China is effectively a slave state. Ethical democrats used to be in favor of not doing business with them at all, on that basis alone.

My how the worm has turned.

I’m quite happy buying my rare pair of sneakers from somewhere else. New Balance anyone?

And I would really really like my gun parts made out of steel from somewhere else.

I would also like my cell phone not filled with Chinese mal ware.

I think Trump’s policies on China trade are a good first step in reversing trade policies that have never been in the interests of either American workers or American consumers.

There will be some short term pain. Might not work out quite the way we hoped, but I give him a lot of credit for doing something.

"They can either absorb the costs and take a hit to their earnings, or they can pass the costs on to consumers by raising prices, which is what tends to be the outcome."

Or they can find someone to make the products for them in the US. Making sneakers is not beyond the competence of US workers. And as volumes increase, scale economies and productivity-improving capital investments will reduce unit costs.

There's a lot going on currently with robotic sewing, applicable both to apparel and to shoes:

https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/59010.html

Sneakers can be made and sold in many Asian countries--Vietnam, India, Thailand, Indonesia. All with low tariffs. And manufacturers are already moving facilities out of China to other Asian countries that are more democratic and have more respect for individual rights. I am glad this is happening. China is running a slave state and the social "credit" monitoring they are doing is truly horrific.

Well, this isn’t turning out as expected.

Hipster footwear made in a sweatshop might not be the hook to hang your hat.

Meanwhile, let us do the forbidden: remember who set China up to hold so much while entertaining himself with Monica.
That blew every other thought from the minds of Americans so John Huang could sell us all.

Despite being a free-trader generally, I agree with the above posters. Time and observation has convinced me that you can't have free trade with a country that has a non-free economy. The domination of China in manufacturing, which U.S. globalists have allowed to happen, has constrained a lot of options. Referencing what David Foster said: To take an example, nearly all brands of washers and dryers sold in the U.S. are owned by either Whirlpool or Electrolux. Those two companies dominate most of the distribution channels; for instance, Lowe's and Home Depot. If you're a small manufacturer, there's no way you are getting any floor space in those stores. (You also can't meet their price-point demands without that ultra-cheap Chinese labor.) In order to break through these types of issues, some antitrust prosecutions may be necessary.

Trump is playing a long game, whether he realizes it or not. Remember "stealth democracy"? That didn't work, did it? (Don't feel bad; I thought it would work too.) Time to try something else, even if it seems nonsensical at first.

The Ford Model T was introduced in 1908. If sea transportation and transocean communications had then been adequate have have the cars manufactured in China, then people might have argued that the only way make the product cheap enough for a truly mass market was to have them made in China.

But the assembly line was introduced in 2013, followed by a whole raft of other productivity-improving processes and technology, and the price was driven down from $825 in 2009 to $260 in 1925. (These numbers correspond to $23,000 and $3700 in today's money)

Meanwhile...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/on-the-upswing-real-wages-are-growing-the-most-in-two-years-2019-01-11

"remember who set China up to hold so much while entertaining himself with Monica."

I'll take 'corrupt globalist sociopaths in a cynical sham marriage' for 15 million lost manufacturing jobs, Alex.

We should do proper math. The 20% tariff only affects the import price not the final price. The consumers' price increase is much smaller.

The internal shipping cost, the marketing cost, the distributor's cost, the store's cost and the profit are not affected.

By the way... the "adult" candidate, obviously a part of the deal to make China a Most Favored Nation because of her godlike abilities, would never have stooped so low as to hurt her friends overseas like this. I mean, American workers? Deplorable. Those Chinese need jobs!

Campaign promise kept!

His stated intention in the campaign was to make the cost high enough to make it affordable to insource manufacturing.

The voters accepted this trade so that Benton Harbor could have jobs again.

You can't trust Libertarian or right-leaning think tanks. Which ones are owned by Google? Which ones are financed by outright left-wing billionaires like whatever Krisol is doing today at Bulwark? Which ones are getting secret money and will appear in the next Cernovich exposé film?

Hillary Clinton stood on your position, and she lost. This is an actual difference between the two candidates in 2016, and it will likely be in 2020 with the Democrat being the candidate of foreign business interests.

Imagine being over 40 and still believing in lolbertarianism.

Anybody with a little thought can figure out why free trade is stupid. If we had free trade, real free trade, there would be no middle class because American workers would have to compete with third world workers who don't expect a first world standard of living. Some protectionism is required.

If free trade is so good why does China institutde teriffs to protect it's devoloping middle class? Somebody should tell the Chinese protectionism is not the way to go. Maybe the Chinese just haven't read the Fountainhead yet : ).

I'll pay a little more for sneakers so that the guy at the American sneaker factory can have a middle class life.

I'm not in the least suprised that the shills at Reason promote free trade open borders bullshit. Reason is mostly funded by the Koch brothers and it is well known that the Koch brothers promote such policies so that they don't have to pay first world wages to first world workers and thus slightly increase their profits.

