[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Ukraine - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:51pm
 
Wordle - daily game - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 10:54pm
 
Breaking News - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:31pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:27pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:11pm
 
NYTimes Connections - n4ku - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:03pm
 
Uploading Music - macadavy - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:18pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:17pm
 
Oldest Rock song on RP - johkir - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:07pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:19pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:13pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:06pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:03pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Trade War Page: Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post to this Topic
Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 12:12pm

 kurtster wrote: 
"More to lose" seems an awkward (if not inappropriate) phrase for an "economics" writer to use when they are trying to say it would be "worse" for one side.  China doesn't  literally have "more" of everything, but they could be more adversely affected by a prolonged trade war.  I guess I always think of that phrase in relation to something like a card game or some other sort of gamble, when one party literally has "more to lose" than another. I don't know, I guess I'm getting too literal lately - need more beer, or sleep, or something...
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 11:54am

Oooops ...

Cramer: I think Trump is winning the China trade war, and the US stock market backs me up

Trump is winning the trade war because China has more to lose




aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 11:31am

 westslope wrote:
Some unsolicited advice to all our pundits.

Paul Krugman has on occasion really annoyed professional economists in North America.  He is indeed an unapologetic liberal.  Many professional economists do not share his politics.

All that said, you really have to know your stuff before you start dumping on Krugman.  Even those professionals who disagree with him have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman.  

Partisan bashing of Krugman may earn brownie points with some ordinary voters but it gets you nowhere with Krugman's colleagues. 

 
{#Yes}

It is of course unsurprising that people of a libertarian bent have little respect for Krugman, as he does occasionally hold Austrian school economic beliefs up to ridicule.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 18, 2018 - 9:11am

Some unsolicited advice to all our pundits.

Paul Krugman has on occasion really annoyed professional economists in North America.  He is indeed an unapologetic liberal.  Many professional economists do not share his politics.

All that said, you really have to know your stuff before you start dumping on Krugman.  Even those professionals who disagree with him have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman.  

Partisan bashing of Krugman may earn brownie points with some ordinary voters but it gets you nowhere with Krugman's colleagues. 


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 1:19pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 aflanigan wrote:
 Did read it. Your interpretation of Krugman's alleged thoughts not really supported. Krugman specifically characterized the temporary import surcharge of 1971 as "hardball", and said "I don't propose this turn to hardball policy lightly" after pointing out how few options we had in dealing with Chinese currency value manipulation. He seems to clearly characterize this as one of the few untried options we had at the time in our limited arsenal of economic levers to exert pressure on China. So I think you've engaged in a fair amount of hyperbole in holding this op ed up as an example demonstrating that Krugman "never met a tariff he didn't like".

How about the substance of the Op-ed? Krugman is pointing to the correlation between the imposition of the temporary surcharges and Germany, Japan, and other nations raising the dollar value of their currency a few months later. It's true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation; can you point to evidence of what prompted these countries to raise the dollar value of their currency if not in response to the temporary surcharges?
 
Could you clarify what you're arguing here?
 
It sounds like trade wars, if carefully and judiciously waged, can achieve some narrow policy goals—a point I'm not disputing*. It doesn't sound like disagreement with what I posted, e.g. that Krugman has supported such things in the past, just not the current one.
 
*What I will dispute is that the long-term benefits are greater than the long-term damage, and that exchange rate manipulation is a doomed project—bailing against the tide. Something that does not require any remedy at all, let alone a draconian one with long-term negative consequences.


 
I was careful to quote you exactly, I think. You're now backpedaling it seems from "Krugman never met a tariff he didn't like" to apparently admitting that narrowly tailored tariffs or surcharges can achieve some narrow policy goals if done judiciously. I'm pointing out that you're sounding inconsistent, starting with what is tantamount to accusing Krugman from being a full-throated proponent of any and all tariffs under any circumstances to owning up to their having some limited utility under some circumstances, and that he allegedly has "in the past" supported such occasional judicious application of them. 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 8:51am

 aflanigan wrote:
 Did read it. Your interpretation of Krugman's alleged thoughts not really supported. Krugman specifically characterized the temporary import surcharge of 1971 as "hardball", and said "I don't propose this turn to hardball policy lightly" after pointing out how few options we had in dealing with Chinese currency value manipulation. He seems to clearly characterize this as one of the few untried options we had at the time in our limited arsenal of economic levers to exert pressure on China. So I think you've engaged in a fair amount of hyperbole in holding this op ed up as an example demonstrating that Krugman "never met a tariff he didn't like".

