned, managed, staged, and  performed for a world press enamored by (and deceived by) claims that  China has raised itself (all by itself) from third-world status to  first-world challenger to the United States.

  The PON rule? “Extreme demands followed up by small, slow  concessions.” This strategy, according to Harvard Law, “protects  dealmakers from making concessions too quickly.”
 It’s not the only rule Trump is following. There’s the “delaying and  stalling” technique, the “precondition” technique and the “withdrawn  offer” technique, among others.
 Consider: Delaying implementation of the increase gives negotiators  on both sides time to come to terms before the new deadline. It provides  additional incentive for the Chinese to hold serious conversations.  It’s interesting to note that the Chinese negotiators are coming to  Washington for those preliminary conversations, another tactic of making  a minor concession in order to advance a major conversation.
 China knows the rules. On Wednesday the communists published a short  list of American products that would be exempt from its own tariffs  (including shrimp, lubricants, alfalfa meal, and some other minor items)  in response to Trump’s concession. Those tariffs were imposed by the  communists last July as part of the “tit-for-tat” game being played out  in the tariff war.
 In addition the communists on Wednesday said they would be announcing  more exemptions in coming weeks, provided that the United States  continued negotiating in good faith.
 On Thursday the Chinese communists let it be known, through its  Ministry of Commerce, that “some Chinese companies were beginning to  make inquiries about resuming purchases of American agricultural  products.” This is aimed squarely at Trump’s need to reduce tariff  pressure on American farmers before the upcoming election.
 The Chinese have touted various changes they claim to have made to  certain laws governing foreign investment and intellectual property  without being specific.
 It’s all part of a high-level game of poker, following standard  negotiating tactics. But the ultimate strategy is not only “advertising  what you have” but “having what you advertise.” In Trump’s case, he is  holding the high cards: a stronger, larger, and more rapidly growing  economy that is much less dependent upon exports than his opponents  across the table.
 There’s another factor to consider as well, as revealed by the  Chinese communists’ response to the Hong Kong uprisings. They moved  mightily to tamp down those protests knowing that they might just give  encouragement to others in the homeland to challenge their communist  dictatorship. The most current information available is that the  communists ruling China face more than 200,000 such protests every year.  That is a present reminder of just how tenuous their hold is over the  peasantry.
 Trump knows all of this. That’s why he greeted the news of the  exemptions as a sign that China would soon compromise, saying that the  trade war “was only going to get worse” if they didn’t come to the  table, and considered the announcement as a sign that “they want to make  a deal.” Said Trump: “They took tariffs off, certain types. I think it  was a gesture. It was a big move. People were shocked. I wasn’t  shocked.”

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ing-strategies

----------


## devil21

> 2015, Kenmore 26132, $650
>    2019, Kenmore 26132, $513
> 
>    Turiffs breakin' muh bank!


Where do you see that model for $513?

$704
https://www.sears.com/kenmore-4.8-cu...en-pdp-buy-cta

$629
http://www.searshometownstores.com/p...STAR-Certified

$612
https://www.searsoutlet.com/br/pdp/k...rtified/141774

Just FYI but Kenmore isn't a good example any way since it's a brand in limbo.  Sears is trying to divest the brand and so far unsuccessfully.  Got any other, more relevant examples that aren't a dying brand attached to a company in bankruptcy reorganization?

----------


## phill4paul

> Where do you see that model for $513?
> 
> $704
> https://www.sears.com/kenmore-4.8-cu...en-pdp-buy-cta
> 
> $629
> http://www.searshometownstores.com/p...STAR-Certified
> 
> $612
> ...


  Can you not Google?

https://www.searsoutlet.com/br/pdp/k...saApclEALw_wcB

  And just shut up with your other non-sense. 

  "But," "but," "but,"...is all the bull$#@! you got. Same model. One before the tariffs. One after. The one after is actually cheaper. Even by 2/3rds of your examples.

----------


## devil21

> Can you not Google?
> 
> https://www.searsoutlet.com/br/pdp/k...saApclEALw_wcB
> 
>   And just shut up with your other non-sense. 
> 
>   "But," "but," "but,"...is all the bull$#@! you got. Same model. One before the tariffs. One after. The one after is actually cheaper. Even by 2/3rds of your examples.


LOL!

The $512 models are "NEW WITH COSMETIC DAMAGE".  Come on man.  New condition in box is $612 through the outlet.  There's no way to verify what the 2015 price was but again, you're using DAMAGED goods prices from a dying brand tied to a bankrupt company to try to make a point about tariffs.

----------


## phill4paul

> LOL!
> 
> The $512 models are "NEW WITH COSMETIC DAMAGE".  Come on man.  New condition in box is $612 through the outlet.  There's no way to verify what the 2015 price was but again, you're using DAMAGED goods prices from a dying brand tied to a bankrupt company to try to make a point about tariffs.


   New-Floor model. Nothing wrong with that. That's usually how I shop.

   And let's not forget TWO of your examples come in cheaper than the 2015 price on this model.

   Just shut the $#@! up already. You anti-tariffistas are just ridiculous. Would rather sell your country and fellows down the river for cheap imports. Done with the likes of you, your lies, obfuscations and your ilk.

----------


## devil21

> New-Floor model. Nothing wrong with that. That's usually how I shop.
> 
>    And let's not forget TWO of your examples come in cheaper than the 2015 price on this model.
> 
>    Just shut the $#@! up already. You anti-tariffistas are just ridiculous. Would rather sell your country and fellows down the river for cheap imports. Done with the likes of you, your lies, obfuscations and your ilk.


Where's your source on 2015 price?  Or am I supposed to trust that figure just like your $512 damaged floor model example?  lol

Btw, you're letting your mask slip a bit.  That post was remarkably like something SS would write.  Who's paying y'all to spread this bs?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Where's your source on 2015 price?  Or am I supposed to trust that figure just like your $512 damaged floor model example?  lol
> 
> Btw, you're letting your mask slip a bit.  That post was remarkably like something SS would write.  Who's paying y'all to spread this bs?


How much does Xi pay you?

----------


## devil21

> How much does Xi pay you?


And, as expected, SS pops up with the next post.  Hmm, it's almost like you and Phill4paul are the same poster.

But seriously, the washer price thing was a load of horse$#@!.  Just admit it and move on to the next fake narrative MSM article you're about to post.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And, as expected, SS pops up with the next post.  Hmm, it's almost like you and Phill4paul are the same poster.
> 
> But seriously, the washer price thing was a load of horse$#@!.  Just admit it and move on to the next fake narrative MSM article you're about to post.




We await your next load of ChiCom propaganda.

----------


## phill4paul

> Where's your source on 2015 price?  Or am I supposed to trust that figure just like your $512 damaged floor model example?  lol
> 
> Btw, you're letting your mask slip a bit.  That post was remarkably like something SS would write.  Who's paying y'all to spread this bs?


  $#@!ing go find it yourself $#@! nuts. I've already helped you along once. Done with you. Just like I am with every other progressive pretending to be something they are not.

----------


## devil21

> $#@!ing go find it yourself $#@! nuts. I've already helped you along once. Done with you. Just like I am with every other progressive pretending to be something they are not.


ROFL!  I do believe I struck a nerve.  I really do detest propagandists.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> ROFL!  I do believe I struck a nerve.  I really do detest propagandists.


Self loathing can be hazardous to your health, I suggest you change your occupation.

----------


## devil21

> Self loathing can be hazardous to your health, I suggest you change your occupation.


Tell us more about the $512 damaged floor model washing machine that proves prices are lower than 2015!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Tell us more about the $512 damaged floor model washing machine that proves prices are lower than 2015!


I never said anything about it.

But as Phil pointed out, two of your examples were cheaper than what he said the price was in 2015.

We are still waiting for the slightest evidence that prices are going up significantly or that any rise is due to tariffs.

But I don't expect honest debate from a follower of the father of lies.

Trying to make this about whether Phil and I are one and the same just makes you look pathetic.

----------


## phill4paul

> ROFL!  I do believe I struck a nerve.  I really do detest propagandists.


   No nerve struck. Made it clear. Done with progressives such as yourself that need to be walked through every little step towards liberty, including a simple Google search using key words. Your proclivity here is to suck up air and waste my time. I'm done with that $#@!. Go get a beer with Zippy and lament why no one buys either of yours bull$#@!. Or simply just $#@! off. Either, or, works for me.

----------


## devil21

> I never said anything about it.
> 
> Bu as Phil pointed out, two of your examples were cheaper than what he said the price was in 2015.
> 
> We are still waiting for the slightest evidence that prices are going up significantly or that any rise is due to tariffs.
> 
> But I don't expect honest debate from a follower of the father of lies.
> 
> Trying to make this about whether Phil and I are one and the same just makes you look pathetic.


Still no proof of the original $650 figure and only a profanity laced attack when called out on it.  

Here's what I think.  The $650 from 2015 could be correct.  In the 4 years since, the materials quality has gone down, metal replaced with plastic parts and the $650 was the sears.com retail price in 2015.  It is now $702 from sears.com, which means not only has the quality likely gone down, the price is in fact $52 higher now.  And the brand cited has since gone into bankruptcy, also, meaning liquidation prices.  Bad example, total bs, no points awarded.





> No nerve struck. Made it clear. Done with progressives such as yourself that need to be walked through every little step towards liberty, including a simple Google search using key words. Your proclivity here is to suck up air and waste my time. I'm done with that $#@!. Go get a beer with Zippy and lament why no one buys either of yours bull$#@!. Or simply just $#@! off. Either, or, works for me.


Seems your steps include posting bs and then profane personal attacks when called out on it.  No, I don't think I'll follow your particular steps to liberty if that's the guide you use.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Still no proof of the original $650 figure and only a profanity laced attack when called out on it.  
> 
> Here's what I think.  The $650 from 2015 could be correct.  In the 4 years since, the materials quality has gone down, metal replaced with plastic parts and the $650 was the sears.com retail price in 2015.  It is now $702 from sears.com, which means not only has the quality likely gone down, the price is in fact $52 higher now.  And the brand cited has since gone into bankruptcy, also, meaning liquidation prices.  Bad example, total bs, no points awarded.


I'm still waiting for something more than airy imaginings and assertions.

Prices haven't risen significantly and the tariffs haven't been shown to be the cause of any rise, meanwhile the ChiComs have been increasing their subsidies, cutting their prices and devaluing their currency to absorb the cost and try to keep marketshare.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> J.P. Morgan estimates  that President Trumps tariffs will cost American families up to $1,000  next year. We have heard this before and well hear it again. But the  fact is that tariffs have not yetnor will they likelyincrease the cost  of living.
>  Further, the myopic obsession with the  price of goods ignores the more pressing problem: millions of Americans  remain chronically unemployed, and millions more have been reduced to  surviving on part-time McJobs and welfare. Turns out, cheap goods arent  so cheap if you dont have a job.
> *Crying Wolf*
> 
>  Every time President Trump threatens to impose more tariffs on China  liberals lose their marbles. Tariffs will make Americans poor! Tariffs  will turn America into a fascist dictatorship! Tariffs willdare I say  it_ruin Christmas_!
> 
> 
>  Time and again, reality proves the doomsayers wrong. Tariffs have not  increased the cost of living in America. This is obvious to anyone who  paid attention back in 2018, when Trump imposed effective tariff rates  of 40 percent on imported washing machines. What happened?
>  Nothing.
> ...