Trump's teriffs may not be optimal. Maybe there are better teriffs we can impliment. But I don't believe free trade and open borders are the way to maintain a succesfulll middle class because a few autists reasoned a childish economic and political philosophy from first principles.

I much prefer the Social Conservatism and Economic Liberalism of Tucker Carlson over a country run by desciples of Ayn Rand.

Jewish Cat Out.

Trump steals from the poor and middle class and really all of us, tells us he's doing good for us, and benefits a few industries and manufacturers with de facto subsidies through his tariffs.

I guess that's one side of the scale.

Every Trump hater knows that China's unethical trade practices... high tariffs on U.S. products, subsidized goods dumped on U.S. markets, bans on U.S. agricultural products, cyber theft, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, counterfeiting U.S. goods, slave labor, sweat shops... are universally beneficial to America's poor and middle class and small businesses- providing high quality goods at affordable prices, creating jobs and opportunities, etc.- and detrimental to the greedy, unethical corporations that ship jobs overseas and secretly support Trump.

I can't wait for the Chinese to start competing against the big corporation Amazon and greedy billionaire Bezos. I like to read a lot and spend a lot of money on books. The other day I paid $26 to download a Kindle book. I'm sure that by ignoring the current protectionist trade policies supported by childish Trump, the Chinese could make that same book, and every other book sold by Amazon, available a lot cheaper, and more affordable to the poor and middle class.

The theory that free trade is good is predicated on balanced trade. Not on one party having such a low cost advantage that all manufacturing is outsourced to it while the first party has nothing left to trade that the low-cost party cannot do for itself (e.g., retail, service, insurance, law, medical care, accounting, etc.).

Free trade is also predicated on the protection of intellectual property. China does not respect international agreements on intellectual property, so any trade with them is not truly free trade.

In a way, free trade is also predicated on a higher cost of shipping. Container freight has made shipping costs a negligible part of the final consumer cost of the product - where it used to add significant cost to the consumer price of goods, effectively negating the price of labor advantage.

If tariffs are being used to even out the cost imbalance or compel compliance with intellectual property agreements, then the situation should work itself out. However, if tariffs are being used punitively, then the resulting trade war will damage the economies of both countries.

Keep in mind that, even at this point, China still needs the US more than the US needs China. The Chinese economy is still fairly fragile and based almost entirely on Western intellectual property.

I much prefer the Social Conservatism and Economic Liberalism of Tucker Carlson over a country run by desciples of Ayn Rand. ~ Jewish Cat at May 14, 2019 9:56 AM

Nah. Give me the social liberalism and fiscal conservatism of a Barry Goldwater, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or Jack Kemp any day.

I don't care if gay people get married. I care if out-of-control government regulation and taxation kills the economy.

I don't care if gay people get married. I care if out-of-control government regulation and taxation kills the economy.
--Conan

I didn't care if gay people get married either. But then one victory paved the way for the next. Now I live in a world where I am scared some liberal cat lady teacher decides my boy (he is 3 now) is transgender when he picks up a doll instead of the truck in kindergarten and then the state takes him away from me and castrates him. So again I don't mind gay people and I don't care if they get married. I like and respect lots of gay people. But I cannot stop noticing that the same people who gave us gay marriage are now giving us transgender children and child drag queens.

The left should really be carefull. Like I said I'm a two time Obama voter who has marched in pride parades. But as they keep pushing and pushing I'm starting to reavaluate my positions and take another look at what the anti gay bigots I marched against in the 90s had to say.

This is a very spicy comment and I think it will be my last. I don't want to get doxed by liberal fanatics and thus prevented from feeding my family.

--Jewish Cat Out for Good.

"The theory that free trade is good is predicated on balanced trade. Not on one party having such a low cost advantage that all manufacturing is outsourced to it while the first party has nothing left to trade that the low-cost party cannot do for itself."

The other thing that starts happening is that in the first country, eventually the price of natural resources falls because there is no in-country industry consuming them. What to do? Export them! Now you have the working definition of a colony: a region that exports raw materials and imports finished goods. That's the classic formula for economic dependency.

"I don't care if my neighbor loses her job when the widget factory closes down and she has to go live in a van down by the river, so long as I can pay ten cents less for a widget made in China."

That's not very neighborly, is it?

FWIW: The joy of being a tightwad is that you don't spend money on a daily basis, and thus, you always have money for emergencies like this - and, even when there isn't an emergency, you can still pay for fresh food instead of food from the dollar store. Or for almost any product you truly need that DOESN'T come from a country whose policies you don't approve of.

Now I live in a world where I am scared some liberal cat lady teacher decides my boy (he is 3 now) is transgender when he picks up a doll instead of the truck in kindergarten and then the state takes him away from me and castrates him.

I just had to read that again.