How about the substance of the Op-ed? Krugman is pointing to the correlation between the imposition of the temporary surcharges and Germany, Japan, and other nations raising the dollar value of their currency a few months later. It's true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation; can you point to evidence of what prompted these countries to raise the dollar value of their currency if not in response to the temporary surcharges?
 
Could you clarify what you're arguing here?
 
It sounds like trade wars, if carefully and judiciously waged, can achieve some narrow policy goals—a point I'm not disputing*. It doesn't sound like disagreement with what I posted, e.g. that Krugman has supported such things in the past, just not the current one.
 
*What I will dispute is that the long-term benefits are greater than the long-term damage, and that exchange rate manipulation is a doomed project—bailing against the tide. Something that does not require any remedy at all, let alone a draconian one with long-term negative consequences.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 17, 2018 - 7:50am

 Lazy8 wrote:
I posted a link to a NYT article (by Krugman) advocating imposing very high tariffs on Chinese goods. That was after a decade or so of relaxing trade restrictions between the two countries.
 
Did Krugman call that starting a trade war? Not in so many words, but that would be the opening salvo. Read the article. It could have been written by Trump if he knew more words.
 
 


  Did read it. Your interpretation of Krugman's alleged thoughts not really supported. Krugman specifically characterized the temporary import surcharge of 1971 as "hardball", and said "I don't propose this turn to hardball policy lightly" after pointing out how few options we had in dealing with Chinese currency value manipulation. He seems to clearly characterize this as one of the few untried options we had at the time in our limited arsenal of economic levers to exert pressure on China. So I think you've engaged in a fair amount of hyperbole in holding this op ed up as an example demonstrating that Krugman "never met a tariff he didn't like".

How about the substance of the Op-ed? Krugman is pointing to the correlation between the imposition of the temporary surcharges and Germany, Japan, and other nations raising the dollar value of their currency a few months later. It's true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation; can you point to evidence of what prompted these countries to raise the dollar value of their currency if not in response to the temporary surcharges?


NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 16, 2018 - 10:31pm

The IMF, those meanies..spoiling all the fun
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 16, 2018 - 8:12pm

 aflanigan wrote:
Not sure I'm seeing where in the cited op eds Krugman says what you claim in so many words. 
 
I posted a link to a NYT article (by Krugman) advocating imposing very high tariffs on Chinese goods. That was after a decade or so of relaxing trade restrictions between the two countries.
 
Did Krugman call that starting a trade war? Not in so many words, but that would be the opening salvo. Read the article. It could have been written by Trump if he knew more words.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 13, 2018 - 6:48am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
My disagreement with Krugman on this point isn't that the trade war Trump started is good, but that there is such a thing (as Krugman alleges) as a good trade war.


 
Not sure I'm seeing where in the cited op eds Krugman says what you claim in so many words.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 8:25am

 aflanigan wrote:
I assume you are being tongue in cheek here.

If he has substantive issues with the recent Krugman post he could probably email him directly to rebut, or send an email to the Times. 

Didn't really see much substance in the initial post, just ad hominem and partisan bickering.
 
My disagreement with Krugman on this point isn't that the trade war Trump started is good, but that there is such a thing (as Krugman alleges) as a good trade war.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 12, 2018 - 6:58am

 westslope wrote:



You are brave Lazy8 to take on Krugman on trade issues.   Please note that there is no equivalence between Trump's trade war and the tariff action directed at China that Krugman was calling for.



 
I assume you are being tongue in cheek here.

If he has substantive issues with the recent Krugman post he could probably email him directly to rebut, or send an email to the Times. 

Didn't really see much substance in the initial post, just ad hominem and partisan bickering.


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 11, 2018 - 12:23pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

I must correct myself.  Germany has consistently run a trade deficit with China

 
And you call yourself an economist {#Snooty}
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 11, 2018 - 12:11pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

wtf? 

 
Come on now.  You are a smart, educated, insightful Norwegian.  You are not an easy to manipulate populist in the mold of Trump voters are you?  
  
