Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

thesoundingline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#21

Post by jerf »

CompelTechnic wrote: post #3

The headline's use of the word "put" has an oddly vague interpretation. The first time I read the headline, I imagined "put" was in the past tense, which implied the recent past, i.e. the last 6 months, due to the recent political action. Which would give the impression that Trump was foolish and got backlash worse than the benefit he gained. Then I read the article and i realized "put" is in the present tense, which…

The current narrative is that Trump is starting a trade war. But I have a hard time working out a way to define "trade war" in a way that does not have "trade war" occurring since long before Trump even began his campaign, unless your definition of "trade war" has a special pleading clause that just excludes the US for some reason and imposes a special, non-symmetric obligation on it for some reason that presumably contradicts the idea that the US isn't that special.

People just didn't know about the tariffs that already existed because the media didn't report on them, so politically, they didn't exist. (The idea that the media has this power but that it has not corrupted them is one I have a hard time understanding.)

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#22

Post by jerf »

nod wrote: post #19
CompelTechnic wrote: post #3

The headline's use of the word "put" has an oddly vague interpretation. The first time I read the headline, I imagined "put" was in the past tense, which implied the recent past, i.e. the last 6 months, due to the recent political action. Which would give the impression that Trump was foolish and got backlash worse than the benefit he gained. Then I read the article and i realized "put" is in the present tense, which…

"make things fair" is a strange way to put "other countries hurt their consumers more, so we should too"

If tariffs were simply a matter of "whether or not we hurt our own consumers", there would be no debate about them anywhere; nobody would have any particular motivation to impose them, whereas in the real world it's clear there's some motivation that causes at least some imposition of tariffs to be nearly universal. Without implying any particular position is right, that's beyond an oversimplification that leaves you completely unable to look out into the world and even propose a theory that explains the current behavior of all the players, let alone validate one as correct.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#23

Post by coliveira »

The US is not a serious country. During decades they spent millions trying to convince smaller countries to open up their economies, because this was supposedly good. Now that they're starting to slip back in the competition against other countries (particularly China), they do a sudden 180 degree change and introduce tariffs. Only the uninformed can take this seriously.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#24

Post by [deleted] »

assblaster wrote: post #20
asah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please remember Boeing airlines, John Deere tractors, Caterpillar construction and earth moving equipment, Cisco routers, military gear -- and any number of parts and components that are made here and assembled elsewhere into finished products (and in some cases, imported back to the US).

Why aren't these things assembled in the United States as well? Cost to transport from one facility to outside the United States then back surely adds cost to the finished product, unless there are savings gained from cheaper labor or less regulation.

[deleted]

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#25

Post by Retric »

cletus wrote: post #5

Ok, so this is complicated. Tariffs are only part of the story. First I agree that some countries will protect industries they consider to be of national interest or are just politically important, like the Canadian dairy industry. I actually think this is OK. Second I think it is true that there is some hypocrisy here on both sides. It's fair to say US trading partners impose tariffs on US goods and ask why the US s…

Buying subsidized products from another country means you benefit from the subsidy. Having native producers to cover basic food needs via plants is reasonable, but importing subsidized beef is a net economic benefit.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#26

Post by DenisM »

Tariffs are backdoor wealth redistributon in some sense. Hear me out.

US export industries are more high tech with higher wages, imports are comparatively low tech. When US imposes tariffs it creates low-tech jobs in the US. When the trade partners impose tariffs they destroy high tech jobs in the US.

The net result is high tech jobs lost, low tech jobs gained. Overall economic efficiency goes down due to loss of high tech jobs and benefits of specialization.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#27

Post by logicalmind »

assblaster wrote: post #20
asah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please remember Boeing airlines, John Deere tractors, Caterpillar construction and earth moving equipment, Cisco routers, military gear -- and any number of parts and components that are made here and assembled elsewhere into finished products (and in some cases, imported back to the US).

Why aren't these things assembled in the United States as well? Cost to transport from one facility to outside the United States then back surely adds cost to the finished product, unless there are savings gained from cheaper labor or less regulation.

The cost of labor and externalized costs would be the answer.

In the US, the workers demand a livable wage and healthcare from their employer. In other countries, the definition of livable wage is quite different (lots of poor/slave labor and no rules that protect employees from age restrictions, working hour restrictions, etc.). Some countries have government provided healthcare so that is not a cost that companies need to deal with.

Additionally, companies in other countries are able to externalize some of their major costs, especially in the area of pollution. In the US, you couldn't emit extreme amounts of waste and just dump it anywhere, you have to pay to "clean" it or face penalties. Other countries don't have such restrictions and are allowed to dump waste into rivers or the atmosphere without penalty.

So in the US you'd have to build a factory that is "clean" and complies with regulations. Then you'd have to hire and pay US workers a fair wage and likely subsidize at least a portion of their healthcare. You would also have to comply with worker regulations for these employees.

It's up to you to determine whether it should be ok to externalize these costs. Treating employees as effectively slave labor and the ability to destroy the environment and the habitats of living things.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#28

Post by Nokinside »

This is overly simplistic.

You should look at the trade from in value added basis and how the trade benefits different couturiers differently.

Take for example US vs China. US products exported to China have value added close to 80-90%. Chinese products exported to US have value added around 40%. If Chinese import stuff, join them together into a thing that has export value $100, only $40% of the value stays in China. When the US does the same $80-$90 of the value stays in the US.

Trade agreements are negotiated over long time to be beneficial for everyone involved and nobody can claim that US is easy negotiation partner that has been taken an advantage. US allows higher taxation from other countries in exchange of some other things (lobbied by the the financial sector inside the US).

In general the whole "imports bad, exports good" outdated folk mercantilism is just silly. It's unfortunate that the political discussion anywhere can't raise above that.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#29

Post by bkor »

Nokinside wrote: post #28

This is overly simplistic. You should look at the trade from in value added basis and how the trade benefits different couturiers differently. Take for example US vs China. US products exported to China have value added close to 80-90%. Chinese products exported to US have value added around 40%. If Chinese import stuff, join them together into a thing that has export value $100, only $40% of the value stays in China…

It's also telling that the chart shows tariffs in %, not in absolute numbers. From what I saw in other articles it mostly balances out. This aside from the bit which you mentioned that it's a bit more detailed than import/export.

Re: The Largest US Trading Partners All Put Higher Tariffs on the US Than Vice Versa

#30

Post by zip1234 »

wpietri wrote: post #11
aceon48 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats your theory at least. At some point, you don't need any more cheap shit from Amazon, but you need a decent job. As a top 5%er or whatever, surely cheaper is better for you... But prob not your lower middle class neighbor who has to compete more globally in the low skill labor market, where other countries are protecting their people in that regard

In which case, I'd much rather we increased taxes on income and/or wealth to a) help workers move up the value chain, and b) provide a safety net for people who lose out on trade. A tariff on "cheap shit from Amazon" is a heavily regressive tax, and acts to reduce total delivered value. Whereas taxing the well-off to pay for education and encourage investment increases total delivered value.

How does taxing the well-off to pay for education encourage investment?
Post reply on HN