Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 15:52 last edited by
@taiwan_girl said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
I would like to know what specific things Presdient Biden has done since he is president that makes you think he is "soft" on China?
I dont see it.
(Is your BDS showing? 555 Just teasing you guys!)(https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-china-relations-in-the-biden-era-a-timeline/)
Isn't this thread a prime example?
-
You would be a good lawyer or politician. You were able to avoid the question I asked. LOL
wrote on 12 May 2022, 16:01 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
You would be a good lawyer or politician. You were able to avoid the question I asked. LOL
"Now the Biden administration is talking by about possibly undoing those tariffs."
Doesn't that sound like "going soft on China"?
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 17:12 last edited by xenon 5 Dec 2022, 17:17
Tariffs are a wonky tool.
In the longer-run they encourage more autarky and would discourage investment in "export to America" businesses in China.
In the short term - as long as the tariffs don't change consumer behavior (e.g., people still buy Chinese-made TVs and phones) - it's just an additional tax built into the prices.
In a similar context to the Russia/Germany gas pipeline - if either America or China were to try to unilaterally pull out of the economic relationship, both parties would be fucked for a while (massive GDP drops on both sides). Which is why I think direct military conflict between the two should be pretty far fetched.
I mean, small example, China makes batteries. Imagine a world without a reliable battery supply.
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 17:26 last edited by
Looks more like a move (one of many) to manage inflation than to be “soft” on China, similar to the consideration to resume importation of Venezuelan oil.
Besides, China is not being given any special deal that most other trading partners don’t get. Even if this goes through, at most it just brings the tariff on imports from China back to the levels before Trump started his “trade war” with China.
-
wrote on 12 May 2022, 17:30 last edited by
There's an argument to be made that strategic decoupling from China is more important than taming inflation.
But no one has really spelled out a plan for how to do that (including Trump). Sure, Trump put the issue firmly on the agenda - but didn't really have a solve for it.
-
There's an argument to be made that strategic decoupling from China is more important than taming inflation.
But no one has really spelled out a plan for how to do that (including Trump). Sure, Trump put the issue firmly on the agenda - but didn't really have a solve for it.
wrote on 12 May 2022, 17:59 last edited by@xenon said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
But no one has really spelled out a plan for how to do that (including Trump). Sure, Trump put the issue firmly on the agenda - but didn't really have a solve for it.
Forget about a “solve,” Trump didn’t even articulate the problem or the strategic intent coherently when he sprung the extra tariffs on imports from China.
-
wrote on 4 Jun 2024, 01:43 last edited by
Biden and Trump share a faith in import tariffs, despite inflation risks
[Biden & Trump] say that tariffs on imported Chinese goods are needed to promote domestic manufacturing and to clap back at China’s zero-sum trade practices. While economists say that tariffs result in higher prices, both Biden and Trump insist that consumers will be unscathed.

.
Biden’s tariffs on $18 billion in Chinese electric vehicles, batteries and computer chips, announced last month, are likely too small to lift the economy’s overall price level, economists said. But Trump’s plan for 60 percent tariffs on all $427 billion in goods that China ships to the United States each year would almost certainly reshape trade in ways that consumers would notice.
... -
wrote on 4 Jun 2024, 12:41 last edited by
As with several important things, Trump was right and Biden has changed his position.
-
wrote on 13 Mar 2025, 01:10 last edited by
Dont think we have a "China Tariff Deserves Its Own Thread" so I will post this here.
Walmart puts pressure on suppliers to absorb the cost of US tariffs. Chinese government is mad.
"If Walmart insists" ... "then what awaits Walmart is not just talk," says China governmenthttps://news.cctv.com/2025/03/12/ARTIhEixOXf3hiVR127ojvxh250312.shtml
-
Dont think we have a "China Tariff Deserves Its Own Thread" so I will post this here.
Walmart puts pressure on suppliers to absorb the cost of US tariffs. Chinese government is mad.
"If Walmart insists" ... "then what awaits Walmart is not just talk," says China governmenthttps://news.cctv.com/2025/03/12/ARTIhEixOXf3hiVR127ojvxh250312.shtml
wrote on 13 Mar 2025, 01:17 last edited by RenaudaWalmart puts pressure on suppliers to absorb the cost of US tariffs.
