President Trump and tariffs

US News & Politics
41

This is the origination of the comment. I am a tariff man.
Seems its related to we will have a deal or w will have tariffs.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday warned that his administration will not hesitate to levy further tariffs on Chinese imports should trade talks between the U.S. and China falter.

Trump’s warning came days after he met Chinese President Xi Jinping for a working dinner at the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

“The negotiations with China have already started,” Trump wrote in a series of tweets. “Unless extended, they will end 90 days from the date of our wonderful and very warm dinner with President Xi in Argentina. [Top administration officials] will be working closely … [to see] whether or not a REAL deal with China is actually possible.”

“President Xi and I want this deal to happen, and it probably will,” Trump added. “But if not remember, I am a Tariff man.”

According to an official White House accountof the G20 meeting, Trump and Xi discussed ways to “reduce the trade imbalance between” the U.S. and China. To that end, Xi purportedly agreed to purchase a “not yet agreed upon” amount of agricultural, energy, and industrial product from U.S. manufacturers in exchange for the Trump administration deferring a pending increase in tariffs on more than $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.

The White House also said that Xi agreed to begin immediately purchasing agricultural products from American farmers—something that has yet to occur—and as a gesture of goodwill, announcedthat China will schedule fentanyl as a controlled substance. The latter action was meant to stem China’s rolein perpetuating the opioid epidemic.

Furthermore, the two countries agreed to commence negotiations on “structural changes” concerning “forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions, and cyber theft,” among other topics. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is tasked with leading the talks in conjunction with the Treasury and Commerce departments, as well as Peter Navarro, the director of the White House office of trade and manufacturing policy. The negotiations will take place over the next 90 days. If at the 90-day deadline no deal is acceptable to both parties, the Trump administration will proceed with imposing a 25-percent tariff on more than $200 billion of Chinese imports. The current rate is set at 10 percent.

Trump praised the initial framework that he and Xi agreed to in Buenos Aires as an “incredible deal” with the potential to go “down as one of the largest deals ever made.”

The Chinese government, however, has not signaled its recognition of the framework or the 90-day deadline. Additionally, Xi’s regime has not made any movement to act on the promises the White House reported were made during the G20 meeting.

The meeting between XI and Trump at the G20 Summit was the culmination of a nearly year-long trade war between the two nations.

1 Like
42

Ku ku kuchu…

43

I am not sure that you understood me correctly.

I merely said that tariffs may be “a necessary evil,” because we appear to be “lacking any better alternative”; but this is a far cry from declaring tariffs to be an inherently good thing.

44

I don’t think anyone, including Trump, sees tariffs as being a good thing. But if he has to use them, he is not afraid to do so.

1 Like
45

They are amoral.

Neither good nor bad. Only those who practice some socioeconomic religion would disagree.

46

The good or bad is a judgement call based on political beliefs.
When in reality we do not live in a perfect world where everyone trades and does business the same. Tariffs can protect industries in a country or it can damage industries in other countries. In the end it’s a tool that should be used to level the playing field.

Imagine if the US levied tariffs on rare earth metals from China when they were dumping their product on the market. We would likely have a rare earth metals industry today.

47

Dumping is a strategic attack upon a nation’s industrial capability.

If the same logic that " free traders " use to criticize tarrifs was used to define a defence against physical attacks it would dictate that every soldier should throw down his weapon if the enemy offers them good quarter.

And similarly, lower cost of production in other countries achieved by sweatshop or slave labor is an attack upon our workers and our culture’s standard of living.

Let the globalists rule as they seem fit. But for now …MAGA!

1 Like
48

No doubt about it.

One of the more recent attacks on the US was with the solar cell industry. Th US should have levied high tariffs on the Chinese who wee dumping in the US which killed solar cell development and the industry in the US.

Yes, China is investing $144 Billion in its solar industry over the next 3 years. That’s a lot of money. And it’s just a part of a $361 billion packagethe Chinese government has put together to support renewable energy within its borders.

How much has the U.S. government committed to investing in the solar beyond a tax credit initiated in 2005 and existing loan guarantees to solar companies?

Nada.

49

This is just Outrageous from Donald

50

What’s outrageous?We give China all our manufacturing, they export excessive goods to the US and the US continues to amass over 300 billion a year in trade deficits. China refuses to cooperate and buy more American goods to narrow the trade gap.

Is that outrageous? Mexico has dumped millions of poor mexicans into the US and the US allows them to stay and work illegally returning over 30 million a year to Mexico. Mexico allows free transit of their country for central Americans to claim fake asylum and disappear into the US. Th US wants mexico to stop the flow. They refuse so Trump uses the only tool h has available, tariffs on Mexico until Mexico slows the migration.

