Can US companies compete in a trade war?

[lukas1973]

Originally Posted by Pub-911

Read the respective methodologies. Differences arise from the simple nature of the beast. The US NIPA accounts include an item for "Errors and Omissions" because estimating even a mere national economy by measuring it on both an income and an expenditure basis will always produce differences. The situation between countries is of course much more complex. And as many may not realize, the US and its major trade partners engage regularly in "reconciliation" exercises in which the differences in their national presentations are identified and investigated.

Disparagement and disregard for those so much better qualified than Joe Blow to take on and grapple with such matters is what actually qualifies as twaddle.

The reason why the German trade statistic show significant larger export figures from the U.S. to Germany than the U.S. trade statistic is the "Rotterdam-effect" or "Rotterdam-Antwerpen effect". Many American goods with the final destination Germany are shiped through the port of Rotterdam and in a lesser extent through the port of Antwerpen. The U.S. statistic count these exports as exports to the Netherlands or Belgium but not as exports to Germany. But these goods are in the German trade statistic counted as imports from the U.S. and not from the Netherlands.
That's also the reason why the U.S. trade statistic shows a huge trade surplus with the Netherlands.
The effect is even stronger when you look at trade figures between China and Germany:

According to Chinese trade statistics (in million USD):

Exports from China to Germany: 69,217
Exports from Germany to China: 87,689
German trade surplus: 18,472

Maybe the Chinese will complain about their trade deficit with Germany. But actually they have a trade surplus with Germany:

According to German trade statistics (in million USD):

Exports from China to Germany: 103,348
Exports from Germany to China: 79,430
Chinese trade surplus: 23,918

Huge amounts of Chinese goods for Germany are shipped via Rotterdam and Antwerpen. In Chinese statistics they are counted as exports to the Netherlands or Belgium. But the actual destination is Germany. But then quite a lot of the imported goods from China that arrive in Germany are directly shipped from Germany to Switzerland, Austria, Poland and other Eastern European countries. And are then in some statistics counted as German exports or as Chinese exports.

It's kinda impossible to determine the "true" trade figures.

[Supposn]

Lukas1973,
Statistical anomalies such as the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect referred to within your post of 6:08 PM 11Feb2017 are inconsequential to this proposed policy for USA’s global trade.

Regardless of the trade policy’s entire costs which are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods, (i.e. regardless of how small of price increases) due to this unilateral policy, it would entirely or almost eliminate USA’s chronic annual trade deficits of goods while increasing our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.
Increases of prices to USA purchasers of imported goods that are beyond the aggregate direct federal expenses due to this policy, (beyond federal direct expenditures for assessing the values of shipments passing through USA’s borders and administrative costs due to this policy), are entirely due to markets’ price behaviors and they serve as indirect effective price subsidy of USA’s exported goods at no additional cost to anyone else.

[Pub-911]

Originally Posted by lukas1973

The reason why the German trade statistic show significant larger export figures from the U.S. to Germany than the U.S. trade statistic is the "Rotterdam-effect" or "Rotterdam-Antwerpen effect".

Oh, please. This is an EU rule that counts goods as "imported" when and where they enter the free trade area. The destination of goods transshipped within the EU is well known and accounted for as fully as possible in national data.

[lukas1973]

Originally Posted by Pub-911

Oh, please. This is an EU rule that counts goods as "imported" when and where they enter the free trade area. The destination of goods transshipped within the EU is well known and accounted for as fully as possible in national data.

It's not an EU rule. It's common practice all around the world. Trade between China and Canada via the U.S. is extremely common.

Trade between Canada and China in million USD:

According to Chinese trade figures:

Export from China to Canada: 29,426
Export from Canada to China: 26,281
Chinese trade surplus: 3,145


According to Canadian trade figures:

Export from China to Canada: 51,377
Export from Canada to China: 15,824
Chinese trade surplus: 35,553


Same with the trade between the U.S. and Mexico:

According to U.S. trade figures:

Export from the U.S. to Mexico: 235,745
Export from Mexico to the U.S.: 299,182
U.S. trade deficit: 63,437

According to Mexican trade figures:

Export from the U.S. to Mexico: 187,301
Export from Mexico to the U.S.: 309,213
U.S. trade deficit: 121,912


A good amount of the U.S. exports to Mexico are re-exports. Goods that are shipped via U.S. ports.

[Pub-911]

Originally Posted by lukas1973

It's not an EU rule.

You should have looked up the applicable EU rules. Your entire thesis is meanwhile for nought. Trade is closely watched and analyzed by actually knowledgeable professionals in every developed nation and even in some that are not so developed. These people know everything that you do about the subject and many, many, many times more. You have not stumbled here on some nugget of previously undiscovered wisdom. To the people who need to know, this is as easy as their ABC's.

-30-

[Frihed89]

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

I'd like to hear what those who have studied (not just taken an Econ 101 college course) trade and trade wars think.

ECON 101: Multi-national corporations are oligopolies. They have some price power in markets. Yes, they can compete in a trade war, bu they are more interested in their profits than jobs.

[redguard57]

Tariffs have their place if it is a developing country, like the U.S. in the 19th century. In that context it is more important to preserve local economic sectors than receive cheap stuff. You don't want to be economically colonized by the countries with advanced economies... and they will. Britain was trying to do it to the U.S. in the 18th & 19th century, the U.S. & European powers tried to do it to various countries around the world in the 20th. Ie: Haiti. The U.S. controlled most finished goods going into Haiti until the mid 20th century and also controlled most of its banks. It was essentially a raw materials colony. Developing countries should try to protect their nascent industries.

In our current context, no, tariffs don't make sense. The U.S. has a mature post-industrial economy. It has no need for protection. All tariff walls will do is make cost of living more expensive for everyone.