Biden to add new tariff

[gatomontes99]

Biden to Hike Tariffs on China EVs and Offer Solar Exclusions Chinese EVs to face 102.5% tariff with other rates set to jump US solar manufacturing equipment poised for an exclusion.

But when Trump proposed the same thing it was "bonkers."

Trump suggests tariffs could go higher than 10%. Why one economist is saying, ‘bonkers.’

Remember it is not a double standard, it is the standard. When Trump proposed it originally, he was xenophobic, racist, economically illiterate and so on. Now that Joe's handlers are doing it, it'll be a stroke of genius that saved the economy (that is doing great, btw).

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

But when Trump proposed the same thing it was "bonkers."

Remember it is not a double standard, it is the standard. When Trump proposed it originally, he was xenophobic, racist, economically illiterate and so on. Now that Joe's handlers are doing it, it'll be a stroke of genius that saved the economy (that is doing great, btw).

Well, yes.  This is an example of Trump policy that went against conventional thinking... and proved to be a strategy worth keeping.   Chips, and other commodities or commmodity-like goods are coming onshore.  Not surprising that China Trade policy isn't mentioned by the Democrats much but maybe surprising as to why you don't hear about it from the Republican side.  Maybe they're still hoping that China backs down, so that they can re-engage - who knows.

Don't remember anybody important saying Trump was 'racist' for the China Trade War though.  

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Don't remember anybody important saying Trump was 'racist' for the China Trade War though. 

Oh they absolutely did, and it actually got a little heated in some of the press conferences (which were heated enough), especially when a female reporter of chinese origin asked about china's trade policy and trump told her 'we'll you'd have to ask china" in a terse way and she started screaming that he only said that because she's chinese and what was he insinuating and racist comment etc. 

Although In fairness they called him a racist for pretty much everything so...

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Biden to Hike Tariffs on China EVs and Offer Solar Exclusions Chinese EVs to face 102.5% tariff with other rates set to jump US solar manufacturing equipment poised for an exclusion.

But when Trump proposed the same thing it was "bonkers."

Trump suggests tariffs could go higher than 10%. Why one economist is saying, ‘bonkers.’

Remember it is not a double standard, it is the standard. When Trump proposed it originally, he was xenophobic, racist, economically illiterate and so on. Now that Joe's handlers are doing it, it'll be a stroke of genius that saved the economy (that is doing great, btw).

Have you never met the left before?

Trump's thinking was based on pretty sound logic. And the trade arrangement between the US and china is, of course, extremely unfair and deliberately so. It was set at a time when the concern was if china did not have access to and ties to the US market, then they would develop their economy with the Russian economy instead. This would lead to a more powerful communist / socialist Bloc Which was not in the interest of America. So they felt that by dangling access to the American Market which was much larger without requiring American access to the Chinese market they could tie China to America economically.

And that largely worked. However times have changedit is substantially unfair that the Chinese can sell anything to the Americans but the Americans can sell almost nothing to the Chinese. Not to mention ownership of business.

So trump wanted them to redress that. He threatened tariffs if they did not begin to open up their markets.

So the idea of tariffs aren't terrible.

What is surprising to me is he's choosing to put them on supposedly environmentally friendly products that would help America reduce its carbon emissions. Of all the things to choose, environmentally friendly options seems like a bad place for a left-wing government to start.

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh they absolutely did,  

Ok - well give a cite then.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Ok - well give a cite then.

Why, you'll just blow it off and then ignore it. 

If you were being remotely honest you'd have at least taken 2 seconds to search - which is how long it took for me to find dozens of examples. 

So - lets say I give in to your dishonest sealioning and post one,  Will you concede that the dems falsely and inappropriately accused trump of being racist for proposing the very policy biden is now?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Why, you'll just blow it off and then ignore it. 

2. If you were being remotely honest you'd have at least taken 2 seconds to search

3. which is how long it took for me to find dozens of examples. 

4. So - lets say I give in to your dishonest sealioning and post one,  Will you concede that the dems falsely and inappropriately accused trump of being racist for proposing the very policy biden is now?