> President Trumps tweet  that he was delaying by two weeks an increase of tariffs on some $250  billion of Chinese imports is right out of the Harvard Law Schools  Program on Negotiation (PON). Tweeted the President: At the request of  Vice Premier of China, Liu He, and due to the fact that the Peoples  Republic of China will be celebrating their 70th Anniversary on October  1st, we have agreed, as gesture of good will, to move the increased  Tariffs on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods (25% to 30%), from October  1st to October 15th.
>  This is laughable on its face but indicative of the sort of  hard-bargaining both sides are engaging in. Its laughable because only  the communists in China are celebrating that 70th anniversary of their  oppression of the Chinese people. Its a communist dictatorship, after  all, and any celebration will be carefully planned, managed, staged, and  performed for a world press enamored by (and deceived by) claims that  China has raised itself (all by itself) from third-world status to  first-world challenger to the United States.
> 
>   The PON rule? Extreme demands followed up by small, slow  concessions. This strategy, according to Harvard Law, protects  dealmakers from making concessions too quickly.
>  Its not the only rule Trump is following. Theres the delaying and  stalling technique, the precondition technique and the withdrawn  offer technique, among others.
>  Consider: Delaying implementation of the increase gives negotiators  on both sides time to come to terms before the new deadline. It provides  additional incentive for the Chinese to hold serious conversations.  Its interesting to note that the Chinese negotiators are coming to  Washington for those preliminary conversations, another tactic of making  a minor concession in order to advance a major conversation.
>  China knows the rules. On Wednesday the communists published a short  list of American products that would be exempt from its own tariffs  (including shrimp, lubricants, alfalfa meal, and some other minor items)  in response to Trumps concession. Those tariffs were imposed by the  communists last July as part of the tit-for-tat game being played out  in the tariff war.
>  In addition the communists on Wednesday said they would be announcing  more exemptions in coming weeks, provided that the United States  continued negotiating in good faith.
>  On Thursday the Chinese communists let it be known, through its  Ministry of Commerce, that some Chinese companies were beginning to  make inquiries about resuming purchases of American agricultural  products. This is aimed squarely at Trumps need to reduce tariff  pressure on American farmers before the upcoming election.
> ...


Bump

----------


## devil21

> I'm still waiting for something more than airy imaginings and assertions.
> 
> Prices haven't risen significantly and the tariffs haven't been shown to be the cause of any rise, meanwhile the ChiComs have been increasing their subsidies, cutting their prices and devaluing their currency to absorb the cost and try to keep marketshare.


Even the MSM outlets verify that prices on washing machines have risen and even taken other appliance prices along with them.  Whether it's because of "tariffs" or just loss of value of the currency is irrelevant.  Prices are rising, quality is declining and citing a $512 damaged floor model washer from a bankrupt company as a bellwether of anything is ridiculous.  It's strange that such a patently ridiculous example would be defended so vociferously, also.

Even reason.com notes the price increases.
https://reason.com/2019/04/22/trumps...out-consumers/




> President Donald Trump's tariffs on washing machines resulted in consumers paying an extra 12 percent, on average, to buy a new dryer last year, new data show.
> 
> Yes, you read that correctly. Tariffs on imported washing machines ended up increasing not only the retail price of washing machines but dryers too—despite the fact that dryers were not subject to the new import taxes imposed by the Trump administration in January 2018.
> ..........
> The new working paper provides yet more evidence that consumers, not Chinese-based companies as the president has often claimed, are paying the costs of tariffs. The increase in retail prices for dryers also demonstrates how some businesses have taken advantage of the Trump administration's trade policy to soak consumers a second time.
> 
> whole article is worth a read

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Even the MSM outlets verify that prices on washing machines have risen and even taken other appliance prices along with them.  Whether it's because of "tariffs" or just loss of value of the currency is irrelevant.  Prices are rising, quality is declining and citing a $512 damaged floor model washer from a bankrupt company as a bellwether of anything is ridiculous.  It's strange that such a patently ridiculous example would be defended so vociferously, also.


Just keep listening to the MSM, Xi will give you extra Social Credit points.

----------


## devil21

> Just keep listening to the MSM, Xi will give you extra Social Credit points.


I edited to include reason.com article on the price increases.

----------


## phill4paul

> Still no proof of the original $650 figure and only a profanity laced attack when called out on it.


  Try $#@!ing Google, dumbass. 




> Here's what I think.



  Well, see, that's the whole $#@!ing problem. Your mind ain't right. Zippy sock puppet.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I edited to include reason.com article on the price increases.


Treason.com nonsense.

----------


## devil21

> Try $#@!ing Google, dumbass.


Why do I need to google to verify your claim?  You just posted it today so surely you have the link handy for quick reference.  Or do you not and just made the $#@! up on the fly like Donald would do?




> Treason.com nonsense.


As opposed to your PNAC "thenewamerican" neocon link? lol

----------


## Swordsmyth

> As opposed to your PNAC "thenewamerican" neocon link? lol


LOL

The New American is the magazine of the John Birch Society and is absolutely against PNAC and neocons.

Do a little research before you embarrass yourself in the future.

----------


## devil21

> LOL
> 
> The New American is the magazine of the John Birch Society and is absolutely against PNAC.
> 
> Do a little research before you embarrass yourself in the future.


Oh you mean that _other_ "New American".  Totes different than the _other_ New American.

JBS isn't some bastion of libertarian thought anymore.  It's co-opted like everything else has been.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Oh you mean that _other_ "New American".  Totes different than the _other_ New American.
> 
> JBS isn't some bastion of libertarian thought anymore.  It's co-opted like everything else has been.


They had their magazine name long before the PNAC existed and they are absolutely a bastion of liberty thought, it is globalibertarians that have been co-opted.

----------


## devil21

> They had their magazine name long before the PNAC existed and they are absolutely a bastion of liberty thought, it is globalibertarians that have been co-opted.


Hmm, you think maybe that's because JBS has been controlled opposition from the start and has feigned conservative libertarian ideals while actually doing nothing to advance them?  I know you world government supporting Mormons love the JBS...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Hmm, you think maybe that's because JBS has been controlled opposition from the start and has feigned conservative libertarian ideals while actually doing nothing to advance them?  I know you world government supporting Mormons love the JBS...

----------


## phill4paul

> Why do I need to google to verify your claim?  You just posted it today so surely you have the link handy for quick reference.  Or do you not and just made the $#@! up on the fly like Donald would do?
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to your PNAC "thenewamerican" neocon link? lol


  Told you twice I wasn't gonna give you another handout. Progressives always want handouts. I helped you once. Taught you how to fish. Still you want me to catch a fish for you. Progressives constantly want others to do work they are capable of doing themselves. Or, maybe, they simply aren't capable of doing it themselves.
  Are you not capable?
   Is that what you are admitting to?

----------


## devil21

> Told you twice I wasn't gonna give you another handout. Progressives always want handouts. I helped you once. Taught you how to fish. Still you want me to catch a fish for you. Progressives constantly want others to do work they are capable of doing themselves. Or, maybe, they simply aren't capable of doing it themselves.
>   Are you not capable?
>    Is that what you are admitting to?


So....you got nothin', then.  The $650 was made up and the $512 washer was a damaged floor model.  Convincing!

----------


## Swordsmyth

Privately run Chinese firms bought at least 10 boatloads of U.S.  soybeans on Thursday, the country's most significant purchases since at  least June, traders said, ahead of high-level talks next month aimed at  ending a bilateral trade war that has lasted more than a year.The  soybean purchases, which at more than 600,000 tonnes were the largest  by Chinese private importers in more than a year, are slated for  shipment from U.S. Pacific Northwest export terminals from October to  December, two traders with knowledge of the deals said.


Benchmark Chicago Board of Trade soybean futures jumped to one-month  highs on Thursday, with the actively traded November contract in its  steepest rally since May.
Beijing this week renewed a promise to  buy U.S. agricultural goods such as pork and soybeans, the most valuable  U.S. farm export. Large agricultural product purchases are a key U.S.  stipulation for a trade deal, but the two sides remain far apart on  other issues..
Thursday's soybean deals were the largest among  private Chinese importers since Beijing raised import tariffs by 25% on  U.S. soybeans in July 2018 in retaliation for U.S. duties on Chinese  goods. Duties were raised an additional 5% this month.
Other  soybean purchases over the past year have been made almost exclusively  by state-owned Chinese firms which are exempted from the steep import  tariffs.
Beijing in July offered to exempt five private crushers  from import tariffs on U.S. beans arriving by the end of the year, but  very few deals took place before buying was suspended.
Earlier on Thursday Beijing said Chinese companies were inquiring about prices of agricultural goods.
"I'm  impressed that the day they allow their commercial interests to come  back and buy from the United States, here we've got this much sold  immediately," said Jack Scoville, vice president with Price Futures  Group in Chicago.


Also on Thursday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported  China bought 10,878 tonnes of U.S. pork in the week ended September 5,  the most in a single week since May.
U.S. meat traders have been  anticipating a pork shortage in China due to an outbreak of African  swine fever, a fatal pig disease that has reduced the Chinese herd by a  third since it arrived in the country more than a year ago. China is  therefore willing to make some U.S. purchases despite a 72% tariff.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-ahe...193044188.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So....you got nothin', then.  The $650 was made up and the $512 washer was a damaged floor model.  Convincing!


You've got nothing but your imagination and it isn't very good.

----------


## Swordsmyth

As  the U.S.-China trade war intensifies, an insurance company run by the  Chinese government is stepping in to support Chinese exporters,  providing low cost coverage and chasing down U.S. importers unwilling or  unable to pay mounting tariffs.China  Export & Credit Insurance Corp, known as Sinosure, has aggressively  increased its insurance of Chinese exporters since last year, according  to company sources and public data.
The  government-led aid is being carefully watched by trade experts who say  the practice may run afoul of World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments  or be challenged by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump,  who has railed against what he says are China's unfair trade practices.
Sinosure  has boosted the number of new clients by thousands since last August,  often relaxing its standards to do so, company data and two Sinosure  sources familiar with the standards say.
In some cases, local governments are even paying the premiums, the two sources say.
The  insurance policies help cushion companies from the risk of export deals  collapsing because of elevated duties on goods flowing between the  world's No.1 and No.2 economies.


Last  year, as the trade war started to bite, Sinosure's claim payouts surged  more than 40% to nearly $2 billion, according to data from the company,  which is owned by an investment company controlled by the finance  ministry.
Payouts are poised to climb further this year with tariffs rising, according the company's internal estimates.
The  payments stem from what one Sinosure official said was a growing number  of U.S. buyers of Chinese goods who were unwilling or unable to pay  higher prices for shipped goods. That has left some cargoes stranded at  U.S. ports, and Chinese exporters on the hook.
"We're  fulfilling our role as a policy insurer, not a for-profit commercial  institution," said the official who spoke on the condition of anonymity  because he was not authorised to talk to the media.
The Ministry of Finance, the ultimate parent of Sinosure, did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comments.


Dan  Harris, a lawyer who represents U.S. importers, said he has received  increasing requests for help dealing with Sinosure demands for payment  on behalf of Chinese exporters.
"Before  the trade war, I might go ... four, five months without getting a  Sinosure email, now I'm getting four or five a week," said Harris,  managing partner at international law firm Harris Bricken.
Sinosure  did not respond to Reuters' requests for information about its push to  support smaller exporters, but recent figures - some public and others  disclosed to Reuters - provide an insight.
In  2018, the total sum insured by Sinosure jumped 16.7% to a record $612  billion, the fastest annual pace in six years. Premium income rose just  6%, reflecting the non-commercial nature of many of Sinosure's insurance  policies.
Meanwhile,  claims payouts surged 41% to nearly $2 billion, the highest in  Sinosure's 18-year history, as loss recovery slumped 32% from the prior  year, company disclosures show.
As  a result, Sinosure saw its net profit tumble 42% last year to 359  million yuan ($50.5 million). That represents a return on equity of just  0.9%, according to Reuters calculations.
A  Sinosure source said the situation has deteriorated in 2019 as the  trade war escalates, with the United States by far the biggest source of  risk.


In  the first half of the year, non-payment cases involving U.S. buyers  surged 80% in Fujian, hitting the region's fishing, textile and garment  industries, said Sinosure. It has partnered with the local government to  offer free insurance for small businesses.

Other  cities and regions have also partnered with Sinosure subsidise or  refund premiums for smaller exporters exposed to the U.S. tariffs, a  Sinosure source said.
Sinosure  said it paid $25,000 compensation to a fish exporter in Fujian province  this year, after a U.S. buyer refused to pay the full bill for $89,000  worth of yellow croaker fish due to tariff hikes and complaints about  the fish quality.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trade...070812892.html

----------


## devil21

For someone that hates the left, you sure do like posting liberal Yahoo links.^^^^^^^^^

----------


## Swordsmyth

> For someone that hates the left, you sure do like posting liberal Yahoo links.^^^^^^^^^


Facts are facts and I take them from almost anywhere.
I don't tend to post many opinion pieces from leftist sources.

Nice try at distraction though.

----------


## devil21

> Facts are facts and I take them from almost anywhere.
> I don't tend to post many opinion pieces from leftist sources.
> 
> Nice try at distraction though.


Oh, I get it now.  The left only reports fake news when it's something that doesn't support your narrative.  Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Oh, I get it now.  The left only reports fake news when it's something that doesn't support your narrative.  Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.


LOL

You are pathetic.

----------


## devil21

> LOL
> 
> You are pathetic.


Seems you missed this Yahoo article, though.  Honest mistake I'm sure:

Trade war costing 300,000 jobs
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...194717808.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Seems you missed this Yahoo article, though.  Honest mistake I'm sure:
> 
> Trade war costing 300,000 jobs
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...194717808.html


That's fake news:




> *Forecasting* firm Moody’s Analytics* estimates* that Trump’s trade war with  China has already reduced U.S. employment by 300,000 jobs, compared  with *likely* employment levels absent the trade war.


I estimate Trump has saved 1,000,000 jobs.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Originally Posted by *Swordsmyth*  
> 
>  				J.P. Morgan estimates   that President Trumps tariffs will cost American families up to  $1,000  next year. We have heard this before and well hear it again.  But the  fact is that tariffs have not yetnor will they likelyincrease  the cost  of living.
>  Further, the myopic obsession with the  price of goods ignores the more  pressing problem: millions of Americans  remain chronically unemployed,  and millions more have been reduced to  surviving on part-time McJobs  and welfare. Turns out, cheap goods arent  so cheap if you dont have a  job.
> *Crying Wolf*
> 
>  Every time President Trump threatens to impose more tariffs on China   liberals lose their marbles. Tariffs will make Americans poor! Tariffs   will turn America into a fascist dictatorship! Tariffs willdare I say   it_ruin Christmas_!
> 
> 
> ...


 


> Originally Posted by *Swordsmyth*  
> 
> President Trumps tweet   that he was delaying by two weeks an increase of tariffs on some $250   billion of Chinese imports is right out of the Harvard Law Schools   Program on Negotiation (PON). Tweeted the President: At the request of   Vice Premier of China, Liu He, and due to the fact that the Peoples   Republic of China will be celebrating their 70th Anniversary on October   1st, we have agreed, as gesture of good will, to move the increased   Tariffs on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods (25% to 30%), from October   1st to October 15th.
>  This is laughable on its face but indicative of the sort of   hard-bargaining both sides are engaging in. Its laughable because only   the communists in China are celebrating that 70th anniversary of their   oppression of the Chinese people. Its a communist dictatorship, after   all, and any celebration will be carefully planned, managed, staged,  and  performed for a world press enamored by (and deceived by) claims  that  China has raised itself (all by itself) from third-world status to   first-world challenger to the United States.
> 
>   The PON rule? Extreme demands followed up by small, slow   concessions. This strategy, according to Harvard Law, protects   dealmakers from making concessions too quickly.
>  Its not the only rule Trump is following. Theres the delaying and   stalling technique, the precondition technique and the withdrawn   offer technique, among others.
>  Consider: Delaying implementation of the increase gives negotiators  on  both sides time to come to terms before the new deadline. It provides   additional incentive for the Chinese to hold serious conversations.   Its interesting to note that the Chinese negotiators are coming to   Washington for those preliminary conversations, another tactic of making   a minor concession in order to advance a major conversation.
>  China knows the rules. On Wednesday the communists published a short   list of American products that would be exempt from its own tariffs   (including shrimp, lubricants, alfalfa meal, and some other minor items)   in response to Trumps concession. Those tariffs were imposed by the   communists last July as part of the tit-for-tat game being played out   in the tariff war.
> ...





> As  the U.S.-China trade war intensifies, an insurance company run by the  Chinese government is stepping in to support Chinese exporters,  providing low cost coverage and chasing down U.S. importers unwilling or  unable to pay mounting tariffs.China  Export & Credit Insurance Corp, known as Sinosure, has aggressively  increased its insurance of Chinese exporters since last year, according  to company sources and public data.
> The  government-led aid is being carefully watched by trade experts who say  the practice may run afoul of World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments  or be challenged by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump,  who has railed against what he says are China's unfair trade practices.
> Sinosure  has boosted the number of new clients by thousands since last August,  often relaxing its standards to do so, company data and two Sinosure  sources familiar with the standards say.
> In some cases, local governments are even paying the premiums, the two sources say.
> The  insurance policies help cushion companies from the risk of export deals  collapsing because of elevated duties on goods flowing between the  world's No.1 and No.2 economies.
> 
> 
> Last  year, as the trade war started to bite, Sinosure's claim payouts surged  more than 40% to nearly $2 billion, according to data from the company,  which is owned by an investment company controlled by the finance  ministry.
> Payouts are poised to climb further this year with tariffs rising, according the company's internal estimates.
> ...


Bump

----------


## phill4paul

> Seems you missed this Yahoo article, though.  Honest mistake I'm sure:
> 
> Trade war costing 300,000 jobs
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...194717808.html


M$M deepstate yahoo? Like the articles Zip quoted decrying the death of American solar workers. Lol.




> The fastest-growing job over the next decade sounds like something out of a science fiction novel.
> 
> Solar photo-voltaic installers (or, just solar panel installers) will be in demand through 2028, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest employment projections. The bureau expects today’s 9,700 workers in the field will grow to 15,800 over the next 10 years, or a boost of 63%. Those who hold the role, which involves assembling, installing and maintaining solar panel systems on rooftops or other structures, earn a median salary of over $42,000 a year.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/thes...xt-decade.html

  Get the $#@! on out with your bull$#@!, Zip.

----------


## devil21

LOL just as predicted.  Fake news.

Never mind that your previous Yahoo article claimed the source as "two traders".

We are indeed in the Trumpian era, aren't we?





> M$M deepstate yahoo? Like the articles Zip quoted decrying the death of American solar workers. Lol.


I'm not Zippy but don't blame me.  I just cited the same "MSM deepstate yahoo" source as your buddy/alter-ego SS does, all the time.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL just as predicted.  Fake news.
> 
> Never mind that your previous Yahoo article claimed the source as "two traders".
> 
> We are indeed in the Trumpian era, aren't we?


One article reported actual facts from actual sources: "according  to company sources and *public data*.", "*company data* and two Sinosure  sources familiar with the standards say.", "*Dan  Harris*, a lawyer who represents U.S. importers, said he has received  increasing requests",  "*company disclosures* show.", "said Sinosure", and "Sinosure  said" and hurts the MSM narrative.

The other is gueswork from a biased source that supports the MSM narrative.

Now do you see why I said you are pathetic?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Privately run Chinese firms bought at least 10 boatloads of U.S.  soybeans on Thursday, the country's most significant purchases since at  least June, traders said, ahead of high-level talks next month aimed at  ending a bilateral trade war that has lasted more than a year.The  soybean purchases, which at more than 600,000 tonnes were the largest  by Chinese private importers in more than a year, are slated for  shipment from U.S. Pacific Northwest export terminals from October to  December, two traders with knowledge of the deals said.
> 
> 
> Benchmark Chicago Board of Trade soybean futures jumped to one-month  highs on Thursday, with the actively traded November contract in its  steepest rally since May.
> Beijing this week renewed a promise to  buy U.S. agricultural goods such as pork and soybeans, the most valuable  U.S. farm export. Large agricultural product purchases are a key U.S.  stipulation for a trade deal, but the two sides remain far apart on  other issues..
> Thursday's soybean deals were the largest among  private Chinese importers since Beijing raised import tariffs by 25% on  U.S. soybeans in July 2018 in retaliation for U.S. duties on Chinese  goods. Duties were raised an additional 5% this month.
> Other  soybean purchases over the past year have been made almost exclusively  by state-owned Chinese firms which are exempted from the steep import  tariffs.
> Beijing in July offered to exempt five private crushers  from import tariffs on U.S. beans arriving by the end of the year, but  very few deals took place before buying was suspended.
> Earlier on Thursday Beijing said Chinese companies were inquiring about prices of agricultural goods.
> ...


Bump

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I'm not Zippy but don't blame me.  I just cited the same "MSM deepstate yahoo" source as your buddy/alter-ego SS does, all the time.


You believe their opinions, that's something I am not stupid enough to do.

----------


## devil21

> You believe their opinions, that's something I am not stupid enough to do.


So you post articles from sources that you don't believe to be true?

