
China Slaps Tariffs on U.S. Products - johnny313
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/world/asia/china-tariffs-united-states.html
======
rdlecler1
China has effectively been waging a trade war with the US for the past 20
years. This is a narrative that has not been emphasized enough. America just
hasn’t responded—which I find baffling. Investment into China is difficult,
you need to have JVs and IP hand overs, local companies have political
advantage over foreign companies, entire industries are off limits. China is
going to be the world’s largest economy soon. It’s time to take off the kids
gloves and live up to their WTO promises. The biggest beneficiaries of this
are the large multi nationals, not the American workers. The argument goes
that the benefit is to the consumer, but if the latest 65” TV cost 50% more
then everyone would spend their $1,500 for a 45” TV instead and be just as
happy—maybe happier because they’d have good paying jobs. If you think a trade
war is bad, imagine being a vassal state of China where the US has no
industries left and their political/economic clout is so strong that we live
under their rules. And discussions like this would not happen. The fact that I
thought about deleting this post is actually chilling.

~~~
diego_moita
> If you think a trade war is bad, imagine being a vassal state of China where
> the US

As a Latin American I laughed hard at this. For the last 60 years many 3rd
world countries have been vassal states of the US and European Union,
supplicating them to stop farming protectionism that keeps our economies so
restricted. You know, "imperialism" is a word with deep meaning and a long
history in 3rd world countries.

Probably I will regret later what I say now, but until then: welcome China,
thanks for giving the "gringos" a taste of their own medicine.

~~~
freehunter
If you think America being supplicated by an even larger power is going to be
good for the countries historically oppressed by America... you might be
surprised. China's "Latin America" is Africa, they have little use for the
actual Latin America.

Imagine the US being nuked as "a taste of their own medicine" for previously
being the only country to use nukes... how would that work out for developing
countries? I would guess not well. Not well at all. Just like a nuclear war
impacts more than just the countries fighting, a trade war between two
superpowers is going to hurt the developing world far more than it will hurt
the US or China.

~~~
jjcc
Let's forget about Africa/Latin America for a moment. The comparison always
ignore 2 differences about the relations:

1.China build roads, buildings not only for living but also whole industrial
parks that create jobs in Africa which local population can also benefit later
on while the US seldom do the same thing at least with compatible scale. I'm
not saying China is unselfishly helping Africans but it's more kind of long
term selfish behavior that cultivate local stability and prosperity.

2.China don't set up values promotion preconditions for financial aids to
Africa countries while US/Western countries often have a "universal values"
promotion agenda combined with financial aids, maybe with good intention.

Western MSM almost always omit these 2 differences when making comparisons
trying to sell their own belief that the relations are similar.

------
ethanwillis
[https://www.salon.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-warren-is-not-
afr...](https://www.salon.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-warren-is-not-afraid-of-
tariffs-and-supports-rethinking-u-s-trade-policy)

    
    
      "I think that our trade deals have been negotiated for a
      very, very long time now to benefit large, multinational 
      corporations, not to benefit the American worker," Warren 
      added. In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" she 
      continued, "What I'd like to see us do is rethink all of 
      our trade policy. And, I have to say, when President Trump 
      says he's putting tariffs on the table, I think tariffs are 
      one part of reworking our trade policy overall."
    

It's gonna be a long process, but necessary.

~~~
OscarCunningham
The corporation vs workers comment seems off.

Tariffs on X generally help domestic X producers and hurt domestic X
consumers. For most values of X, production is done by companies which are
mostly owned by a small number of people, whereas consumption is done by a
much broader group. So one would generally expect tariffs to help businesses
at the expense of workers. And aren't tariffs usually advertised as helping
American businesses? To say now that it hurts them seems like a weird change
of tack.

~~~
ethanwillis
So if you look into Elizabeth Warren's reasoning more one of the reasons she's
pro-tariff is that China is essentially making us trade U.S. tech for market
access. [1]

I think the thinking is that Tariffs will be one way to keep China from
abusing that. In any case I think the assumption you're making is that it
hurts consumers because it destroys consumption of cheap foreign goods. But I
think what you're missing is that it increases consumption of domestic goods
made by domestic workers. Obviously analogies are bad for discussing the
actual nuance of matters.. but think Walmart in a small town that funnels
profits out of the local economy versus small town businesses generating and
circulating wealth locally.

1.) [http://www.businessinsider.com/r-senator-warren-in-
beijing-s...](http://www.businessinsider.com/r-senator-warren-in-beijing-says-
us-is-waking-up-to-chinese-abuses-2018-4)