Think all those thousands entering the US are self sufficient or are taxpayers getting the giant bill are more disappear into the US.

Is that really outrageous?

So explain what’s outrageous? Will your community accept 100K illegals from central America and house feed and educate them? Will your state accept 1 another million illegals from central America and care for them?

1 Like
51

Outrageous in the sense that raising tarrifs on China, mexico would only trigger a response by affected countries which would in turn affect the average US citizen. Issues of such nature need to be handled with much consideration

52

Sounds like you are on the side of those countries that have been exploiting us for years?

53

You don’t seem to see that the average US citizen is being negatively affected much more by trade deficits with China and the cost of illegals from Mexico than these tariffs are going to affect us.

1 Like
54

Never!!! not possible

55

Often, people may wish to reduce complex questions to simplistic terms: X equals good, whereas Y equals bad.

Unfortunately, it is seldom quite that simple.

The fact is that responses–of either variety–usually require some tradeoffs.

Tariffs are likely to protect some American jobs. That is the good part.

But they are also inclined to increase the prices for various goods–either because Americans still buy the foreign goods (and the cost of tariffs is passed along), or because Americans begin, in greater numbers, to buy American-made goods (which tend to be more expensive, because of the higher-paid labor in the US). That is the bad.

So it amounts to a decision: Are Americans–generally; not just a few, but generally–willing to pay more, in order to protect some American jobs?

A case can certainly be made that some sacrifice is called for. After all, Americans endured much greater material sacrifice during WWII.

But this really calls for a national discussion. It is not something that should be imposed by a few elites, upon a public whose willingness to go along is uncertain.

And it should not be confused with a moral or ethical question.

56

I’m outraged that the US has outsourced so many good manufacturing jobs to China, w have transferred massive amounts of technology to China and now pay a 300+ billion ransom to China for imports and China refuses to buy American made product.

Many people are clueless how that 300 billion is spent by the Chinese. They buy American companies like IBM computers, now Lenovo, GE appliances, Starwood Hotels, Smithfield foods, AMC Theatres. Now China can own a giant pice of the US, transfer massive amounts of money to China without importing any of their cheap junk. What’s the problem, afraid an American made TV will cost you more as you whine about income disparity and stagnant wages in the US???

As to Mexico, we had a great dal in NAFTA, we ran a trade surplus every year with Mexico, NAFTS changed all that and now we have a growing trade deficit. NFATA has been negotiated and the dimwits in th house sit on it and do nothing. The upside is we get a trade deficit with Mexico and millions of their citizens and the billion it costs to subsidize them. Now Mexico assist in the invasion of the southern border and transports illegals from Central America to cross the border illegally, be arrested and scream asylum, asylum, and then are released into the US and collect welfare the taxpayers pay for.

How many illegals are you willing to support in your state, 10 million?? Which state is is so the Federal Government knows the citizens of your state ar willing to pay for your cheap junk in welfare???

57

Imagine supporting American paid jobs as bad.

Do you also whine about stagnant wages and the low minimum wage???

The real question is how much of America are you wiling to see to China? Chinese companies buy American businesses with the excess trade dollars. How many treasury notes are you wiling to sell to the Chinese government so you can buy their cheap junk?

Free trade is one thing, fair trade is another. Our free trade arrangements now produce a 600+ billion a year trade deficit. That is unsustainable.

58

Well anyone who has the long term interest of Americans in mind would be in favor of penalizing the trade practices of countries that seek to undermine our industry.

Tarrifs are one way of accomplishing that.

Maybe you have specific alternatives in mind. Please post them.

59

To claim that I said that it is bad to be “supporting American paid jobs” is a highly tendentious reworking of my words.

To reiterate, what I said is that the bad part is that buying American usually translates into paying more; and we need to have a national discussion as to whether most Americans are willing to make that sacrifice.

And–as I have noted previously–I am quite skeptical of anyone who claims to be in favor of both “free” and “fair” trade. The emphasis, in these cases, is almost always upon the latter. (The “free” part is just thrown in, so as to sound good.)

60

LOL, good one.

National discussion, do you want high tariffs and pay more for things you want to buy.
The wealthy, I could care less.
The upper middle class, no, we pay to much for everything today.
The middle class, hell no, I want to pay less.
The poor, no I can’t afford things today.

The left, absolutely not as we will support nothing Trump wants.
The right for some things as we need to address the trade balance.

Do you honestly think the average American can think beyond the next paycheck and the toys they want to buy???

I suggest fair trade. Exports=imports or tariffs apply.

The current free trade agreements are clearly unsustainable.