Wow, did I just get SS to admit to posting propaganda and items he doesn't read?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So you post articles that you don't believe to be true?


I posted a fact based article, you posted an opinion article.


Your troll skills are degrading right before our very eyes, soon you will be reduced to "sounds legit" and "k" like a certain other troll.

----------


## devil21

> I posted a fact based article, you posted an opinion article.
> 
> 
> Your troll skills are degrading right before our very eyes, soon you will be reduced to "sounds legit" and "k" like a certain other troll.


So we're right back to whatever you post is fact, all else is fake news.  k, sounds legit. lol

Goebbels would be proud.

But alas I must sleep now.  It's been fun messing up your little narratives this evening.  Till next time...

----------


## Swordsmyth

So much for the trade war-driven inflation that anti-Trump-ers have  screamed about, both import and export prices in August declined more  than expected, extending their annual declines to a fourth straight  month.

 	Import prices dropped 0.5% MoM (-2.0% YoY) 	Export prices dropped 0.6% MoM (-1.4% YoY)
The 4th month in a row of YoY deflation...



So Trump remains right (for now), the US consumer is not paying higher prices due to his tariffs.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...-4th-month-row

----------


## Zippyjuan

> So much for the trade war-driven inflation that anti-Trump-ers have  screamed about, both import and export prices in August declined more  than expected, extending their annual declines to a fourth straight  month.
> 
>  	Import prices dropped 0.5% MoM (-2.0% YoY) 	Export prices dropped 0.6% MoM (-1.4% YoY)
> The 4th month in a row of YoY deflation...
> 
> 
> 
> So Trump remains right (for now), the US consumer is not paying higher prices due to his tariffs.
> 
> More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...-4th-month-row


The last time you posted that, we pointed out that that does not include any tariffs in the prices.  If the tariff is 15% and the price without tariffs went down 1.4% are you really paying less?  You are actually paying 11.3% more than you were in the absence of tariffs.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The last time you posted that, we pointed out that that does not include any tariffs in the prices.  If the tariff is 15% and the price before tariffs went down 1.4% are you really paying less?


It's just one of many ways the costs are being absorbed.

Still waiting for any evidence of a dramatic rise and any proof tariffs caused it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

_“But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is  conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks  up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and  bourgeoisies to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system  hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone,  gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade.” — Karl Marx, addressing the  Democratic Club, Brussels, Belgium; January 9, 1848_

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It's just one of many ways the costs are being absorbed.
> 
> Still waiting for any evidence of a dramatic rise and any proof tariffs caused it.


Been posted many times.  You choose to ignore it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Been posted many times.  You choose to ignore it.


WRONG.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Staffers from NPR (National Public Radio) went shopping at Walmart  to confirm that Trump’s tariffs are already costing American consumers a  lot of money. They couldn’t hide the results: The impact is hardly  noticeable.
 In announcing the results of a year-long study of prices at a local  Walmart, NPR boldly announced: “Shoppers beware: the tariffs will bite.”  The bite turned out to be a nibble.
 In August 2018, NPR staffers began tracking the prices on some 70  items at a Walmart store in Liberty County, Georgia, ranging from toilet  paper and black beans to lightbulbs and TVs. They learned that of those  70 common everyday items, only 24 of them saw increased prices, while  12 of them saw decreased prices, and the remaining 34 had no price  changes.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...s-big-surprise

----------


## phill4paul

> Staffers from NPR (National Public Radio) went shopping at Walmart  to confirm that Trump’s tariffs are already costing American consumers a  lot of money. They couldn’t hide the results: The impact is hardly  noticeable.
>  In announcing the results of a year-long study of prices at a local  Walmart, NPR boldly announced: “Shoppers beware: the tariffs will bite.”  The bite turned out to be a nibble.
>  In August 2018, NPR staffers began tracking the prices on some 70  items at a Walmart store in Liberty County, Georgia, ranging from toilet  paper and black beans to lightbulbs and TVs. They learned that of those  70 common everyday items, only 24 of them saw increased prices, while  12 of them saw decreased prices, and the remaining 34 had no price  changes.
> 
> More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...s-big-surprise


  Fake news. Zippy told me that all Americans will pay an extra $2k because of tariffs. And Zip knows more than everyone else so.....

----------


## devil21

^^^^^
NPR source article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/75371...mart-in-1-year




> Walmart did not comment for the story, but in May, the company warned that "increased tariffs will lead to increased prices for our customers." Last month, Walmart Chief Financial Officer Brett Biggs said the company has been able to "thoughtfully manage pricing and margins."
> 
> "We spread the impact across hundreds of thousands of items we have in the market," Walmart U.S. CEO Greg Foran told reporters at the time.


This would explain why Great Value brand yogurt went from $1 to $1.24 for no reason several months ago.  Creeping up prices on non-tariff items to prevent price shock on tariff items.  If the yogurt isn't in NPR's 70 item basket then that increase to offset tariff increases isn't considered at all, thus making the 70 item Walmart basket study mostly useless.

----------


## phill4paul

> ^^^^^
> NPR source article:
> https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/75371...mart-in-1-year
> 
> 
> 
> This would explain why Great Value brand yogurt went from $1 to $1.24 for no reason several months ago.  Creeping up prices on non-tariff items to prevent price shock on tariff items.  If the yogurt isn't in NPR's 70 item basket then that increase to offset tariff increases isn't considered at all, thus making the 70 item Walmart basket study mostly useless.


 


> 24 of them saw increased prices, while 12 of them saw *decreased prices*


    Guess they didn't spread it to those items.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> ^^^^^
> NPR source article:
> https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/75371...mart-in-1-year
> 
> 
> 
> This would explain why Great Value brand yogurt went from $1 to $1.24 for no reason several months ago.  Creeping up prices on non-tariff items to prevent price shock on tariff items.  If the yogurt isn't in NPR's 70 item basket then that increase to offset tariff increases isn't considered at all, thus making the 70 item Walmart basket study mostly useless.


WALMART is propagandizing for the ChiComs who they sold out to.


Where's the inflation?




> NPR, without explaining how, concluded that the overall costs of those  70 items tracked since last August have increased by three percent.  Whether they used “weighted” averages, or just ran a simple  addition-subtraction-division calculus, doesn’t really matter. In that  same period of time, the favorite measure of price increases used by the  Federal Reserve — the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, or  PCE — shows price increases across the board and across the land at  between 1.3 and 1.4 percent on an annual basis. If that is so, where is  the impact of Trump’s tariffs? Shouldn’t PCE be higher? According to the  U.S. Labor Department current inflation (read: price increases) rates  have been steadily dropping. Its latest read is that price increases  have slowed by one full percentage point since last August, when NPR  began its Walmart shopping.

----------


## devil21

> Guess they didn't spread it to those items.


Damaged floor model TVs?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Damaged floor model TVs?


That's not what NPR was looking at.

The items with lower prices are proof it is all ChiCom propaganda brought to you by their corporate accomplices.

----------


## Swordsmyth

The Koch network is lamenting that their campaign against President Donald Trump’s tariffs and trade war has largely failed,  as their talking points no longer carry much weight among a U.S.  right-wing that increasingly supports “America First” economics.
 “The argument that, you know, the tariffs are adding a couple  thousand dollars to the pickup truck that you’re buying is not  persuasive,” an unnamed senior Koch official said during a recent New  York briefing.
 “It doesn’t penetrate with the people that are willing to go along with the argument that you have to punish China,” they added.

The Koch network, which is run by globalist libertine ideologues who  have supported NAFTA and open borders for decades, is having a difficult  time pulling the wool over the eyes of Americans who actually value  their national sovereignty more than the almighty dollar.


“I think that we were wrong about how to change this one. We made a  bet that the kind of retail, running ads and rallies, that sort of  thing, to talk about the coming harm of tariffs, which we know is  coming, would be persuasive,” the same official said. “And we were wrong  about that.”
 The economic doom that the Kochs have claimed was coming has not  manifested itself, and 67 percent of Americans believe that China needs to be cut down to size  in terms of global trade. The influence-peddling campaign of the Koch  network has done nothing to shape public opinion on the issue.
 The Kochs are now tasked with devising a new angle to sell to the  American public. They are going to start by assembling approximately 100  corporate chieftains to mount a PR campaign for the restoration of the  status quo in trade. Their astroturfed network also aims to create  100,000 citizen lobbyists to convince legislators in Washington D.C. to  push back against Trump’s agenda.

Meanwhile, the President is preparing to take his trade war to  the next level as he remains undaunted by the immense institutional  opposition to his policies.
 “We cannot go back to a situation where [the U.S.] giving hundreds of  billions of dollars to China becomes standard fare. Not going to  happen,” Trump said at a North Carolina rally last week.
 The Koch network hopes to soften Trump’s resolve if they do not bring  an end to his presidency altogether. They have announced that they will  not be giving money to assist President Trump’s re-election hopes in  2020, and plan to support Democratic politicians during that crucial election cycle.
 Trump is aware of their malign influence and has called the Kochs out  publicly as disloyal for their recent abandonment of the Republican  Party:
 The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a  total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and  Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their  money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial  picks & more. I made…..
 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018 
 ….them richer. Their network is highly overrated,  I have beaten them at every turn. They want to protect their companies  outside the U.S. from being taxed, I’m for America First & the  American Worker – a puppet for no one. Two nice guys with bad ideas.  Make America Great Again!
 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018


More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/global...fs-has-failed/

----------


## Swordsmyth

Chinese importers purchased roughly 600,000 tons of U.S. soybeans after deputy-level trade discussions between the U.S. and China last week.
Benchmark U.S. soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade jumped more than 1 percent because of the news, Reuters reported on Monday.
The  soybeans will not be shipped out all at once. The roughly 10 boatloads  of soybeans will make their way to China between October and December,  according to Reuters.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/china-buys-60...174746057.html

----------


## devil21

More yahoo articles^^^^

Did you take your OATH?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Chinese importers purchased roughly 600,000 tons of U.S. soybeans after deputy-level trade discussions between the U.S. and China last week.
> Benchmark U.S. soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade jumped more than 1 percent because of the news, Reuters reported on Monday.
> The  soybeans will not be shipped out all at once. The roughly 10 boatloads  of soybeans will make their way to China between October and December,  according to Reuters.
> 
> More at: https://news.yahoo.com/china-buys-60...174746057.html


In December, they bought 13 million metric tons of soybeans.  Then Trump added tariffs and they ended purchases.  This is a drop in the bucket from what they bought before the trade war- only 200,000 metric tons a month.

https://moneyandmarkets.com/china-ha...hase-soybeans/

----------


## Anti Federalist

I've not taken the time to go through the whole thread, nor do I wish to engage in the never ending argument over whether the Orange Man is bad or good.

Just want to go on the record:

I support tariffs as a constitution means by which to raise revenue *and* promote domestic innovation and manufacturing.

