Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, first of all you can't just include revenues of American-owned businesses in China and declare that it balances the trade deficit without also including revenues of Chinese-owned businesses in America. Starwood Hotels, GE Appliances, Motorola Mobility, and AMC Entertainment are some of the many once-American businesses acquired by Chinese owners. When all is said and done, including foreign-based revenues might mean the trade deficit is even larger.
Second, you can't declare that a trade war is not the best way to handle the issues unless you can show evidence (not armchair theory) that a more effective way is available. We have been trying for 20 years to remedy these concerns. Political statements, inclusion in economic treaties, World Court lawsuits, sanctions, and other measures have proven ineffective.
That's a great point about including Chinese businesses in America. I thought the very same when Huang was explaining why he thought Trump had the advantage over China. He also had some very good points about the bond market and the trillions owned by the Chinese.
My point was why is the bragger best negotiator ever and chief not negotiating vs starting a trade war with tariffs? It's an unfortunate consequence that both sides get hurt from tariffs,so why not just do a better job negotiating? GM lost a billion dollars in profits last year because of the aluminum tariffs. To Trump's credit, the new and improved NAFTA agreement seems to be better, but it's not drastically different than the old agreement. Again, why impose tariffs, negotiate better. Both sides understand that there will be collateral damage, and many of Trump's advisors did not want the tariffs.
It remains to be seen how many farmers lose their land after all is said and done. Bailing them out is nice, but it might not be enough for many.
Never going to happen. Nearly all industries depend on billions of tax money. The food and farm industries are a tiny example of the corporate Welfare.
Corporate welfare? No such thing. Tax cuts aren't welfare. Keeping one's own earnings/profits isn't welfare. Example... Do you own any personal possessions? Did the Fed Gov GIVE them to you (welfare) like the Fed Gov GIVES some people Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc., benefits? Or did you have to EARN them yourself by paying for them out of your earnings?
Understand the difference? Welfare is an actual TRANSFER of wealth from some to others. A tax cut just enables individuals/corporations to keep more of their own money, it doesn't transfer any of anyone else's wealth TO them.
Corporate welfare? No such thing. Tax cuts aren't welfare. Keeping one's own earnings/profits isn't welfare. Example... Do you own any personal possessions? Did the Fed Gov GIVE them to you (welfare) like the Fed Gov GIVES some people Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc., benefits? Or did you have to EARN them yourself by paying for them out of your earnings?
Understand the difference? Welfare is an actual TRANSFER of wealth from some to others. A tax cut just enables individuals/corporations to keep more of their own money, it doesn't transfer any of anyone else's wealth TO them.
An actual transfer of wealth from one to another is what is happening here .
My point was why is the bragger best negotiator ever and chief not negotiating vs starting a trade war with tariffs? It's an unfortunate consequence that both sides get hurt from tariffs,so why not just do a better job negotiating? GM lost a billion dollars in profits last year because of the aluminum tariffs. To Trump's credit, the new and improved NAFTA agreement seems to be better, but it's not drastically different than the old agreement. Again, why impose tariffs, negotiate better. Both sides understand that there will be collateral damage, and many of Trump's advisors did not want the tariffs.
He IS negotiating. Tariffs and negotiations are not mutually exclusive. We have attempted simply negotiating in the past without success. The tariffs set the table for negotiations by establishing a pain level that can be allieved through an agreement. The pain is present for both sides and serve as an incentive for both sides to actually reach an agreement rather than pay lip service to negotiating. Trump believes their pain is greater than our pain (even if our media doesn't tell us about theirs or they can hide theirs better). Did you know that last quarter China saw the slowest economic growth in 20 years? Without tariffs, a failure or delay in negotiations mean a continuance of the status quo, and the Chinese are content with the status quo.
NAFTA looks similar but some minor details can have a huge effect, namely the agreement on average labor rates on autos which takes away much of the incentive to use Mexico for cheap labor. Our auto plants were already paying $16/hr minimum average so there is nothing for us to do but their auto plants were paying under $8/hr. Changes to the sourcing of parts also reduce the ability to bypass import restrictions of one country by funneling it through another country.
An actual transfer of wealth from one to another is what is happening here .
Like I said... Food Stamp spending for FY2019 is budgeted at $84 billion. The aid given to the nation's farmers is only 9% of that amount. Let's eliminate both.
Corporate welfare? No such thing. Tax cuts aren't welfare. Keeping one's own earnings/profits isn't welfare. Example... Do you own any personal possessions? Did the Fed Gov GIVE them to you (welfare) like the Fed Gov GIVES some people Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc., benefits? Or did you have to EARN them yourself by paying for them out of your earnings?
Understand the difference? Welfare is an actual TRANSFER of wealth from some to others. A tax cut just enables individuals/corporations to keep more of their own money, it doesn't transfer any of anyone else's wealth TO them.
The federal government spends more than $20 billion a year on subsidies for farm businesses. About 39 percent of the nation's 2.1 million farms receive subsidies, with the lion's share of the handouts going to the largest producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice.1
That's MY money going to Ag businesses.
It's welfare for farmers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