~~~
awful
It may increase domestic production for domestic customers, but I think we ran
that experiment before. What I found decades ago is that products made
domestically, driven by greed, profit seeking, marketing and labor costs were
too expensive for your average customer. Tools for example; look at the
pricing of simple domestic hand tools, technical and heavy duty. Scopes,
meters, soldering tools, socket sets, electronics, schematics and repair
manuals, specialty auto tools; there was a time these were too expensive for
the average consumer. Sure it created manufacturing, sales and distribution
jobs but by lock in - this did not make the technician or the customer
wealthy, but it did make the business owner wealthier as they were the moneyed
and licensed gatekeepers, charging royally for access. *As a youth I was
screwed by electronics manufacturers, car companies for access to
semiconductors, schematics, tools, and special tools. I believe that is
exactly what China has faced for decades and has been fighting against, at
least partially.

~~~
pm90
Your comment really made me think for a while why this might be happening. And
I have a few conjectures.

1\. When a protectionist market is created, global companies generally tend to
avoid competing in them. What this means is that the local companies producing
the protected goods are generally one-market only. They're only interested in
the protected market and know they're shielded from foreign competition...
less competition == less incentive to make world class products. And new firms
will not generally target the captive market created by regulation unless they
know the regulations will stay that way for many decades to come.

2\. If you can create regulations to keep foreign competitors out, you can
also use regulations to keep domestic competitors out. This is a favorite
strategy used by bigger corporations in countries with lax implementation of
laws, but strict laws on paper. Just threaten smaller firms that they will be
sued and take them over.

------
fwdpropaganda
This is a quote from EU tarriff on US, but I found it interesting

[http://thehill.com/regulation/international/376467-eu-
weighs...](http://thehill.com/regulation/international/376467-eu-weighs-
tariffs-on-bourbon-blue-jeans-harley-davidson)

> The products listed by Juncker appeared to target industries based in the
> home states of congressional leaders. Harley-Davidson is based in Wisconsin,
> the home state of Speaker Paul Ryan (R); Levi Strauss & Co. is headquartered
> in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D) hometown of San Francisco; and
> bourbon is made in Kentucky, the home state of Senate Majority Leader Mitch
> McConnell (R).

~~~
adventured
Both the EU and China started off targeting the US on political grounds
because the US is the injured trade party. They have few other vectors of
reciprocal tariff targeting because existing US tariffs are lower than nearly
all other major economies and the US economy is more open than nearly all
other economies. What are they going to target otherwise? The options are
slim, maybe the US truck tariffs.

Funny enough, re China targeting US agriculture: the US has nearly the lowest
agriculture tariffs. Only Australia is lower that I'm aware of among large
economies. What's the legitimate grievance that China could possibly have
about US agriculture? They obviously have none, it's all political
retaliation.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
> Both the EU and China started off targeting the US on political grounds

So US tariffs are justified, but retaliation is political? Is that what you're
saying?

EDIT:

> What's the legitimate grievance that China could possibly have about US
> agriculture? They obviously have none, it's all political retaliation.

Here's a mental model for this. You hit them first, they hit you, now you're
complaining that they hit you. "It's political!". The rest of the world is
watching and thinking "well, you started it".

------
astebbin
Glaringly, the NYT omits the scope of these new Chinese tariffs (on $3 billion
in goods [0]), which in comparison to the $60 billion in tariffs recently
imposed on China would seem to present Trump with quite a victory.

[0] [http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/news/economy/china-us-
tariff...](http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/02/news/economy/china-us-tariffs-
trade/index.html)

~~~
glenndebacker
I'm not an economist or an American but from my POV I find the first round of
sanctions seems to be very interesting (and may I say) well thought. In this
round focusing on agricultural products seems to hit those voters - where I
assume - that are mostly Trump voters. I find this very ironic to say the
least.

Reminds me of the more strategical thinking of possible EU sanctions targeting
products that are important for certain high profile republicans and their
states.

~~~
adventured
It reveals the nature of the position of each party.

The US is targeting tariffs to correct perceived trade wrongs, where foreign
nations have barriers that the US does not have. Or in the case of some
foreign steel, it's often dumped globally, backed with State subsidies to
facilitate that.

Take Russian steel as one example. It's extremely difficult to do business in
Russia and to sell major industrial products like steel into Russia. Why
should the US buy any steel from Russia, when the US is highly capable of
producing that steel domestically instead? It makes no sense to tolerate
Russia's hyper nationalist protectionism in major industry and continue buying
steel from them. Reciprocating their market behavior back toward them means
that Russia never gets to sell steel into the US again.

Russia buys very little from the US, representing 0.03% of the US economy. The
US imports from Russia, including a lot of steel, are equal to 1.5% of the
Russian economy. It's obvious which party has a lot to lose there, there's a
50 fold gap in importance to the economy.