1. Hmmm.... (drums fingers) so... no cite then ?
2. Haha.  No, I don't do my job for you.  Even if I liked you I wouldn't do that in this circumstance.  
3. Which you didn't post.  
4. Of course.  Do you think that I actually LIKE the Democrats ?  No.
 

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Hmmm.... (drums fingers) so... no cite then ?

We'll see won't we

 

Quote

2. Haha.  No, I don't do my job for you.  Even if I liked you I wouldn't do that in this circumstance.  

My job? 

am i your teacher now? You require me in order to learn something? You cannot learn or educate yourself unless i do it so it's MY job to lift you out of ignorance?

It's beyond pathetic that you live your life reliant on others for your own knowledge.  Explains a lot tho 

Quote

3. Which you didn't post.  

Which i shouldn't need to 
 

Quote

4. Of course.  Do you think that I actually LIKE the Democrats ? 

Yes - I do,  I think you're very obviously a socialistic dishonest intellectual failure who can't even Managed to find this simple answer for himself. I think you are fairly far to the left and if you were American you would definitely vote democrat. I think you approve of most of their dishonest tactics and ways, having copied many of them yourself.

Not sure why you felt the need to bring that up but there you go.

To answer your question, Seeing as you have admitted that you're unable to educate yourself in any  fashion Without assistance from others, I suppose I'll throw you a bone this one time and spoon feed you like the intellectual child you are.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/3/20681384/trump-trade-agenda-race-immigration

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-07-17/Trump-s-racist-policies-on-China-will-only-Make-America-Worse-Off--ScgZ8tirm0/index.html

There. Two that were top of the search page. Note the dates - both during the trump presidency.  

There are many more. 

 

There you go mike - you're better educated now than you were earlier.  You're welcome.  My mistake was crediting you with the intellectual capacity of someone beyond grade school. 

 

Now  you did promise to acknowledge something about the dems if i took the time to post this...  so go on... 

[Michael Hardner]

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

 

There you go mike - you're better educated now than you were earlier.  You're welcome.  

Thank you.  I stand informed now.

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thank you.  I stand informed now.

And yet didn't do as promised and condemn the dems for their false accusations of racism for a policy they are now adapting. 

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And yet didn't do as promised and condemn the dems for their false accusations of racism for a policy they are now adapting. 

Sorry.... I didn't read your post carefully.  Yes I HERBY CONDEMN THE DEMNS !  I CONDEMOCRAT !

I'm sure they'll be calling a press conference soon to respond to my condemnation.  In the meantime, I'll bet my post helped with nappy time.  Night night.  (tucks teddy under your arm)

[ironstone]

The tariffs may not be a sure thing just yet. There must be some secret negotiations happening between the CCP and representatives(Hunter Biden?) of the Biden administration.

The issue may yet get resolved with some very timely and huge wire transfers from the CCP to designated offshore accounts 😉

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry.... I didn't read your post carefully.  Yes I HERBY CONDEMN THE DEMNS !  I CONDEMOCRAT !

 

Still couldn't do it seriously huh. So your word means nothing to you either.  Thought so. 

And you wonder why i don't bother with your sealioning most of the time. 

Well - that's the left for you these days i guess. 

[Michael Hardner]

 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Still couldn't do it seriously huh. So your word means nothing to you either.  Thought so. 

And you wonder why i don't bother with your sealioning most of the time. 

Well - that's the left for you these days i guess. 

Well, it's hard for me to take a call to 'condemn' seriously.  I'm just a private citizen.  Do YOU condemn actions on here ?  If so, why ?

I'm not left, I'm conservative btw.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Well, it's hard for me to take a call to 'condemn' seriously.  

So you lied earlier.  Fair enough - that's about what i expect of you. My opinion of you is confirmed, carry on. 

[Hodad]

9 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Biden to Hike Tariffs on China EVs and Offer Solar Exclusions Chinese EVs to face 102.5% tariff with other rates set to jump US solar manufacturing equipment poised for an exclusion.

But when Trump proposed the same thing it was "bonkers."

Trump suggests tariffs could go higher than 10%. Why one economist is saying, ‘bonkers.’

Remember it is not a double standard, it is the standard. When Trump proposed it originally, he was xenophobic, racist, economically illiterate and so on. Now that Joe's handlers are doing it, it'll be a stroke of genius that saved the economy (that is doing great, btw).