I have for many years, I have in all the years here on this site, I will continue to hold that position in the future.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I've not taken the time to go through the whole thread, nor do I wish to engage in the never ending argument over whether the Orange Man is bad or good.
> 
> Just want to go on the record:
> 
> I support tariffs as a constitution means by which to raise revenue *and* promote domestic innovation and manufacturing.
> 
> I have for many years, I have in all the years here on this site, I will continue to hold that position in the future.


Tariffs are not the only allowable taxes according to the Constitution. 




> Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:* The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,* to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Note that there is a coma after "Taxes", not a colon.  That means Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect "Taxes and Duties and Imposts and Excises".

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Note that there is a coma after "Taxes", not a colon.  That means Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect "Taxes and Duties and Imposts and Excises".


If congressional power to impose any tax, of any kind, was absolute, why did it take a constitutional amendment to impose income taxation?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In December, they bought 13 million metric tons of soybeans.  Then Trump added tariffs and they ended purchases.  This is a drop in the bucket from what they bought before the trade war- only 200,000 metric tons a month.
> 
> https://moneyandmarkets.com/china-ha...hase-soybeans/


They don't need nearly so many soybeans now that most of their pigs are dead and we can sell to other buyers.
The point is that they are getting desperate enough to back off and start buying from us again while we are doing just fine.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Chicago Board of Trade soybean futures have been rising for the past 14  days, a total of +6.64%, on reports, China is granting new waivers to  several domestic state and private companies to purchase U.S. soybeans  without being subject to tariffs, according to Bloomberg.  The companies received waivers for between 2 million to 3 million tons,  sources told Bloomberg. Collectively, these firms bought 20 cargoes*, or about 1.2 million ton of the soybeans from the U.S. Pacific Northwest on Monday.* 

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...art-next-month

----------


## Swordsmyth

China said Thursday it has purchased a  “considerable” amount of U.S. soybeans and pork ahead of the next round  of trade talks in Washington.
Ministry of Commerce spokesperson  Gao Feng said at a press conference that the U.S. and China are  maintaining “close communication” in preparation for the negotiations  next month. He confirmed China has resumed its purchase of American farm  goods and said the tariffs on those orders will be exempted.

More at: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/chin...-products.html

----------


## devil21

> China said Thursday it has purchased a  considerable amount of U.S. soybeans and pork ahead of the next round  of trade talks in Washington.
> Ministry of Commerce spokesperson  Gao Feng said at a press conference that the U.S. and China are  maintaining close communication in preparation for the negotiations  next month. He confirmed China has resumed its purchase of American farm  goods and said the tariffs on those orders will be exempted.
> 
> More at: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/chin...-products.html


Subsidies _and_ sales?  Must be nice to make sales and get bailed out by taxpayers at the same time.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Subsidies _and_ sales?  Must be nice to make sales and get bailed out by taxpayers at the same time.


It's almost as nice as getting subsidized goods from China while getting welfare after the Chinese put you out of a job.

----------


## devil21

> It's almost as nice as getting subsidized goods from China while getting welfare after the Chinese put you out of a job.


It probably is.  Shame most of us that foot the bills don't benefit from either scenario.  I doubt anyone on RPF is receiving welfare payments or taxpayer bailouts.  I'm sure we have a few on the govt tit in other ways, however...

Where do I sign up to make sales as usual and still get giant taxpayer funded handouts?  Or does that double-dipping only apply to farm belt voters and corporations?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It probably is.  Shame most of us that foot the bills don't benefit from either scenario.  I doubt anyone on RPF is receiving welfare payments or taxpayer bailouts.  I'm sure we have a few on the govt tit in other ways, however...
> 
> Where do I sign up to make sales as usual and still get giant taxpayer funded handouts?  Or does that double-dipping only apply to farm belt voters and corporations?


We should oppose the bailouts and welfare for anyone, but letting China turn us into a giant welfare plantation is not an option.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Excluding food and energy, producer prices decreased 0.3% in  September from the prior month, compared with forecasts for a 0.2%  increase.
  Both headline and core PPI saw notable YoY slowdowns (although core PPI is at 2.0% or above for the 27th month in a row)...



Under the hood is *a sea of deflation...*

  The cost of goods fell 0.4% after dropping 0.5% the previous month.
*Nearly half of the September decline in prices for final  demand services can be traced to the index for machinery and vehicle  wholesaling,* which fell 2.7 percent. The indexes for automotive  fuels and lubricants retailing; apparel, jewelry, footwear, and  accessories retailing; airline passenger services; gaming receipts  (partial); and professional and commercial equipment wholesaling also  moved lower. Conversely, prices for hospital outpatient care rose 1.1  percent.
*Three-fourths of the September decrease in the index for final demand goods can be traced to prices for gasoline,* which  fell 7.2 percent. The indexes for electric power, iron and steel scrap,  basic organic chemicals, fresh and dry vegetables, and light motor  trucks also moved lower. Conversely, prices for meats rose 1.9 percent.
  Theoretically, this provides Powell with some more ammo for cutting rates BUT we note that *despite  all the mainstream media screaming over tariff-driven price surges  crushing the consumer - there is no evidence of it at all.*


More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...gest-drop-2015

----------


## phill4paul

> Excluding food and energy, producer prices decreased 0.3% in  September from the prior month, compared with forecasts for a 0.2%  increase.
>   Both headline and core PPI saw notable YoY slowdowns (although core PPI is at 2.0% or above for the 27th month in a row)...
> 
> 
> 
> Under the hood is *a sea of deflation...*
> 
>   The cost of goods fell 0.4% after dropping 0.5% the previous month.
> *Nearly half of the September decline in prices for final  demand services can be traced to the index for machinery and vehicle  wholesaling,* which fell 2.7 percent. The indexes for automotive  fuels and lubricants retailing; apparel, jewelry, footwear, and  accessories retailing; airline passenger services; gaming receipts  (partial); and professional and commercial equipment wholesaling also  moved lower. Conversely, prices for hospital outpatient care rose 1.1  percent.
> ...


   STILL not out tariffed. And none of the 'doom and gloom' scenarios have come to fruition. Lol.

----------


## Swordsmyth

In a time when China is losing between a third and half of its pig  herds as a result of the unprecedented decimation unleashed by African  swine fever - less affectionately known as _pig ebola_ - which has sent wholesale pork prices in China soaring to all time highs...


  ... and prompted local farmers to breed pigs the size of polar bears...


  ... China is increasingly finding itself at America's mercy.
  As Bloomberg reports, as China's hog herd is collapsing, Beijing's imports of U.S. pork exploded to a weekly record.
  According to USDA data, in the week ended Oct. 3, pig imports soared  to 142,200 metric tons, more than 7 times greater than September's total  shipments of 19,900 tons.

  China signaled it may import as much as 400,000 tons to stem a  domestic shortfall, and it now appears that the US may be the easiest  source of said pigs, which needless to say grants the US substantial  leverage in the ongoing trade talks. The swine fever outbreak killed  millions of pigs. The country also appeared poised to boost purchases of  agriculture products as a good-will gesture before talks between  Washington and Beijing on easing trade tensions.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ch...ces-pig-crisis

----------


## Swordsmyth

*US Consumer Price Growth Slows*

----------


## devil21

Remember all that talk about China buying 50billion in soybeans?  I know this will be shocking but that was......

FAKE NEWS

China buying Brazil's soybeans out-of-season, not American soybeans
https://www.zerohedge.com/commoditie...us-trade-talks




> Chinese state-owned firms COFCO and Sinograin, which are exempt from US tariffs, have no intention of purchasing US soybeans unless spot prices drop, said one of the exporters.
> 
> After the Trump administration spent several weeks pumping the stock market on headlines describing China repurchasing soybeans, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Thursday finally admitted that for China to buy $50 billion worth of US agriculture good, it would depend on spot prices.
> 
> On Tuesday, China said that it would struggle to buy $50 billion of US agriculture products if the Trump administration doesn't remove retaliatory tariffs on some products. Something that President Trump cannot afford to do because it would allow China to continue its ascension as a global superpower.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Remember all that talk about China buying 50billion in soybeans?  I know this will be shocking but that was......
> 
> FAKE NEWS
> 
> China buying Brazil's soybeans out-of-season, not American soybeans
> https://www.zerohedge.com/commoditie...us-trade-talks


It's just their attempt to get us to keep letting them rob us, they are choosing self destruction over playing fair.
We will be fine without them, they will collapse without us, that's always the way it is with a parasite and its host.

----------


## devil21

Looks like what's really happening is that China isn't buying American soybeans, the Trump administration is simply lying to keep markets afloat and voters subdued, while small farmers are going bankrupt from lack of sales and no bailouts.  The Feds are passing out the billions in bailout money to the factory corporate farms, who are in turn using that bailout money to buy up those neighboring small distressed farms.

Eventually, the production of much of these factory corporate farms will be sent to China to feed their populations, while American's food prices continue to rise due to dollar devaluation and emerging food scarcity.  The small farmer, by then, will have been squeezed out entirely.   #MAGA?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Looks like what's really happening is that China isn't buying American soybeans, the Trump administration is simply lying to keep markets afloat and voters subdued, while small farmers are going bankrupt from lack of sales and no bailouts.  The Feds are passing out the billions in bailout money to the factory corporate farms, who are in turn using that bailout money to buy up those neighboring small distressed farms.
> 
> Eventually, the production of much of these factory corporate farms will be sent to China to feed their populations, while American's food prices continue to rise due to dollar devaluation and emerging food scarcity.  The small farmer, by then, will have been squeezed out entirely.   #MAGA?


LOL

The Chinese lie and it's Trump's fault?

Farms are doing just fine, soybean prices are typical and any trouble some farms may be having is due to other factors.
And the damage the Chinese were doing to the rest of our economy was far worse than anything the farms may experience from China trying to blackmail us into continuing the status quo that allows them to rob us blind.

China is destroying itself and America will only get better as we reverse the destruction caused by years of allowing them to prey on us.

----------


## devil21

It still apparently hasn't sunk in yet to most that all of this is about managing the unwinding of the global dollar reserve standard.  The bankers that surround Trump will NEVER outright state (or let him state it, assuming he even knows) this fact.  Dollar recycling through China, Saudi petrodollar, etc.  Until one accepts that these are all various cover stories, symptoms and outright FAKE NEWS lies, to veil the global banker's intentional unwinding of the global dollar, they will remain reactionary, easily led by media and pretty much clueless to what's really going on.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It still apparently hasn't sunk in yet to most that all of this is about managing the unwinding of the global dollar reserve standard.  The bankers that surround Trump will NEVER outright state (or let him state it, assuming he even knows) this fact.  Dollar recycling through China, Saudi petrodollar, etc.  Until one accepts that these are all various cover stories, symptoms and outright FAKE NEWS lies, to veil the global banker's intentional unwinding of the global dollar, they will remain reactionary, easily led by media and pretty much clueless to what's really going on.

