Posted on 03/06/2016 5:24:31 AM PST by saywhatagain
No my question is . . . did Mr. Trump really propose this and if so what "could" be the results?
Now my question is . . . sorry
Found the quote. Printed Jan 7. If Mr. Trump has said otherwise or if NYT are not quoting correctly, please help us find that. I agree NYT can easily be full of BS. But here it is.
Donald J. Trump said he would favor a 45 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the United States, proposing the idea during a wide-ranging meeting with members of the editorial board of The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donald-trump-says-he-favors-big-tariffs-on-chinese-exports/?_r=1
Tariffs were the main source of all Federal revenue from 1790 to 1914.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
“The Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 – which boosted U.S. tariffs on imports by an average of approximately 50% – exacerbated what was already a negative economic spiral.”
The difference now is we’re a (yuge) net importer.
“No my question is . . . did Mr. Trump really propose this and if so what “could” be the results? “
He did say it, but’s it more of a negotiating threat than reality.
The end results would be Chinese first going apeshiite, then agreeing to stop devaluing their currency and get North Korea under control.
Trump has made it clear that’s his intention with China.
“The only reason we don’t presently have a trade war is because thge US won’t fight. Chinese already impose tariffs”
That’s exactly correct. I don’t hear any call for broad-based comprehensive tariffs ala Smoot-Hawley that basically stopped world trade.
The Chinese are not “fair, free traders”. Neither is Mexico, nor other major trading partners. Trump is the only one who recognizes this, and the only one making it an issue.
There is a reason. The other candidates are paid to not care, in my opinion - so they do not make it an issue.
This will be a positive for Trump in the general election.
The world has been actively draining the USA via the “free trade” wars of the last 30 years.
It’s time we won these trade wars. GOPe is all for maintaining the status-quo as is the author of this article.
I would say you could use the help. It appears to me that all you are resorting to personal attacks rather than logic and facts.
Personal attack? No it is just my observation driven by your words, not mine. Reality bites, now doesn’t it?
Thats why this article peaked my interest. I believe the liberals/communist will use this against Mr. Trump regardless of its merit.
One thing I do agree with this article is that if the tariff goes to 45 percent there will be an increase in the cost of living.
Question One. How much?
Question two. So what prices go up because its worth it in other areas, like increase factories in the USA therefore jobs???
“can you do that. if not go away”
Yes, let’s ignore people with actual experience attempting to sell stuff in China. It’s too partisan.
However, Hillary and friends can flip this and use it against Mr. Trump by illustrating increase in the costs of goods
Can or will Mr. Trump flip it back by illustrating the benefits? If so what are the benefits aside from retaliation?
“The problem is that trade partners will retaliate.”
How? China and Japan buy little from us now and charge tariffs on everything we sell them.
Regarding your question #1,
The increase in the cost of living will reflect the cost of regulation in the US, which presently is not borne by the US consumer, who can buy goods from China that have no labor laws or environmental regulations that are not part of the cost of production. The proper response is “can we afford these regulations”, not “can we afford this tariff”.
Regarding Question Two:
There will be tremendous political pressure to NOT remove trade barriers, in the event that trade becomes bilaterally free. No question that the basis for cost of manufactured goods must include the cost of regulation, whether goods are imported or not. The proper response is “is the regulation worth it”.
The title of the thread is “trump on trade”. Your point is moot. Is the current trade practice a level playing field? If not, then clearly to make it more balanced will require the risk of a threatened “trade war”. The Us economy can handle that. China can not. It’s why they continue to build empty cities....to keep their fake GDP up.
I will let better minds than mine to answer. However logic tells me a substantial increase in tariffs will have an effect and our dear Asian friends and their "saving face" culture does not allow them to sit idly by.
“My response was to the poster saying if I did not like it go vote for someone else. I am tired of that and would like to see a conversation of the “issue.””
Fair enough, but there are two components to this - the one you acknowledge is that this goes in Trumps favor. The second one is legitimate too - why DONT the other candidates recognize this? It speaks to fundamental constitutional principles that limit federal power that are thus far rejected by Cruz and other candidates (so they must be presumed to be for this sort of “unfair” trade).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.