Boom. You can't out tariff us. Period. This Trump knows.

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.

Quote:

---

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

China does not make anything I want .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyarde

China does not make anything I want .

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danke

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

---

He can probably make his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

He can probably make his own.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danke

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danke

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyarde

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

---

Civilized people wait for the estate sale.

Trade war? Bring it on :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyarde

China does not make anything I want .

---

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/e/...0px-Type59.jpg

http://www.nazarian.no/images/wep/218_type56ak.jpg

I already have their shotguns. :D

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?

Ignorance... This whole tariff thing is big a mistake. One which is well documented historically.

I'd rather the protectionists continue to attack corporate and individual taxes.

If people make more money, they can afford better quality.

If its cheaper to conduct business, that can translate to lower costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

They don't really "sell" to us. They give us stuff in exchange for worthless IOUs. I think China would be better off not "trading" with us at all. On the other hand our standard of living drops way off when China quits giving us free stuff.

The problem is we can't make stuff ourselves until we shrink the size of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brushfire

Ignorance... This whole tariff thing is big a mistake. One which is well documented historically.

I'd rather the protectionists continue to attack corporate and individual taxes.

If people make more money, they can afford better quality.

If its cheaper to conduct business, that can translate to lower costs.

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Suppose neither is willing to blink (so far, neither has even hinted at it). Both sides can tariff 100% of each other's goods. Who is the winner? Both face higher prices and fewer jobs. We won because they lost more jobs than we did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

Suppose neither is willing to blink (so far, neither has even hinted at it). Both sides can tariff 100% of each other's goods. Who is the winner? Both face higher prices and fewer jobs. We won because they lost more jobs than we did?

---

We will start getting industries and jobs back, they will collapse and no longer serve as a boogeyman for the MIC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

We will start getting industries and jobs back, they will collapse and no longer serve as a boogeyman for the MIC.

---

A lot of those jobs are gone forever- lost to technology.

Trump's main talking point should've been that he would only be mirroring the exact same tariffs that China already had on the books that way it only looks defensive whereas China was the instigator.

If China wanted to fight back, it would've made them look bad because they would be the ones imposing NEW tariffs.

So no, I don't think Trump's 5D chess master theory is correct, he's a smart guy and a well known and experienced deal maker but this could've been executed better.

MSM would still probably find a way to cry though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

A lot of those jobs are gone forever- lost to technology.

---

There are always some jobs in any industry even if many of them have been automated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleganz

Trump's main talking point should've been that he would only be mirroring the exact same tariffs that China already had on the books that way it only looks defensive whereas China was the instigator.

If China wanted to fight back, it would've made them look bad because they would be the ones imposing NEW tariffs.

So no, I don't think Trump's 5D chess master theory is correct, he's a smart guy and a well known and experienced deal maker but this could've been executed better.

MSM would still probably find a way to cry though.

---

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.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/11/polit...ote/index.html

Trump can only call for tariffs if they are a matter of "national security". Otherwise it is supposed to be up to Congress. They say he has over-stepped his bounds.

Quote:

---

Senate overwhelmingly rebukes Trump with tariff vote

For the second day in a row, the Senate pushed back on President Donald Trump, showing stiff resistance to his key policy decisions on tariffs and NATO even as the President is at a summit in Europe wrestling with allies over those same issues.

Senators voted overwhelmingly Wednesday calling on Trump to get congressional approval before using national security as a reason for imposing tariffs on other nations, as he did recently with steel and aluminum levies against Mexico, Canada and the European Union.

The bipartisan 88-to-11 tally on the non-binding resolution sends a message to the White House about how frustrated senators are over Trump's disruptive moves on tariffs.
However, future efforts to pass enforceable legislation likely face an uphill battle over Trump's objections.

"Let's be clear, this is a rebuke of the President's abuse of trade authority," said Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican and a frequent and vocal critic of Trump's policies. "Can you imagine being Canada and being told your steel and aluminum exports to the United States (are) a national security threat?"

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 97-2 in favor of a pro-NATO resolution, just as Trump was touching down in Brussels and blasting the security alliance on Twitter for a host of reasons, including that many nations don't spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

The tariffs measure was written by Sen. Bob Corker, a retiring Tennessee Republican who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican and a free-trader from a steel producing state. They believe this vote will help build momentum for future tougher legislation, although it is not clear if they could get supermajority support in the Senate and House to override a likely veto, especially if Trump worked actively against it.