The EU and China by contrast to the US tariffs, started out targeting the US
on political grounds. That tells you everything you need to know. It's because
the US has extremely low tariffs overall, and particularly extraordinarily low
tariffs on agriculture. These other trade parties have very few angles of
attack that aren't political in nature because the US has such a generally
open economy.

------
grolimpio
Hope Trump keeps pushing China, so they will keep imposing additional tariffs
on USA products. Which can ending up being good for us, from outside the USA,
by giving us a better deal with China and eventually we will fill the gap, by
being the new suppliers for the products that now have a higher tax.

~~~
jakeogh
It's welfare for China. We know it and they know it. Ending it is good for
both of us. Just like any welfare situation, it's very asymmetric.

------
loourr
Silly since China has been working hard buying up these US industries
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/whos-behind-chinese-
takeov...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/whos-behind-chinese-takeover-
worlds-biggest-pork-producer)

Try acting a little less biased NYT, China has had tariffs on US goods for
years. They're not the ones retaliating.

~~~
obmelvin
There are many ways to frame this current trade dispute. Sure, there is
history here and more to it, but most immediately this is a retaliation.

Personally, I'm quite frustrated by Trump's fixation with the trade deficit. I
wish he'd focus more on the issues with IP being stolen, bought, or semi-
forced technology transfer. There are other advanced countries in the same
boat as us and he has the chance to be a leader and form a coalition of ripped
off economies. Instead, he focuses on the trade deficit and scares allies,
existing and potential, with threats of tariffs instead of forming a united
front against China's lack of respect for IP.

~~~
yardie
> he has the chance to be a leader and form a coalition of ripped off
> economies.

Oh, like some sort of partnership comprised of other Pacific based countries
to create some sort of trade agreement that would make the coalition members
have a stronger voice when negotiating trade agreements with China? We may
even call it a Trans-Pacific Partnership[0].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Pacific_Partnership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership)

------
eachro
Lapham's Quaterly is pretty great
[https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/](https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/)

~~~
marnett
I agree, but this is a tad off topic, no?

------
ancap
Economic ignorance abounds in these comments. Tariffs are more accurately
termed a punitive tax on consumers. A country enacting reciprocal tariffs is
like shooting a hole in your boat to get back at your neighbor who shot a hole
in their own boat. It makes no sense.

~~~
Raidion
I mean, it doesn't make sense if everyone is playing fair. You can't negotiate
without being willing to sacrifice something to hurt the other side. In war,
that's soldiers, in trade wars, that's the consumer.

Ideally, everyone looks at their own tariffs and decides these aren't worth
it, because, like you said, they hurt consumers. This means everyone lowers
tariffs and life continues better than it was before.

~~~
ancap
Actually, it doesn't make sense even if everyone is _not_ playing fair. Self-
harm is self-harm. What kind of negotiating is that? "If you shoot a hole in
your boat I'll shoot one in mine!"

------
pleasecalllater
In two years Donald Trump will resign from those tariffs, and he will say it
is his great success... and millions of people will be repeating that he's the
best president because he removed bad law. The sad state of the peoples'
minds.

------
mark_l_watson
What complicates this issue for me is that ‘trade deal’ treaties seem to
mostly contain content to protect the interests of large corporations.

Really off topic, sorry, but if you enlarge the picture of the three pigs
being led to slaughter by the guy holding the electric shock prod, look at
their eyes. Pigs are very intelligent animals, and probably understand to some
degree what is happening. Although I am not a vegetarian, I think it is
shameful to eat ‘torture meat’ like pork, poultry, and veal. Who wants to eat
animals that are effectively tortured every day of their lives.

~~~
codezero
You're probably being downvoted for being off-topic, but there's scarcely a
place on the Internet you can call out the abuse of animals for our culinary
pleasure without getting a lot of backlash. People don't want to think about
it.

I became vegetarian after there was a big news cycle about the dog eating
festival in China – then I saw pictures and saw that most of those dogs
appeared to be treated much better than the animals that are part of the
industrialized meat process.

Torture is something, but ultimately we kill them, ending their life so we can
eat them. Humans will come up with all kinds of justifications for every part
of this process, it's almost not worth arguing, it's like religion in many
ways – you're raised eating meat, and it's hard to be rational thinking about
why that might be bad, for the creatures being eaten, for the environment,
etc...

~~~
mark_l_watson
I was fairly sure that I would be downvoted for being off topic, which is
fair. It is possible to buy meat from animals that have been treated humanely
(until the end) but in general difficult and expensive. You are correct that
it is a touchy subject with people, but I will still annoy family and friends
occasionally by bringing up this topic.

I had the misfortune to once actually see a pig processing plant, and that is
one of those horrible images you can never get out of your mind.