----------


## Swordsmyth

China buys 264,000 tons of U.S. soybeans

----------


## Swordsmyth

Is the Trump trade war finally working?
  The US trade balance (deficit) shrank in September (from -$55.0bn to -$52.5bn),* improving by 6.5% YoY - the biggest shrinkage in the deficit since Sept 2016...*



Overall exports decreased 0.9% to $206 billion while imports slid 1.7% to $258.4 billion.
*Trade with China has tumbled since the tariff war began in earnest in 2018.* In  the first nine months of 2019, merchandise imports from China are down  13.5% and exports to the country have dropped 14.6%, according to  Commerce Department data.
  The trade balance with China improved sequentially for the second month in a row, and has *improved YoY for nine months in a row...*



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...-trade-tumbles

----------


## Swordsmyth

Following yesterday's mixed picture for consumer prices, producer  prices are expected to rebound from September's shocking plunge and it  did, beating expectations of a 0.3% MoM jump (but year-over-year growth  in PPI slipped to +1.1% - the lowest since September 2016).



*A major factor in the advance in the index for  final demand  services were margins for apparel, jewelry, footwear, and accessories  retailing, which rose 2.6 percent*. The indexes for outpatient  care (partial), inpatient care, food wholesaling, food and alcohol  retailing,  and truck transportation of freight also moved higher.

 *In contrast, prices for securities  brokerage, dealing,  investment advice, and related services dropped 8.4 percent as they  introduced zero-fees/commission...*



Additionally,* prices for iron and steel scrap fell 15.7 percent.* The indexes for chicken eggs and passenger cars also declined.

  Core PPI rose 0.3% MoM but also slipped on a YoY basis to its coldest since March 2017...



Once again, Trump's tariffs have done nothing to drive prices higher as every establishment economist decried.

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...eakest-3-years

----------


## Swordsmyth

President Donald Trump collected a win in the ongoing trade war with  China on Thursday as the communist nation announced that it was lifting a  five-year ban on U.S. poultry effective immediately.
“The  decision out of Beijing is effective immediately and the announcement  sent shares of major U.S. chicken processers, Sanderson Farms, Tyson  Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride to new highs for the year Thursday,” The  Associated Press reported. “The Chinese market looks especially  promising for U.S. poultry producers because an outbreak of African  swine fever has devastated a competing protein in China: pork.”

More at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump...ar-with-china/

----------


## Swordsmyth

Walmart announces great numbers. No impact from  Tariffs (which are contributing $Billions to our Treasury). Inflation  low (do you hear that Powell?)!
 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 14, 2019

----------


## Swordsmyth

The Trump administration declared another victory for U.S. farmers Thursday as it worked to convince Brazil to implement an annual duty-free tariff quote for wheat.
A tariff rate quota is  a mechanism that countries use to agree to provide minimum import  opportunities for products previously protected by non-tariff barriers.  Under the system, imports within the quota are subject to lower tariff  rates —or no duties — while higher rates are implemented above the  concessionary level.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer  and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said Brazil will import  750,000 metric tons of U.S. wheat duty-free, before the tariffs kick in,  which are typically imposed at a rate of 10 percent.

“We are excited about the additional export opportunity U.S. wheat  farmers will have with the opening of this TRQ,” Perdue said in a  statement referring to tariff rate quotas. “Exports are critical to the  success of our farmers and the United States looks forward to once again  having stable access to this important wheat market.”

Brazil had committed to implementing the quota for wheat imports when it  became a member of the World Trade Organization in 1994. According to  the administration, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro promised Trump  earlier this year that he would implement the quota.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/wheat-exports...003834339.html

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Walmart announces great numbers. No impact from  Tariffs *(which are contributing $Billions to our Treasury)*. Inflation  low (do you hear that Powell?)!
>   Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 14, 2019


Billions collected from US companies and consumers.

Yay!  Higher taxes! More winning!

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The Trump administration declared another victory for U.S. farmers Thursday as it worked to convince Brazil to implement an annual duty-free tariff quote for wheat.
> A tariff rate quota is  a mechanism that countries use to agree to provide minimum import  opportunities for products previously protected by non-tariff barriers.  Under the system, imports within the quota are subject to lower tariff  rates —or no duties — while higher rates are implemented above the  concessionary level.
> U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer  and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said Brazil will import  750,000 metric tons of U.S. wheat duty-free, before the tariffs kick in,  which are typically imposed at a rate of 10 percent.
> 
> “We are excited about the additional export opportunity U.S. wheat  farmers will have with the opening of this TRQ,” Perdue said in a  statement referring to tariff rate quotas. “Exports are critical to the  success of our farmers and the United States looks forward to once again  having stable access to this important wheat market.”
> 
> Brazil had committed to implementing the quota for wheat imports when it  became a member of the World Trade Organization in 1994. According to  the administration, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro promised Trump  earlier this year that he would implement the quota.
> 
> More at: https://news.yahoo.com/wheat-exports...003834339.html


Actually the quota is for all wheat from outside Brazil- not just the US. Countries it may help include the US, Russia, and Canada which would all share portions of the duty free quota.. Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay  are in a treaty group which is already exempt from the 10% tariff.  They import about seven million tonnes a year so this would only affect about ten percent of imports. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/braz...-idUSL2N26E0J1




> SAO PAULO, Sept 23 (Reuters) - Brazil plans to introduce a 750,000-tonne tariff-free quota for wheat imports from countries outside of the South American Mercosur trade bloc in November, a government official said on Monday.
> 
> Flavio Bettarello, the agriculture ministry’s assistant secretary for trade and foreign relations, told an industry conference that enforcing the new tariff-free quota could help Brazil add new suppliers,* including the United States and Russia*.





> “Millers require we are open to world markets to get the best wheat at the best cost possible,” Eduardo Assencio, Abitrigo general superintendent, said on the sidelines of the conference.
> 
> Brazil currently levies a 10% tariff on all wheat imports from outside Mercosur,* which also includes Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay*.





> Brazilian wheat millers visited Russia recently to get to know that wheat better.
> 
> But they are* working to clear a restriction imposed by the Brazilian government for the Russian wheat,* one that states the product must be processed at mills located near ports.



https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sect...94ed9be4d.html




> In some years, Brazil has* imported as little as 115,000 metric tons of U.S. hard red winter and soft red winter wheat.*
> 
> Brazil does not purchase soft white wheat from the Pacific Northwest. Freight distances and rates from the region to the East Coast of South America are prohibitive, Mercer said.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Billions collected from US companies and consumers.
> 
> Yay!  Higher taxes! More winning!


The Chinese trade warfare is being neutralized and the market restored to its natural state.
And you are the one who always complains about tax cuts..............................except when it comes to the best kind of taxes (tariffs) that also are defending against enemy economic warfare.

----------


## devil21

> Walmart announces great numbers. No impact from  Tariffs (which are contributing $Billions to our Treasury). Inflation  low (do you hear that Powell?)!
>  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 14, 2019


Walmart's great numbers are because of higher prices.  More revenue+stock buybacks=higher EPS price beats and revenue beats.

Walmart already admitted that to offset sticker-shock price increases in some goods they have raised prices on other goods, mainly low priced but high volume items like food items, so that the price increase impact is felt less on an individual customer basis.  IOW, spread out the overall increases wider and smaller....mile wide but an inch deep. The gross overall increase in prices is still reported in Walmart's top and bottom line numbers.  I buy a few food items at Walmart and have observed what they're doing.  High volume, low priced items like Gatorade, cheese, yogurt, etc were price hiked about 25% over the last year.

----------


## Krugminator2



----------


## devil21

> NPR wanted to find that but they ended up debunking it, don't you remember?
> 
> Staffers from NPR (National Public Radio) went shopping at Walmart   to confirm that Trump’s tariffs are already costing American consumers  a  lot of money. They couldn’t hide the results: The impact is hardly   noticeable.
>  In announcing the results of a year-long study of prices at a local   Walmart, NPR boldly announced: “Shoppers beware: the tariffs will bite.”   The bite turned out to be a nibble.
>  In August 2018, NPR staffers began tracking the prices on some 70   items at a Walmart store in Liberty County, Georgia, ranging from toilet   paper and black beans to lightbulbs and TVs. They learned that of  those  70 common everyday items, only 24 of them saw increased prices,  while  12 of them saw decreased prices, and the remaining 34 had no  price  changes.
> 
> More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...s-big-surprise


Yes I remember that nonsense study.  Their (you trust NPR now?) basket didn't include the low priced, high volume food items that I specifically mentioned as having large % price increases at the same time as Walmart's "thoughtful" price management process was being implemented.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes I remember that nonsense study.  Their (you trust NPR now?) basket didn't include the low priced, high volume food items that I specifically mentioned as having large % price increases at the same time as Walmart's "thoughtful" price management process was being implemented.


I trust that they are always anti-Trump and that if they are forced to report something in his favor then things must be even better than that.

Nobody has shown that prices are rising significantly or that any rises can be traced to the tariffs.
The Chinese don't sell us much food and they lower their prices on the things they do sell us to keep their marketshare as best they can.

----------


## devil21

> I trust that they are always anti-Trump and that if they are forced to report something in his favor then things must be even better than that.
> 
> *Nobody has shown that prices are rising significantly or that any rises can be traced to the tariffs.*
> The Chinese don't sell us much food and they lower their prices on the things they do sell us to keep their marketshare as best they can.


Except the part where Walmart admitted it.  I think that's earlier in the thread somewhere.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Except the part where Walmart admitted it.  I think that's earlier in the thread somewhere.


They claimed it would happen because the Chinese pressured them along with lots of other companies with ties to China but it hasn't happened.

----------


## Zippyjuan

WalMart actually gets most of their revenue these days from food items- 56%.  Those have not been hit by much in tariffs so their profit report was good. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-w...-idUSKCN1V514R




> The retailer gets 56% of its revenue from food and grocery sales, which allows it to manage the pressure from tariffs better than many rivals, analysts said.
> 
> In an interview on Thursday, Chief Financial Officer Brett Biggs said Walmart* has raised prices on some items due to these tariffs, but it is not passing all the cost pressure it faces to consumers*.





> A* Walmart shopping trip was 5.2% more expensive in June than a year earlier*, according to Gordon Haskett Research Advisors, which compared prices on a basket of about 76 identical items over the past year.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> WalMart actually gets most of their revenue these days from food items- 56%.  Those have not been hit by much in tariffs so their profit report was good. 
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-w...-idUSKCN1V514R


And yet devil tells us that NPR didn't include food but they found not only little or no rise in prices but also price drops.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yes I remember that nonsense study.  Their (you trust NPR now?) basket didn't include the* low priced, high volume food items* that I specifically mentioned as having large % price increases at the same time as Walmart's "thoughtful" price management process was being implemented.


High volume food items are usually "loss leaders".  Companies sell them for less than the cost to get customers in to buy other things to go along with them. Bananas, bread and milk are typical "loss leaders".  And again, those items are not currently subject to tariffs. (Basket does include quite a few food items:  https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/75371...r#res758080141 )





> "*We spread the impact across hundreds of thousands of items we have in the market,*" Walmart U.S. CEO Greg Foran told reporters at the time.