To have the desired effect, Tariffs have to be focused and strategic. You have to want to adjust specific consumer behaviors. The problem with Trump's tariffs were that they were neither of those things. Like his tax cuts, they were pushing on the wrong levers, so they cost Americans money without moving the needle economically. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you lied earlier.  

No.  You are predisposed to thinking any error that I make is intentional.  Who knows why.

[gatomontes99]

53 minutes ago, Hodad said:

To have the desired effect, Tariffs have to be focused and strategic. You have to want to adjust specific consumer behaviors. The problem with Trump's tariffs were that they were neither of those things. Like his tax cuts, they were pushing on the wrong levers, so they cost Americans money without moving the needle economically. 

It was targetted...at the yen. China manipulates their money to make their products cheap at the expense of their and our workers.

[Hodad]

16 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

It was targetted...at the yen. China manipulates their money to make their products cheap at the expense of their and our workers.

The "yen" is too broad a target. Which makes the real target American consumers, who paid hundreds of billions more to maintain the same standard of living. Those of you whining about inflation should take note. 

They were too broad and too shallow to have ever done much. They made your TVs more expensive, but not so much more expensive that an American-manufactured brand can rise up, buoyed by the advantage. 

Do you see the difference? 

We have a nascent EV industry in the US. China can scale production quickly and cheaply enough to hurt or even kill it. A focused tariff would be one strategy for protecting it. -- Protectionism that tries to protect everything just ends up harming everyone. 

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

The "yen" is too broad a target. Which makes the real target American consumers, who paid hundreds of billions more to maintain the same standard of living. Those of you whining about inflation should take note. 

They were too broad and too shallow to have ever done much. They made your TVs more expensive, but not so much more expensive that an American-manufactured brand can rise up, buoyed by the advantage. 

Do you see the difference? 

We have a nascent EV industry in the US. China can scale production quickly and cheaply enough to hurt or even kill it. A focused tariff would be one strategy for protecting it. -- Protectionism that tries to protect everything just ends up harming everyone. 

I think you are assuming that their financial manipulation wasn't the target. It absolutely was the target. It was a big target. But it was the target. You are focused on microeconomics of specific industries. The tariffs targetted the macroeconomics of currency manipulation. That can and does work as well.

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No.  You are predisposed to thinking any error that I make is intentional.  Who knows why.

Nobody makes that many errors.  You are either a liar or a complete unmitigated fool.  I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. 

And this isn't a mistake. This was just you breaking your word. 

Dishonestly mike - it shines through in so many of your posts.  And you wonder why people are predisposed to thinking your errors are 'intentional'? 

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

The "yen" is too broad a target. Which makes the real target American consumers, who paid hundreds of billions more to maintain the same standard of living. Those of you whining about inflation should take note. 

They were too broad and too shallow to have ever done much. They made your TVs more expensive, but not so much more expensive that an American-manufactured brand can rise up, buoyed by the advantage. 

Do you see the difference? 

We have a nascent EV industry in the US. China can scale production quickly and cheaply enough to hurt or even kill it. A focused tariff would be one strategy for protecting it. -- Protectionism that tries to protect everything just ends up harming everyone. 

Lol...what a fckin' Libbie hypocrite. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...what a fckin' Libbie hypocrite. 

Ah, the erudite, nuanced commentary we've learned to expect from you. 

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Ah, the erudite, nuanced commentary we've learned to expect from you. 

Hodad...you're a hypocrite.!

You can always expect the raw truth from me. You don't like that because the raw truth is not terribly flattering to a hypocrite like you.

[Hodad]

13 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I think you are assuming that their financial manipulation wasn't the target. It absolutely was the target. It was a big target. But it was the target. You are focused on microeconomics of specific industries. The tariffs targetted the macroeconomics of currency manipulation. That can and does work as well.

A target like shooting an arrow haphazardly up into the air and claiming the air is the target? Okay  The point remains, that that kind of unfocused protectionism hurts  Americans without yielding the promised gains. Economics isn't new and protectionism isn't new. It's been tried many times before. No mystery there.