Something missed often about NAFTA: something stuck in that pork is a poison pill requiring any lost revenue to be made up domestically. Yes, if it wasn't profitable, then the taxpayer pays. Again.

----------

"I just had to read that again."

Well, you might have seen something similar right on this blog, before. You really think your kid is yours? You're not doing what you should. Your neighbors have told the State to do something about you.

"Despite Trump's insistence that China will pay the costs of the higher US tariffs, that's not how tariffs work. The companies importing their goods from China are the ones who pay the duties. They can either absorb the costs and take a hit to their earnings, or they can pass the costs on to consumers by raising prices, which is what tends to be the outcome."

I don't like getting a partial explanation. That is NOT an "either-or".

Higher prices reduce demand, costing the entire production chain. The essentiality of the product determines where the burden is heaviest, but no one is immune to changes in production volume.

Taxes work this way on corporations: they divert income from shareholders to the State, depressing business as they do so.

@David Foster: "Or they can find someone to make the products for them in the US... There's a lot going on currently with robotic sewing"

Robotic manufacturing might bring the factories here, but not the manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing used to be a way for low-skilled American workers to make middle-class incomes, solely on their ability to come to work on time and follow instructions. But now, instead of 1,000 workers, mostly having nothing but a highschool diploma and a few days of company training, you have 100 engineers and highly-skilled technicians tending a vast array of robots. The other 900 can apply at McDonalds or Walmart (businesses which were originally successful because they greatly reduced the head-count over the competitors just by better organization, and are now looking at increased automation), or perhaps as a janitor or aide at a nursing home. Or they could mow lawns - but are likely to find themselves in competition with a Latino immigrant that is a real go-getter AND willing to live on very little.

Not that it's _bad_ to keep more manufacturing capacity inside our borders, or to automate stultifying assembly-line jobs. Just understand that nothing will bring back the 1950's economy that provided opportunity to almost everyone. Now, either you need to go out and get a college degree or technical training, and to keep your training updated because the jobs keep changing, or you need the drive (and skills at accounting and regulatory compliance) to start your own service business...

"But now, instead of 1,000 workers, mostly having nothing but a highschool diploma and a few days of company training, you have 100 engineers and highly-skilled technicians tending a vast array of robots."

Old-style manufacturing was not 100% low-skilled...there was a significant number of industrial engineers, toolmakers, dispatchers, etc....and modern automated manufacturing is not 100% high-skilled, there is always stuff around the edges that isn't fully automated. It is true that the Good Old Days Will Not Return, but 100 or 200 jobs is better than NO jobs...and, there is plenty of pull-through benefit to the local community in the form of tax base, etc.

And it should not be assumed that service jobs...even skilled ones...are exempt from overseas competition. Medical images and legal documents are being reviewed in lower-wage countries, and quite a bit of computer programming is being done offshore as well. And there are no tariffs on this kind of services imports.

Now I live in a world where I am scared some liberal cat lady teacher decides my boy (he is 3 now) is transgender when he picks up a doll instead of the truck in kindergarten and then the state takes him away from me and castrates him. ~ Jewish Cat at May 14, 2019 10:53 AM

That actually falls under the rubric of big government collectivism, not a fiscally conservative position.

Nor was the social liberalism of the Goldwater-Moynihan-Kemp school a collectivist philosophy. It was pro individual liberty.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Kristen Gillibrand are in any way fit to occupy the Senate seat once held by Moynihan.

Markm, if you look at what actually happens manufacturing doesn't exist in a vacuum. And workers are paid roughly in line with the return on their work. One guy managing a line of robots may not have an advanced degree but his productivity is much higher and hence his wages can get much higher. If you want high wages for non-credentialed people they need robots.

In addition to that manufacturing needs engineering support. So typically when you move manufacturing a few years later you have to hire an engineer or two to keep things running. Then you move the design department to follow the manufacturing, after all that is where all the prototypes are being built. It just makes sense for them to be closer. And then your management follows. After all most of the company is over there. The one group that doesn't move is sales. They are tied to the customers, wherever that is.

The only real exception to this trend is companies that don't do their own manufacturing. Like toy companies. They design a set of molds and have everything built outside. Their manufacturing needs are generic enough they can get away with not having a manufacturing department at all.

"To take an example, nearly all brands of washers and dryers sold in the U.S. are owned by either Whirlpool or Electrolux."

Unless you live in a cave, you might have heard of a couple of small mom'n'pop shops called Samsung and LG.

The theory behind the benefits of free trade are based on Ricardo's writings, which are based on the context of a worldwide pre-industrial agrarian society where a nation's "comparative advantage" lay in its geography and climate and was thus not portable.

"Manufacturing used to be a way for low-skilled American workers to make middle-class incomes, solely on their ability to come to work on time and follow instructions."

Only because unions cartelized low skill labor, throwing supply and demand out the window. This encouraged a population distribution along the skills and knowledge access that is ill suited to the information age or stable self-government.