> *Food prices — another category with some major price jumps in NPR's basket — are some of the trickiest to analyze. They fluctuate a lot and get influenced by many factors besides tariffs.*
> 
> For example, higher price tags on cod and cabbage had more to do with bad weather and low catch rates than the trade war, said Food Institute President Brian Todd.
> 
> On the other end of the spectrum, China's retaliatory tariffs against U.S. products helped drive down prices on pork and some seafood. China restricting imports from the U.S. left North American companies with a glut to sell domestically. "*We lost an export market*, so there's more here," Todd said.
> 
> At the same time, higher prices for garlic — they soared 53% — actually illustrate tariffs working as intended.
> 
> China had been the biggest exporter of garlic to the U.S., and domestic garlic growers have long argued they were being undercut by cheaper Chinese competition.* Now that Chinese garlic faces higher tariffs, domestic companies can charge higher prices*.

----------


## devil21

> High volume food items are usually "loss leaders".  Companies sell them for less than the cost to get customers in to buy other things to go along with them. Bananas, bread and milk are typical "loss leaders".  And again, those items are not currently subject to tariffs. (Basket does include quite a few food items:  https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/75371...r#res758080141 )


So you're telling me that Gatorade, cheese, yogurt and other items jumped in price around 25% due to inflation/dollar losing value instead of tariffs?  Interesting.  Never expected to see you chalking up price increases to dollar purchasing power losses but ok.




> And yet devil tells us that NPR didn't include food but they found not only little or no rise in prices but also price drops.


70 items was their basket, iirc.  Hardly a definitive study, plus they admitted that prices DID rise on many of the 70 items.  You keep saying prices didn't rise but that's not what their test said.  Then they asked Walmart and Walmart _admitted_ that they "thoughtfully" managed price increases.  So yes prices did rise.  How it was perceived by customers was the issue, not whether there were rises or not.  Walmart admitted to increased prices.  Go ahead and post the NPR article...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So you're telling me that Gatorade, cheese, yogurt and other items jumped in price around 25% due to inflation/dollar losing value instead of tariffs?  Interesting.  Never expected to see you chalking up price increases to dollar purchasing power losses but ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 70 items was their basket, iirc.  Hardly a definitive study, plus they admitted that prices DID rise on many of the 70 items.  You keep saying prices didn't rise but that's not what their test said.  Then they asked Walmart and Walmart _admitted_ that they "thoughtfully" managed price increases.  So yes prices did rise.  How it was perceived by customers was the issue, not whether there were rises or not.  Walmart admitted to increased prices.  Go ahead and post the NPR article...


Tell me about the prices that dropped.
And I didn't say no rise, I said little or no rise.
It also hasn't been shown that any rise is the result of tariffs.

----------


## devil21

> Tell me about the prices that dropped.
> And I didn't say no rise, I said little or no rise.
> It also hasn't been shown that any rise is the result of tariffs.


Post the NPR article and we'll see whether Walmart admitted to price increases due to tariffs or not.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Post the NPR article and we'll see whether Walmart admitted to price increases due to tariffs or not.


You post it if you want, I recently reposted it so it shouldn't be hard for you to find.

But what Walmart says is hardly trustworthy, they will say anything China tells them to because they sold their souls to China long ago.

----------


## devil21

> You post it if you want, I recently reposted it so it shouldn't be hard for you to find.
> 
> But what Walmart says is hardly trustworthy, they will say anything China tells them to because they sold their souls to China long ago.


LOL, so now Walmart is lying and NPR is telling the truth?  Strange days in Swordy's world.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL, so now Walmart is lying and NPR is telling the truth?  Strange days in Swordy's world.


Walmart lying is not so strange and I already said that NPR was probably twisting things against Trump as far as they could but still were forced to report something not bad for him.

----------


## devil21

> Walmart lying is not so strange and I already said that NPR was probably twisting things against Trump as far as they could but still were forced to report something not bad for him.


The other night I watched an episode of Explained on Netlfix about cults.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9689036/?ref_=ttep_ep1

I had to laugh because when the show went down the checklist of how cults are created, your Trumpkin rhetoric (and the cult of Trump as a whole) literally ticked every box in the step-by-step process.

----------


## fcreature

> The other night I watched an episode of Explained on Netlfix about cults.


LOL

You really sourcing from a show produced by Vox right now?



Enjoy your liberal statist propaganda.

----------


## devil21

> LOL
> 
> You really sourcing from a show produced by Vox right now?
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy your liberal statist propaganda.


You disagree that is how cults are created?  Seems pretty nonpartisan, regardless of who produced the show.  Politics/Trump wasn't mentioned once.

In fact, it applied just as easily to the cult of Obama as it does the cult of Trump.  Perhaps the revelation is that mainstream politics is nothing more than mass cult-building?

----------


## Swordsmyth

As Michael Pillsbury pointed out in his monumental _Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower_,  the communists running China expect their economy to be triple the size  of the U.S. economy in 2049, the 100th anniversary of their 1949  takeover.

  But what if the numbers emanating from China’s controlled media are  wrong? What if China’s economy isn’t 70 percent the size of the U.S.  economy, but is actually vastly smaller? Equally important is this: What  if the U.S. economy is growing faster than forecasters are predicting?
 University of Michigan economists just trumpeted: “Get ready for a  continued slowdown ahead, as [U.S.] growth slides from 2.9% a year ago  to 2.3% this year, and to 1.7% in 2020-21.”
 The economists claim that new home construction “boosted GDP by  nearly two-tenths of a percentage point in the third quarter.” According  to the _Wall Street Journal_, however, the housing market is  even stronger, with existing home sales jumping nearly two percent in  the month of October compared to September, and nearly five percent  compared to a year ago. October marked the fourth straight month of  year-over-year gains in existing home sales. This, coupled with  home-builder confidence touching recent highs, new home construction  climbing nearly four percent last month from September, and the rise in  residential construction permits in October, bodes well for the U.S.  economy to outperform the experts at UMich.
 Those are real numbers. The numbers from China? Not so much.  Professor Luis Martinez at the University of Chicago thinks that China’s  numbers way overstate reality  in that totalitarian communist dictatorship where for 40 years it’s  been in the best interests of the rulers to make things look better on  paper than they are in reality. In his study “How Much Should We Trust  the Dictator’s GDP Growth Estimates?,” updated in August, Martinez  concluded: “GDP growth statistics are self-reported by governments and  prone to manipulation, while the nighttime lights recorded by satellites  from outer space are not.”
 To see for yourself what Marinez means when he says “nighttime  lights” show how economies look from outer space, check out the National  Geographic’s Night Satellite Photos of the Earth.
 Continues Martinez:
 The magnitude of this [economic]  manipulation is substantial. I estimate that the most authoritarian  regimes inflate yearly GDP growth rates on average by a factor of 1.15  to 1.3.
 Adjustment of the GDP growth figures for  manipulation changes our understanding of relative economic performance  at the turn of the 21st century and downplays the apparent economic  success of countries with non-democratic forms of government [i.e.,  China].
 Martinez then calculates that China’s GDP isn’t $15 trillion, but  half that, at “roughly $7.5 trillion.” That means that China’s economy  isn’t 70 percent the size of the U.S. economy, but less than a third.
 This means that Chinese communists’ goal of having an economy triple  that of the U.S. by 2049 will just be another “five-year plan” gone  awry.
 This mathematical dance is in no way intended to diminish or  otherwise minimize the threat to America posed by the thugs and tyrants  ruling China. It means that in the real world, China is a much smaller  presence than it declares itself to be.
 It is likely that President Trump is aware of all of this, which  explains why he is very happy to wait for the Chinese to come to his  table for serious negotiations, and if not, then he'll continue to  ratchet up the tariffs until they do. 

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...l-with-the-u-s

----------


## Swordsmyth

*The Trump administration can declare a minor victory in the trade war.* It is not yet a victory over China. It’s a victory over the Federal Reserve.
 A trio of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have posted  an article on the bank’s blog, Liberty Street Economics, that  challenges the claim that U.S. households are paying for tariffs on  Chinese imports.
   Five months ago, Liberty Street Economics wrote  about a controversial study that claimed to show the tariffs were  costing American households hundreds of dollars a year in the form of  higher prices for imported goods. That study was at odds, however, with  data on consumer prices, which have down no evidence of price hikes due  to tariffs.
 The key flaw in the earlier study was that it assumed that the fact  that import prices were not falling to offset the higher import duties  meant that the duties must be passed on to U.S. consumers. Breitbart  News pointed out that this was a wrong-headed reading of the data on import prices.
[T]he economists derived unit prices of imports hit by  tariffs by simply dividing the value by the quantity. What they found is  that, even though the quantities of imports subject to tariffs had  fallen, the unit prices had not.
 Since someone must be paying the tariffs, the economists decided that  U.S. importers must be paying them—and then passing on the costs to  consumers. Note that they do not have direct evidence of either of these  things. The idea that the importers are paying is just an inference  from the unit price data and the idea that the tariffs are passed  through to consumers is based on nothing more than an assumption that  higher producer prices must get passed along to consumers.
 The first problem with the study is that it is too reliant on  reported import prices—and these are not very reliable, especially in  the immediate aftermath of tariff changes.
 Import values are supposed to be based on the actual prices paid by  importers to foreign manufacturers, less the cost of insurance and  shipping. But around one-quarter of all imports from China are valued  under a different methodology because they are transactions between  related parties—foreign arms of multinational corporations. The official  values of these imports tend to be sticky because they have to be  estimated according to various customs rules because the U.S. government  is wary that companies will underprice imports to dodge any duties  imposed. This puts upward pressure on reported values, at least  temporarily.The new post from the New York Fed acknowledges this:
Affiliates of multinational corporations may be leaving  reported import prices unchanged for accounting reasons. In doing so,  the multinational would be letting higher tariffs reduce the reported  profits of its U.S. operation (rather than those of its Chinese  operation).Breitbart News also highlighted that the study simply assumed that  the tariffs could and would be passed on the U.S. consumers rather than  absorbed by importers in the form of narrower margins.
 The latest New York Fed blog post also acknowledges that economists do not know if tariff costs will be passed on:
Who pays the tariff tax depends on how it is split  between lower profit margins (for wholesalers, retailers, and  manufacturers) and higher prices for consumers. Estimating this  split is difficult since the distribution of any tax increase on profit  margins and prices depends on the details of market structure, such as  the number and size of competing firms.Another problem with the earlier Fed study was that it did not give enough weight to the cost of lost business to China.
The second problem is that the economists missed a very  important way China is paying for the tariffs: in lost sales. Imports of  tariffed goods fell sharply, according to the paper. This is partly  because U.S. consumers bought more items produced domestically, and  partly because multinationals shifted their supply chains to avoid the  tariffs, moving production from China to Vietnam or Mexico. These lost  sales are a cost to China—an indication that China is paying a price for  the tariffs.Now the Fed has corrected this oversight. Indeed, China’s share of U.S. imports is crashing.
 Regardless of whether consumers or businesses bear the  burden, sustained high tariffs on Chinese goods will encourage a search  for alternative suppliers. The chart below shows the change in China’s  share of total U.S. imports by product category relative to 2017.  China’s market share has already fallen by roughly 2 percentage points  for machinery and electrical equipment and by close to 6 percentage  points for electronics. A broader look at the trade data shows that  China’s lost market share has gone largely to Europe and Japan for  machinery and to Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam for  electronics and electrical equipment.