That is probably what Trumpigula and his minions were hoping US importers would ask (or try to coerce) from their offshore suppliers. I trust it won’t happen; in fact I would anticipate the suppliers’ prices ex factory to increase and leave the importer with the choice of take it or leave it. American consumers must bear the weight of Trump’s folly so long as the tariffs remain in place.
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 01:11 last edited by
A major supplier of toys to Walmart (WMT.N), opens new tab and Target (TGT.N), opens new tab is accelerating its shift out of China as it reshapes production amid President Donald Trump's intensifying trade war with the country.
California-based MGA Entertainment, which makes its Bratz and L.O.L. Surprise! dolls and other toys primarily in China, is taking steps to move 40% of its manufacturing to India, Vietnam and Indonesia within six or so months, up from around 10% to 15% currently, CEO Isaac Larian said in an interview.
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 01:21 last edited by
It's of reasonable strategic importance for the US to not rely on china for so much of its manufacturing. I like moving it to other low-labor-cost countries. I don't like generalized tariffs that would make it cost effective to manufacture the stuff in the US. Targeted tariffs against countries that we would like to rely on less are ok.
Education is extremely important.
-
It's of reasonable strategic importance for the US to not rely on china for so much of its manufacturing. I like moving it to other low-labor-cost countries. I don't like generalized tariffs that would make it cost effective to manufacture the stuff in the US. Targeted tariffs against countries that we would like to rely on less are ok.
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 01:38 last edited by@Horace said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
It's of reasonable strategic importance for the US to not rely on china for so much of its manufacturing.
Agree.
I think in maybe 50 years or so, Africa will be the low cost world manufacturing "hub"
-
It's of reasonable strategic importance for the US to not rely on china for so much of its manufacturing. I like moving it to other low-labor-cost countries. I don't like generalized tariffs that would make it cost effective to manufacture the stuff in the US. Targeted tariffs against countries that we would like to rely on less are ok.
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 14:05 last edited by@Horace said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
It's of reasonable strategic importance for the US to not rely on china for so much of its manufacturing. I like moving it to other low-labor-cost countries. I don't like generalized tariffs that would make it cost effective to manufacture the stuff in the US. Targeted tariffs against countries that we would like to rely on less are ok.
+1
-
@Horace said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
It's of reasonable strategic importance for the US to not rely on china for so much of its manufacturing.
Agree.
I think in maybe 50 years or so, Africa will be the low cost world manufacturing "hub"
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 16:32 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
@Horace said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
It's of reasonable strategic importance for the US to not rely on china for so much of its manufacturing.
Agree.
I think in maybe 50 years or so, Africa will be the low cost world manufacturing "hub"
Ain't happening.
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 18:04 last edited by
Maybe Nigeria can export its culture to the rest of the continent. I mean, I don't know anything about Nigerian culture, other than how well its representatives do in the west, but I'm assuming.
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 18:13 last edited by
No one probably predicted 50-75 years ago that Bangledesh would be a "superpower" in making clothes for the world.
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 18:20 last edited by
An economically integrated African continent sure would be nice.
-
wrote on 14 Mar 2025, 18:28 last edited by
@Horace said in Revisiting Tariffs on Imports from China:
An economically integrated African continent sure would be nice.
Kiss the Serengeti goodbye.
-
wrote on 17 Apr 2025, 02:22 last edited by
The number of canceled sailings of freight vessels out of China is picking up as ocean carriers attempt to manage a pullback in orders due to the trade war and tariffs.
A steep decline in containers being shipped to the U.S. will have a big impact on the supply chain, from port to trucking, rail and warehouse economics.
"We won't go to zero containers, but we will see a decrease in containers and as a result, in the future we will see a massive raft of blank sailings announced," one freight expert tells CNBC.U.S. importers are being notified of an increase in canceled sailings by freight ships out of China as ocean carriers try to balance the pullback in orders resulting from President Trump's tariffs and the escalation of tensions in the trade war.
A total of 80 blank, or canceled, sailings out of China have been recorded by freight company HLS Group. It wrote in a recent note to clients that with the trade war between China and the U.S. leading to a demand plummet, carriers have started to suspend or adjust transpacific services.
