Member Discussion

25% Tariffs On Hold For Now

Looks like Trump is negotiating a deal and has agreed to put the next tariff increase on hold... for now.


Trump agrees to freeze higher tariffs on $200B in Chinese goods — for now

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Axisalon isn't going to be happy with this.  

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Especially unhappy will be Axigilon’s U.S. integrators.

Agree: 1
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

90 day reprieve only - imo, the proposed increase in electronic-item tariffs set to begin on Jan 1 were nothing more than leverage used to reduce overall trade imbalance gaps in industries more important to the US than consumer electronics:

"Both parties agree that they will endeavor to have this transaction completed within the next 90 days. If at the end of this period of time, the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the 10 percent tariffs will be raised to 25 percent," the statement added.

Meanwhile, "China will agree to purchase a not yet agreed upon, but very substantial, amount of agricultural, energy, industrial, and other product from the United States to reduce the trade imbalance between our two countries. China has agreed to start purchasing agricultural product from our farmers immediately," the White House said.

above is from this link.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

...trade imbalance gaps in industries more important to the US than consumer electronics...

Gaps in which industries? Does the U.S. buy more agricultural products from China than it sells?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

in addition to agricultural products there is also a mention of energy, industrial, and other product.

hence, your 'question' asks for an answer regarding something that was not stated in the OP.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

hence, your 'question' asks for an answer regarding something that was not stated in the OP.

Your statement was:

the proposed increase in electronic-item tariffs set to begin on Jan 1 were nothing more than leverage used to reduce overall trade imbalance gaps in industries more important to the US than consumer electronics:

I asked:

Gaps in which industries?

So, more precisely I am asking 

What are those industries that have trade imbalance gaps that are more important than consumer electronics?

 

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

if the current tarriffs that are already in place get reverted, then Axigenalon really wont be happy.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Why is that?  You still can't install HIKhua in Government systems or anything funded from government projects. 

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Why is that?

Why is what?  

Why would Hikua’s competitors be happy with Hikua product getting cheaper?

?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

you didn't just ask for gaps in which industries... because you followed that question with a ridiculous follow-up question related to the first - that you already knew the answer to, as nobody would ever claim that the U.S. buys more agricultural products from China than it sells.

now that you are being more precise - and not adding throw off insults to your question, my answer is energy, industrial, and other products - which was precisely stated by the author of the linked text I provided.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

now that you are being more precise - and not adding throw off insults to your question, my answer is energy, industrial, and other products.

At the risk of being ridiculous, do you think that the U.S buys more energy from China than it sells?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

why this nitpicking? its not tit-for-tat. The US government is taking a holistic look at the trade imbalance.
for example,
china sells to US 200 USD a year in cheap toys and textiles
US sells to China 100 USD a year in oil and soy beans

there is an imbalance. to offset the imbalance, China agreed to buy more oil and soybeans from USA instead of from Saudi Arabia and Argentina. 

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

why this nitpicking?

I don’t think it is, again consider you initial statement:

imo, the proposed increase in electronic-item tariffs set to begin on Jan 1 were nothing more than leverage used to reduce overall trade imbalance gaps in industries more important to the US than consumer electronics:

Supposing that these electronic items tariffs were actually “nothing more than leverage” to affect other industries imbalances doesn’t make sense.

If one seriously wants to reduce the trade imbalance, there is one essential industry to target, electronics, and the primary reason is to reduce that industry’s imbalance.  Yet you deny that reason.

You see, electronics is the whole game:

Agree
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

'trade imbalances' are not limited to, and can not be reduced to just total $$ of products imported/exported.

It ignores the non-level playing field (wages), govt ownership, product dumping seeking to destabilize foreign markets, currency manipulation and various other Chinese go to moves.  like, stealing IP.   

Agree: 1
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

i beg to differ, i think that trade imbalances can be reduced to a total of $$ imported exported. the reason being that each country has its own core competencies and advantages and disadvantages, , so there will never be a level playing field between countries. but if the overall is fair, there will be no problem.

wages in Korea are lower, the market is dominated by 4-5 large conglomerates (not the government, but a handful of monopolistic players) but few are complaining about Hyundai stealing market share from Ford...

 

with the exception of IP theft which i agree is business,the rest is just doing business, happened before, will happen again, China is not unique here in any way

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

so you beg to differ about the definition of trade imbalance because...

"each country has its own core competencies and advantages and disadvantages, , so there will never be a level playing field between countries. but if the overall is fair, there will be no problem."

I'm not sure how to reply to something so generalized and non-specific - not to mention that ignores outright my other listed components (govt ownership, product dumping seeking to destabilize foreign markets, currency manipulation).

also, I'm not sure if the bold part is even definable.

I don't see either of us being convinced of the others position.

good day, sir.

Agree
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

i understand why you focus on electronics, but there is no electronics industry in the USA, not since the japanese slashed it in the 90s, now there is also no electronics in Japan, they too switched to China.

both of us are right and wrong, it is just a different way of seeing the economy. 

Agree
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny