New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring • Hacker News Board

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#201

Post by anon23423532 » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:29 PM UTC

raesene9 wrote: post #189

anon23423532 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They tariffed our "allies" because our "allies" allow China to setup shell corporations in their countries so China can abuse trade agreements to get around direct tariffs. In return they make billions for being willing to stab the US in the back. We need to do this because China steals 300 billion dollars in IP from American corporations every year, in addition to illegally subsidizing their companies to steal globa…

You got a Citation for Canada and the EU allowing Chinese steel shell companies (the recent tariffs against canada and the EU targeted steel)? I'd not heard that argument at all so far.

"North American content required to qualify for NAFTA is set at between 50-60 percent under Chapter 4. With this low bar, many PRC goods and services can be regarded as Canadian products"

It's not just steel, it's basically any product due to NAFTA.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/344621-...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-nafta/nafta-meeting...

https://www.tecma.com/nafta-rules-of-origin-important/

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#202

Post by lsd5you » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

glogla wrote: post #186

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #165

There seems to be a lot of groupthink on HN. Pretty much every comment in this thread that views tariffs remotely positively is being downvoted. I view them slightly negatively, but protectionism (not necessarily tariffs) does help struggling or new industries develop if coupled with good export policies (see China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan for examples), so the idea that tariffs have no arguments for them seem…

I think that's mostly because most of the comments feel like either borderline insane (like the ones claiming all regulation including environmental and consumer protection are evil bureaucracy or the one claiming stability is a bad thing for the world) or feel kinda like cheap shills ("Trump is just doing what needs to be done! So brave!"). Yours looks like the first though out one. EDIT: mostly I think people just…

Except the trump administration isn't incompetent - by government standards, the same way he isn't utterly stupid but rather above average intelligence at the very least. This is just wishful thinking from the left.

They are of course at war with the media. What I don't understand is when educated people started to side with the war mongering media. The only time they were favourable was when he attacked syria.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#203

Post by phd514 » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #122

tomp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hence tariffs.

The argument that Switzerland provides a model for high tariffs creating wealth is... especially ironic. Switzerland is one of the least tariff-encumbered economies in the world, reguarly topping out various free trade indicies [1]. And in Switzerland's case, that's almost certainly causual. Average salaries in Switzerland are so high because of the disproprtionate role Switzerland plays in EU and global banking -- a…

It doesn't make a lot of sense that Switzerland is the EU's version of MA or NY or that Zurich is the EU version of NYC or SF given that Switzerland is not in the EU and quite happy that way, too.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#204

Post by selectodude » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:33 PM UTC

echotango wrote: post #192

RoyTyrell wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those were removed gradualy starting in the 1970's [...] > trade deficit sky rocketted Is a trade deficit important to not have? > manufacturing economy plummeted. By which metric?

A trade deficit means that, on net, your trade partners end up with your currency and no goods to buy with it. So they start buying up assets in your country. Factories, companies, land, housing, bonds, etc. so by maintaining a trade deficit for so long, we have legally sold a large fraction of the assets in our country to foreign investors. (Foreign direct investment) How do you think Trump made his billions? Having…

A trade deficit means that, on net, you've sent a bunch of pieces of paper to a country and they have given you actual stuff in return. So then they give that money back to you by investing in your country.

>Having Saudi Oil Sheiks own all the Soccer teams in England is the result of the UK trade deficit.

More English soccer teams are owned by Americans than all the russians oligarchs and arab sheiks combined.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#205

Post by mikk14 » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

cdumler wrote: post #118

frockington wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe nobody should have tariffs. Understanding that is never going to happen, it should at least be a starting ppoint

I'm glad that you believe it, but it's not a reasonable position. The primary reason for some U.S. tariffs is the legitimate reason of national security. We provide tariffs on certain foods, mineral resources, and military products because we want to guarantee that we do not loose production ability. Should we suddenly find ourselves in a world war, we would not be creating these production lines from scratch. Theref…

Well, frankly I don't think it's a disadvantage. It's difficult to move out from the equilibrium of countries mistrusting each other, but I think what you describe is actually an utopia. If we manage to destroy all tariffs and make countries lose parts of their production abilities, we'd make war unthinkable, which is a net good. The US would never start an all-out war because it would starve, and whomever specialized in the agricultural products supplanting the US productive capability would never start a war because they cannot build weapons.

Of course there are huge problems with this -- what happens if whomever makes your food goes tits up, involuntarily (natural disasters, coups, ...) or voluntarily (maliciously attacking)? Who guarantees the system? How? Etc... --, if there weren't I wouldn't call it utopia. But I think raising the costs of war beyond the unreasonable is a net gain.