"This is a vote for Congress to assume its rightful role," Corker said. "It's a baby step."

The measure would require congressional approval of tariffs issued under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which requires national security concerns to be the driving reason for imposing the tariffs.

Mexico, Canada and the European Union -- longtime allies of the US -- were incredulous they were considered a national security risk to the United States and issued tariffs against US goods in response.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/11/polit...ote/index.html

Trump can only call for tariffs if they are a matter of "national security". Otherwise it is supposed to be up to Congress. They say he has over-stepped his bounds.

---

It is a matter of national security and Congress can go pound sand until they decide to reclaim the authority they delegated to the executive.
As a Constitutionalist I object to Congress delegating power to the executive branch without a constitutional amendment but vesting such powers in the executive is actually an improvement since the President is easier to hold responsible than Congress.

And since Congress is the one at fault for delegating the power, I hope Trump uses every drop of delegated power to MAGA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

It is a matter of national security and Congress can go pound sand until they decide to reclaim the authority they delegated to the executive.
As a Constitutionalist I object to Congress delegating power to the executive branch without a constitutional amendment but vesting such powers in the executive is actually an improvement since the President is easier to hold responsible than Congress.

And since Congress is the one at fault for delegating the power, I hope Trump uses every drop of delegated power to MAGA.

---

According to the Constitution, Congress is the one with the power to "regulate commerce"- not the President. They are also granted the power to " collect duties and imposts"- not the President. If you were a Constitutionalist, you would be aware of that.,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

According to the Constitution, Congress is the one with the power to "regulate commerce"- not the President. They are also granted the power to " collect duties and imposts"- not the President. If you were a Constitutionalist, you would be aware of that.,

---

Read what I wrote:

Quote:

---

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/...post-right.png


I object to Congress delegating power to the executive branch without a constitutional amendment

---

Quote:

---

Raising taxes and tariffs is usually Congress’s job. But on Thursday, President Donald Trump officially raised tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread opposition from Republicans in Congress — and it was completely in his right to do so.

Trump signed an executive order calling on the Commerce Department to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. His reason: Foreign countries’ current trade practices with the United States are a threat to national security.

By law, that’s enough of a reason to bypass Congress altogether.

---

Quote:

---

Why the president can impose tariffs without Congress’s approval

The Constitution is pretty clear: It’s in Congress’s 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,” and regulate trade between the US and other countries.

But over the past century, Congress has shifted many of the powers to raise and lower tariffs to the executive branch (a concentration of power that conservatives now decry).

There are many ways the president can impose tariffs without congressional approval. To name a few:

Through the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, the president can impose a tariff during a time of war. But the country doesn’t need to be at war with a specific country — just generally somewhere where the tariffs would apply. (This is how Richard Nixon imposed a 10 percent tariff in 1971, citing the Korean War.)

The Trade Act of 1974 allows the president to implement a 15 percent tariff for 150 days if there is “an adverse impact on national security from imports.” After 150 days, the trade policy would need congressional approval.

There’s the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which would allow the president to implement tariffs during a national emergency.

Trump’s White House cited Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a provision that gives the secretary of commerce the authority to investigate and determine the impacts of any import on the national security of the United States — and the president the power to adjust tariffs accordingly.

In this case, Wilbur Ross, Trump’s commerce secretary, conducted an investigation, which Trump called for last April, into the impacts of steel and aluminum imports. That report was enough legal justification for Trump to bypass both Congress and the independent US International Trade Commission (USITC), which is typically called on to weigh in on proposed tariffs. (When President George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs in 2002 as temporary safeguards, it required USITC oversight.)

