Trump approves tariffs on Chinese goods including $1 billion in bike products

[93KgBike]

It's already pretty difficult to service an independent bike shop's monthly nut. Margins are pretty thin. These tiny upward adjustments will drive people away from bike shops towards the WalMarts, because bike shops can't shove their debt forward.

Someday, even US debt won't be attractive. We'd be wise to lay off the tax cuts, and incentivize some capital return. GDP is gonna start to slide, and we are already leveraged way into the future.

[jtbadge]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

And beyond bikes, this is a regressive tax on the members of society least able to absorb the cost.

100%. This, on top of the "tax cut" scam perpetrated on the American people, is going to make things tough going for the foreseeable future.

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

And beyond bikes, this is a regressive tax on the members of society least able to absorb the cost.

Well least he is acting like a fiscal conservative in a weird anti-global sort of way....

[HenryA]

Here, do some research.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e...f_e/org6_e.htm

Then come back and answer a few questions.

1. Which nations have tariffs?

2. Which country has the largest tariffs?

3. Name one reason a nation might have a tariff.

4. Name several benefits that a nation and its citizens might have as a result of tariffs.

5. Name several detriments that a nation and its citizens might have as a result of tariffs.

6. Extra point! — tariffs are good or bad. Justify your answer with facts that you have discovered in your research. Cite those facts to bolster your answer.

[jtbadge]

There are plenty of good reasons to have tariffs. These were hastily and poorly implemented with the only interest being "winning" in the eyes of the president, and they are already hurting American businesses and consumers.

[rnhood]

Originally Posted by jtbadge

There are plenty of good reasons to have tariffs. These were hastily and poorly implemented with the only interest being "winning" in the eyes of the president, and they are already hurting American businesses and consumers.

Disagree. I recommend credible news outlets, like the WSJ. Many others seem to only be in the "sensationalizing" business.

"Winning" is not the reason, the core reason is to negotiate better trade deals for our country. Doing it with groups of nations is ideally the best way on would think...if it works. But sometimes doing it nation by nation might yield better results. Ideally there would be no tariffs, and and no subsidizing. In reality however, this will never exist.

If tariffs do not work from a historical perspective, then why have countries not eliminated them?

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by rnhood

Disagree. You need to read credible news outlets, like the WSJ.

"Winning" is not the reason, the core reason is to negotiate better trade deals for our country. Doing it with groups of nations is ideally the best way on would think...if it works. But sometimes doing it nation by nation might yield better results. Ideally there would be no tariffs, and and no subsidizing. In reality however, this will never exist.

If tariffs do not work from a historical perspective, then why have countries not eliminated them?

Okay:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-...lly-1519950205

[flydhest]

Originally Posted by rnhood

Disagree.

If tariffs do not work from a historical perspective, then why have countries not eliminated them?

Such a silly canard. The reason is that political power and lobbying exists such that those where the benefits are localized can capture rents from the semi corrupt political process. If that is what you mean by “works” it is a staggeringly narrow definition. Lots of practices that are inefficient, uneconomic, to outright evil exist for hundreds of years at a time because political processes can be manipulated. Every basic political economy course will start somewhere close to this premise.

[TonyG]

Originally Posted by HenryA

Here, do some research.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e...f_e/org6_e.htm

Then come back and answer a few questions.

1. Which nations have tariffs?

2. Which country has the largest tariffs?

3. Name one reason a nation might have a tariff.

4. Name several benefits that a nation and its citizens might have as a result of tariffs.

5. Name several detriments that a nation and its citizens might have as a result of tariffs.

6. Extra point! — tariffs are good or bad. Justify your answer with facts that you have discovered in your research. Cite those facts to bolster your answer.

I'll get right on it.

Makes me kinda laugh I was an international transfer pricing specialist for 26 years and spent a fair amount of time doing WTO research. Never planned on doing any for free though.

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by TonyG

I'll get right on it.

Makes me kinda laugh I was an international transfer pricing specialist for 26 years and spent a fair amount of time doing WTO research. Never planned on doing any for free though.

You should figure out how to “tariff” your internet research work

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by joosttx

Well least he is acting like a fiscal conservative in a weird anti-global sort of way....

Weird is right..$1TRILLION deficit this fiscal year doesn't = 'fiscal conservative'.
This kind of deficit in a booming economy is making economists everywhere(except at 1600 Penn Ave) scratch their heads or slap their foreheads..This continues to be a spending problem, not revenue problem(altho this economy certainly isn't 'payin for' the YUGE tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy).

[ptourkin]

Originally Posted by TonyG

I'll get right on it.

Makes me kinda laugh I was an international transfer pricing specialist for 26 years and spent a fair amount of time doing WTO research. Never planned on doing any for free though.

I've mostly just lurked on this but I also did international trade and WTO law for the world's largest law firm (at the time) before bailing on big law. I didn't enjoy it enough to forgo my hourly, either.

Nonetheless, I've been impressed by the level of discussion here on some sides of this issue and seen some predictable reaction from another.

People can disagree on policy but it's pretty clear that Peter Navarro has negligible agreement from anyone conversant on these issues prior to say, this year.

[oldpotatoe]

Pretty good review of what this latest round(yesterday) means to main street..

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/with...cost-more.html

Trump tweeted in June that "trade must be fair and no longer a one way street" and "in the end it will even out." The president's goal to narrow the trade deficit with tariffs, or "level the playing field," as Hogan puts it.

The trade deficit is essentially the difference between how much the U.S. imports, in terms of goods and services, and what it exports. It's around $50 billion overall, according to the U.S. Commerce Department, but with China specifically the trade deficit is around $375 billion. Trump claims the gap is a sign of economic weakness, though not all experts agree, and some question, regardless, whether tariffs are an effective response.

Again, either pay more for a foreign 'thing' because of a tariff or pay more for a domestically produced 'thing'..but higher prices for main street regardless.

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by TonyG

I'll get right on it.

Makes me kinda laugh I was an international transfer pricing specialist for 26 years and spent a fair amount of time doing WTO research. Never planned on doing any for free though.

[Marc40a]

I don't know if this has been mentioned in the previous 15 pages, but Trek has hiked the prices on their 2019 models in the past week in response to the tariffs.