First, explain what professional economists think of this balance of payments score card approach to economic policy.   If you can.

Then, explain how the global economy has shifted in the post-war period making the goods trade balance a very incomplete part of the whole picture. 
 
Then, come up with a few explanations as to why US balance of trade in both goods and services has deteriorated since the US policy-induced Great Financial Crisis.   That story also partially explains why the US dollar is high in relative terms.  
 
After that, we will talk.  
 
Hade bra.  -Erik


NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 11, 2018 - 12:00pm

 black321 wrote:

I'm not really disagreeing with much of what you say...in fact the first point is relevant because so much of what the US consumes is mass-produced goods - consumption is 2/3 of the GDP...back to my point why labor is so important.  But taking this back to my original point, Chinese tariffs and xrate manipulations are not the primary reason we have a trade imbalance with China, which seems to be the focus of the administration, and a point ignored in much of the recent discussion over trade.

Your second point is also valid.  As China begrudgingly grows its middle class, it must manage its slower growth as manufacturing inevitably shifts to lower cost markets.  And perhaps tech/automation could be a further stake in China's manufacturing.  With labor costs minimized, there's more incentive to move production back to domestic markets. 

As to the third point...maybe that's the real goal of the administration?  Trash the $ by creating an adversarial and unstable environment, thereby forcing the global community to move to a different standard currency, or basket currency which Russia and China seem to endorse.  But what would that do to our financial markets and economy?  

 
I must correct myself.  Germany has consistently run a trade deficit with China
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 11, 2018 - 11:58am

 westslope wrote:


Come on, even if you are not an economist (rather obvious I would say), you can do better than that.  

 
wtf? 
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 11, 2018 - 11:57am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Well, fair enough, USD 18 billion is not huge compared to the others but it is still a sizeable deficit.

 

Come on, even if you are not an economist (rather obvious I would say), you can do better than that.  
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 11, 2018 - 11:55am

 westslope wrote:

Canada?    Are you sure?  Are you really sure?

Or is this Team Trump Nordic speaking?  

 
Well, fair enough, USD 18 billion is not huge compared to the others but it is still a sizeable deficit.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 11, 2018 - 11:07am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

......

The US runs big trade deficits with high-cost countries (Japan, Germany, Canada). ......
 
Canada?    Are you sure?  Are you really sure?

Or is this Team Trump Nordic speaking?  
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 11, 2018 - 9:59am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Firstly what you are claiming is only true for mass-produced goods with a high labor content.. clothes, shoes, etc. Moreover, as China develops, labor intensive manufacturing is anyway moving elsewhere (and a good thing too, encouraging development in the poorer nations). The US is not a banana republic, therefore low-cost-labor production is not the sector where a country like the US with such high per capita GDP should be competing on the world stage, but in goods and services with high added value.

Secondly, offshoring to low-cost countries is an issue that applies to every developed economy yet not all of them are running trade deficits with emerging economies like between the US and China. You need to look elsewhere for the reasons behind the US trade deficit. 

My point is that the artificially high USD exchange rate due to the investment influx (safe haven) means that most US products are overpriced in global competition. Take Germany as a comparison. Despite importing similar volumes of consumer goods (per capita) from China as the US, Germany has consistently run a trade surplus due to exports of cars and machine tools. The US competition in this field is overpriced for the quality they offer so you end up with a trade deficit.
 

 
I'm not really disagreeing with much of what you say...in fact the first point is relevant because so much of what the US consumes is mass-produced goods - consumption is 2/3 of the GDP...back to my point why labor is so important.  But taking this back to my original point, Chinese tariffs and xrate manipulations are not the primary reason we have a trade imbalance with China, which seems to be the focus of the administration, and a point ignored in much of the recent discussion over trade.

Your second point is also valid.  As China begrudgingly grows its middle class, it must manage its slower growth as manufacturing inevitably shifts to lower cost markets.  And perhaps tech/automation could be a further stake in China's manufacturing.  With labor costs minimized, there's more incentive to move production back to domestic markets. 

As to the third point...maybe that's the real goal of the administration?  Trash the $ by creating an adversarial and unstable environment, thereby forcing the global community to move to a different standard currency, or basket currency which Russia and China seem to endorse.  But what would that do to our financial markets and economy?  


Page: Previous  1, 2, 3  Next