---

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/1709720...riffs-congress

How serious are President Donald Trump's latest trade threats against China? The scale of the new measures -- 10 percent tariffs on an additional $200 billion of Chinese products -- will certainly get Beijing's attention. But the headline figure matters less than the industries being targeted and their relative importance to China's economy. By that metric, this latest attack is a serious escalation.
Most consequentially, the tariff list targets basic manufactured goods such as furniture, electronics, machinery, textiles and fibers. Together, these broad categories make up roughly 67 percent of total Chinese exports, which in turn account for 18 percent of gross domestic product. That means the potential for significant economic harm is high, all the more so given that manufacturing is the largest individual employment sector in China.
The new tariffs will also put pressure on China's trade surplus with the U.S. In principle, this imbalance doesn't much bother economists. The problem is that China depends on savings, investment, and capital accumulation to drive its economy. Historically, it would print money to buy surplus U.S. dollars, build up reserves, flood the domestic market with money, and thus encourage investment. Beginning around 2012, however, this strategy started breaking down as gray-market capital outflows rose and surplus dollars dwindled.
After years of increasingly stringent capital controls, China has only recently returned to a small surplus in total capital flow. Tariffs on major export industries will threaten its primary source of hard currency and place substantial strain on the capital-control system. That, in turn, will jeopardize China's dreams of signature international investment and potentially destabilize its finances as it becomes harder to balance capital flows. Unless it can generate more U.S. dollars, this could place serious pressure on the yuan.
Making matters worse, the new tariffs will likely accelerate the migration of low-wage manufacturing from China to frontier markets such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Even without tariffs, many export-focused firms in industries such as garments and textiles were eyeing the exits after years of double-digit wage growth in China. Tariffs will only exacerbate this shift, for which China was ill-prepared to begin with.
All this, moreover, comes at a bad time. With economic strain rising, Chinese officials were already resorting to risky measures to boost growth. The China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission recently advised banks to reduce interest rates on loans to small and medium-sized enterprises, while state-owned banks have increased lending for real-estate investment to ensure the economy continues to grow, even as stocks and key commodities have been plummeting.
Against this backdrop, the prospect of a prolonged trade war is causing growing alarm within China. Academics and key officials have been quietly wondering if the ruling party has made a significant miscalculation. The Commerce Ministry has vowed to retaliate against Trump's latest measures, but it has little room to maneuver given China's relative lack of imports from the U.S. The government has even agreed to reimburse some importers for the cost of its retaliatory soybean tariff, which is hardly the sign of a strong hand.

More at: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...where-it-hurts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Or they dump all of their Treasuries, continue devaluing the yuan (which is more damaging to the trade deficit than tariffs can fix and is causing the dollar to soar, thus making our exports even tougher), then declare the yuan/rmb gold backed and practically overnight turn the FRN dollar into just another 3rd world currency. Bye bye petrodollar reserve status.

Sorry but China actually holds the cards now. I'd argue by intentional design by the global bankers but that won't matter much if the FRN dollar loses 50% of it's current purchasing power and suddenly everything is twice as expensive as it was last month.

The whole shebang is about how to remove the petrodollar system. It is wise to view all events from that perspective. It's all very complicated. Besides, with Xi now "President for life" in China, there's no way he'll let any perception that Trump bested him creep into the narrative. Trump, otoh, seems very ripe for a flaying by the US media for "losing" to the Chinese, thus paving the way for the socialist Dem candidate in 2020.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

Or they dump all of their Treasuries, continue devaluing the yuan (which is more damaging to the trade deficit than tariffs can fix and is causing the dollar to soar, thus making our exports even tougher), then declare the yuan/rmb gold backed and practically overnight turn the FRN dollar into just another 3rd world currency. Bye bye petrodollar reserve status.

Sorry but China actually holds the cards now. I'd argue by intentional design by the global bankers but that won't matter much if the FRN dollar loses 50% of it's current purchasing power and suddenly everything is twice as expensive as it was last month.

---

They can't do what you suggested without collapsing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

They can't do what you suggested without collapsing.

---

Again, they have the GOLD. Along with the other countries the Chinese have been working with, like Russia and India. Any collapse in China would be very, very short lived and most of their people are already accustomed to working their asses off for little pay. Our collapse, however, would be epic by comparison. Forcing the man-bun crowd into factory jobs? The free-stuff crowd losing their free stuff? You don't really think all of this police security state being implemented is for giggles, do ya?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devil21

Again, they have the GOLD. Along with the other countries the Chinese have been working with, like Russia and India. Any collapse in China would be very, very short lived and most of their people are already accustomed to working their asses off for little pay. Our collapse, however, would be epic by comparison. Forcing the man-bun crowd into factory jobs? The free-stuff crowd losing their free stuff? You don't really think all of this police security state being implemented is for giggles, do ya?

---

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.