More at: https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...u-s-consumers/

----------


## Swordsmyth

The New York Federal Reserve made a quiet admission two days ago that  was missed by almost all financial media.  In the NY Fed economic blog  they admitted everyone was wrong, President Trumps 2017 tariffs against  China did not lead to increased U.S. consumer prices [Read Here].   The Fed also said imports of the Chinese products affected by U.S.  tariffs have fallen by an annualized $75 billion. Thats a huge chunk of  business U.S. purchasers have shifted to Japan and other Southeast  Asian countries.




Within this dynamic lays the real reason why Beijing cannot wait for a  2020 election hoping that Biden or Bloomberg can stop their bleeding.   Before going into more depth, this brief explainer from Charles Payne  will help establish a framework.  WATCH:
 What Payne outlines is correct; however, the internal Chinese  tariff-offset dynamic is actually even a little deeper.  Overlaying  the NY Fed research we can see that Beijing has attempted to offset the  Trump tariffs in four majority ways:

A devaluation of their currency by roughly 10% since the tariffs  were implemented.  This makes the dollar a higher value when  purchasing.  The U.S. dollar purchases more stuff.Direct subsidies by the communist control authority.  That is a  direct payment to the exporting Chinese company to offset the drop in  prices they may need to be competitive.Indirect subsidies.  Remember, China is a communist system.  Beijing  can tell a province to cancel the electricity bill to a company within  that province.  Beijing absorbs the cost.Incentives for enhanced end-product delivery.  As Payne noted in the  video the Chinese company just give the purchaser more stuff at the  same price.  That additional stuff offsets the tariff cost.   This free  stuff shows up in new contract terms.
 All of this is an effort by China to diminish the impact of U.S.  tariffs against their exports.  However, all of this cumulative effort,  while small in the individual pieces, when added up is a big economic  cost to Beijing.  Thus the overall economic loss is starting to snowball  as the accumulation of offsets is beginning to aggregate.  They cannot  continue indefinitely.
 China is suffering a slow death by a thousand paper-cuts.  The  bleeding of cash in combination with the direct loss of $75 billion in  annualized exported products that U.S. companies have now sourced from  alternative ASEAN nations is biting hard.
 The direct outcome is also a drop in Chinas purchasing of industrial  goods they would normally use in the manufacturing process.  This lack  of Chinese purchasing is one of the top reasons for the stall in the  European economy.

More at: https://theconservativetreehouse.com...nd-paper-cuts/

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Well, it's been about a year and a half.

How's this working?

Has China collapsed, surrendered, and built a monument to Trump yet?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Well, it's been about a year and a half.
> 
> How's this working?
> 
> Has China collapsed, surrendered, and built a monument to Trump yet?


We are winning.

You can read about China losing and getting closer to collapse here:

*Charting China's Imminent Implosion*

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We are winning.
> 
> You can read about China losing and getting closer to collapse here:
> 
> *Charting China's Imminent Implosion*


Winning would mean China and the US not only reversing the recent tariff increases, but lowering tariffs to below the ante bellum levels, right?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Winning would mean China and the US not only reversing the recent tariff increases, but lowering tariffs to below the ante bellum levels, right?


That or China collapsing if it refuses to play fair.
They can't destroy us and turn us into a communist country if they collapse.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That or China collapsing if it refuses to play fair.
> They can't destroy us and turn us into a communist country if they collapse.


1. Any predictions as to when that that might happen?

2. Are you sure that the collapse of a society containing 1/5th of humanity would be a good thing? 

3. How is China turning the US communist (is China the one not vetoing the spending bills)?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> 1. Any predictions as to when that that might happen?


Within Trump's two terms.




> 2. Are you sure that the collapse of a society containing 1/5th of humanity would be a good thing?


Yes, just as the collapse of the USSR or the Jacobin regime in France were good.
China is presently set on imposing a global tyranny that would crush humanity for generations.




> 3. How is China turning the US communist (is China the one not vetoing the spending bills)?


By destroying our economy so that people are susceptible to communist propaganda, bribing our politicians and interfering in our politics, culture and education system to spread communism.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Within Trump's two terms.


I guess you better reelect him..




> Yes, just as the collapse of the USSR or the Jacobin regime in France were good.
> China is presently set on imposing a global tyranny that would crush humanity for generations.


China isn't a communist state, no matter how many times those looking for scapegoats claim otherwise. 

It is, however, a powerful state, which is going to be a problem for those in DC who wish to dominate the world. 




> By destroying our economy so that people are susceptible to communist propaganda, bribing our politicians and interfering in our politics, culture and education system to spread communism.


Well, that's one theory.

Another is that the US is declining due to long-standing internal problems, which long pre-date Mao, let alone the recent rise of China as a power.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I guess you better reelect him..


It's in the bag.
And we can elect Don Jr. to finish the job if that's what it takes.






> China isn't a communist state, no matter how many times those looking for scapegoats claim otherwise.


It's a horrendous tyranny that centrally plans it's economy and oppresses it's people no matter what label you want to use.




> It is, however, a powerful state, which is going to be a problem for those in DC who wish to dominate the world.


Or for those who desire liberty.






> Well, that's one theory.
> 
> Another is that the US is declining due to long-standing internal problems, which long pre-date Mao, let alone the recent rise of China as a power.


The two options are not mutually exclusive.
We can and will fix both.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It's in the bag.
> And we can elect Don Jr. to finish the job if that's what it takes.


Or any of the anti-trade Democrats (current ones, I mean)




> It's a horrendous tyranny that centrally plans it's economy and oppresses it's people no matter what label you want to use.


You used the label communist, and that's plainly inaccurate. 

E.G. There are privately owned enterprises (lots of them) in China.




> Or for those who desire liberty.


The only real danger in China's rise is that the US will attempt to contain it, someone will blunder, and we'll revert to the stone age. 




> The two options are not mutually exclusive.
> We can and will fix both.


Gentle George...

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Or any of the anti-trade Democrats (current ones, I mean)


Nope, China owns their souls and they will serve the ChiComs no matter what they may say.






> You used the label communist, and that's plainly inaccurate. 
> 
> E.G. There are privately owned enterprises (lots of them) in China.


Most are private in name only and their economy is dominated by state-owned enterprises.






> The only real danger in China's rise is that the US will attempt to contain it, someone will blunder, and we'll revert to the stone age.


LOL
Don't insult our intelligence, China is one of the worst tyrannies in the world today and they are bent on imposing their system on the world.






> Gentle George...


George always wins.

----------


## devil21

> It's in the bag.
> And we can elect Don Jr. to finish the job if that's what it takes.


I was wondering when you'd start floating Ivanka or some other Trump to replace Donald.

Haven't we had our fill of "royal" American political dynasties yet?

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I was wondering when you'd start floating Ivanka or some other Trump to replace Donald.
> 
> Haven't we had our fill of "royal" American political dynasties yet?


This × 1000.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I was wondering when you'd start floating Ivanka or some other Trump to replace Donald.
> 
> Haven't we had our fill of "royal" American political dynasties yet?


I've mentioned Don Jr. as a possibility many times before but I'm not committed to him until I see who else runs and what his platform is.

His family connections are entirely irrelevant, what matters is his policies.

----------


## Swordsmyth

President Donald Trump’s $28 billion farm bailout may be paying many growers more than the trade war with China has cost them.
The  U.S. Department of Agriculture’s calculations overshot the impact of  the trade conflict on American soybean prices, according to six academic  studies, a conclusion that is likely to add to criticism that the  bailout has generated distortions and inequalities in the farm economy.
“It’s  clear that the payment rates overstated the damage suffered by soybean  growers,” said Joseph Glauber, the USDA’s former chief economist who  published a review of the research in late November. “Based on what the  studies show, the damages were about half that.”
The academic  research has focused on soybeans in part because the crop has been the  most visible target of Chinese retaliation and overall received the most  trade aid. But the method the department used to calculate trade losses  also likely overstates the conflict’s financial impact on most other  farm products, though for a few commodities it may understate the true  impact, Glauber, now a senior fellow at the International Food Policy  Research Institute, said in an interview.
The divergence doesn’t  necessarily mean a bonanza for American farmers, who are being  financially squeezed on other fronts, including a global commodity glut  that is depressing prices and a year of wild weather that is damaging  crop yields. 

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/trump-28-bill...090000447.html

----------


## TheCount

> President Donald Trump’s $28 billion farm bailout may be paying many growers more than the trade war with China has cost them.


Yay?

----------


## Swordsmyth

The US trade deficit shrank to its smallest since June 2018 in October, as *trade with China extended its slide with goods imports from the nation dropping to a fresh three-year low.* 
  The overall U.S. deficit in goods and services trade narrowed to $47.2 billion in October (less then the $48.5bn expected)...



Merchandise imports from China declined 4.8% from the prior month to $35.3 billion...



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...lest-16-months

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> The US trade deficit shrank to its smallest since June 2018 in October, as *trade with China extended its slide with goods imports from the nation dropping to a fresh three-year low.* 
>   The overall U.S. deficit in goods and services trade narrowed to $47.2 billion in October (less then the $48.5bn expected)...
> 
> 
> 
> Merchandise imports from China declined 4.8% from the prior month to $35.3 billion...
> 
> 
> 
> More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...lest-16-months


Why does this matter?

----------


## acptulsa

> Why does this matter?


It's from zerohedge and it has charts.

You know how he and Zippy are.  If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullcharts.

----------


## Swordsmyth

In a positive gesture, China said on Friday that it will waive import  tariffs for some soybeans and pork shipments from the United States, as  the two sides try to thrash out a broader agreement to defuse their  protracted trade war.

“The goal (of this move) is to expand purchases and reassure the  United States,” said a Chinese source who advises Beijing on the trade  talks.
“It should be interpreted as a positive signal. Despite the  many political difficulties the two sides face, economic and trade  cooperation and moves to stop the escalation of the trade war are in the  interest of both parties.”


U.S. pork exports to China and Hong Kong are already up 47% in volume  terms from January to September, even with high duties in place.
A  second adviser to the Chinese government said exemptions on the  products suited Beijing, as they helped meet market demand for such  goods while reducing the trade surplus with the United States.
“We  might as well buy soybeans from the U.S. rather than from Brazil.  Brazil is actually selling us what was purchased from the United States  and they even hiked the prices up before selling to us. In that case,  we’d better just buy from the United States,” she said.

More at: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/chin...l-gesture.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status...64210947559425

----------