Note: I'm fully aware that this is an extremist and probably next to impossible position, no one has to remind me that. I just contest the fact that the objection "but then we could not go around and kill people" isn't a particularly good counter-argument for no trade barriers.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#206

Post by fredley » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #197

dalbasal wrote: post #19

Out of all possible trade barriers, I think tariffs are generally the better option. The alternative is subsidies, quotas or "unofficial" barriers like product safety rules or other burry-you-in-bureaucracy setups. Tariffs bring in taxes (as opposed to costing the public) They're easier to understand. This one makes Chinese microwaves x% more expensive. It's clearer who is paying for it (consumers) and who benefits,…

> This one makes Chinese microwaves x% more expensive. Except that's not what the article says. The tariffs in question don't apply to finished products. So it wouldn't make a Chinese microwave more expensive. However, if you want to import components to build a microwave and hire US workers to put it together, that is what these tariffs make much more expensive. So instead of hiring US workers to assemble it in the…

One function of tariffs is to put political pressure on other countries. That's exactly what China is doing here. By only putting tariffs on uncompleted goods, it now makes even less sense to assemble in the US. This is in direct opposition to what a lot of Trump's voters were voting for: more manufacturing in the US.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#207

Post by selectodude » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #147

tanilama wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US doesn't have the lowest overall tariff in the world, it is Japan who does among major countries. Talking about fairness, it is fair for US to print their own currency and buy goods around the world, while other countries can't do the same? The reserve status of dollar doesn't come by itself, there is a price to pay, you can't have the cake and eat it.

Japan has slightly lower average trade weighted tariffs than the US. Japan has nearly 200% higher agriculture tariffs than the US.

>Japan has nearly 200% higher agriculture tariffs than the US.

Which have a lot of holes in them. The US sends thousands of tons of un-tariffed rice to Japan every year, which they then lock into a shed and let rot. Which is their prerogative, I guess.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#208

Post by AlexandrB » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:38 PM UTC

innocentoldguy wrote: post #94

AlexandrB wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, choosing to help the poor - like Tesla. I see you made that choice, but why should I as a taxpayer have to foot the bill as well? Edit: Oh sorry, I realized you might be referring to helping the poor banks during the 2008 financial crisis. Well, I don't want to pay for that either.

sigh. You seem to want to read into what I said more than is there, and to have an argument that is entirely unrelated to anything I've ever said throughout the entirety of my 50+ years on this planet. That being the case, you'll have to find another opponent of your political angst to argue with. I simply have no interest.

I think you misunderstood. I'm violently agreeing with you! I don't think we should have our property confiscated by the force of the government to support these poor corporations. They're not living, breathing people after all.

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#209

Post by selectodude » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

Maarten88 wrote: post #100

xienze wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe get back to the original question and the reason Trump is interested in starting a trade war? Why is it OK for other countries to levy tariffs against us but not the other way around?

> Why is it OK for other countries to levy tariffs against us but not the other way around? I see this comment a lot, I think Trump also said this, but I wonder what specific tariffs is this talking about? My country (Netherlands) has a negative trade balance with the US, we buy a lot of software, entertainment and (heavily subsidized) Tesla's from the US. Even the "German" car I drive (a BMW) is manufactured in the…

>My country (Netherlands) has a negative trade balance with the US, we buy a lot of software, entertainment and (heavily subsidized) Tesla's from the US. Even the "German" car I drive (a BMW) is manufactured in the US because of US trade demands.

Your car was built in the US because the labor is cheaper and 40 percent of their cars are sold in the US and China (shipping to China from the US is basically free, better off being here).

Re: New US Tariffs are Anti-Maker and Will Encourage Offshoring

#210

Post by guitarbill » Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

solatic wrote: post #184

echotango wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inability to devalue currency is why greece cant recover. The Euro is idiotic.

Greece can't recover because its exports are too expensive. Devaluing the currency in which those exports are sold in order to spur exports doesn't solve the underlying problem, which is Greek productivity. Imagine that the German economy is a Prius and the Greek economy is a truck hauling a ton in a trailer behind it, and the Greek truck is complaining that it costs more in fuel than the German Prius to get from the…

> There were always going to be weaker players in the EU

This is true, however there were quite strict criteria (the Maastricht criteria) put in place to try and prevent this from being too bigger problem. In hindsight, those criteria weren't sufficient, in one way or another.

I believe it's correct to say those weaker economies benefited from adopting the Euro the short term, and that they wanted to join the Euro.

As a twist, the Euro was somewhat unpopular in Germany when it was introduced, because it made things more expensive. So there is a feeling that Germany "paid" the price of adopting the Euro - whether this is true or not is irrelevant for the sake of policy-making.