re: Why are "free traders" quiet about foreign tariffs but apoplectic about U.S. tariffs?

quote:

---

this is what people are talking about. Chop Suey can work for less than Joe Blow in America even if tariffs are 0% and other non-tariff barriers are adjusted too.

---

Were that the case, there would be no reason whatsoever for China to steal IP, support trademark or copyright infringement, encumber imports, subsidize exports, manipulate currency, etc. However, they have done and/or are doing all of that. In most instances, they refused to stop even while denying they ever cheated in such ways.

Every POTUS since Bush 41 got Peace-In-Our-Time agreements from China. Each got Chinese commitments to play nice. They collectively tried everything from sweet talking and cajoling to signing formal agreements to bribing with WTO membership. Each brought toy guns to a battle China was fighting with real weapons.

Enter OrangeManBad StageRight and the game changed. He's no longer turning Uncle Sam's other cheek. China slapped him, and he slapped the shite out of China in return. Now both countries are standing toe-to-toe and China realizes it is not quite as big, strong and well equipped for the fight as it thought it was. Trump's slap stung more than China wants to admit. They don't want another. Now it is a matter of China behaving properly as a fair trader while trying to save face.

In the meantime, though tariffs are oft consumer borne tax equivalents, in this instance the consumer is seeing virtually no price escalation. So up to the present, handwringing over tariff costs being borne by US consumers is the proverbial "dog that don't hunt." There is virtually no evidence of US consumer borne costs. None. There is no inflationary pressure at all. None. Zip. Nada. So either those tariffs are being eaten by China, or they are being eaten by Chinese and/or US importer/exporters, or by some combination of those.

quote:

---

Were that the case, there would be no reason whatsoever for China to steal IP, support trademark or copyright infringement, encumber imports, subsidize exports, manipulate currency, etc. However, they have done and/or are doing all of that. In most instances, they refused to stop even while denying they ever cheated in such ways.

---

Are you trying to suggest that a Chinese worker would command the same wage as an American in the absence of trade barriers? You don't think China has any inherent labor advantages? It's all borne out of cheating?

quote:

---

In the meantime, though tariffs are oft consumer borne tax equivalents, in this instance the consumer is seeing virtually no price escalation. So up to the present, handwringing over tariff costs being borne by US consumers is the proverbial "dog that don't hunt." There is virtually no evidence of US consumer borne costs. None. There is no inflationary pressure at all. None. Zip. Nada. So either those tariffs are being eaten by China, or they are being eaten by Chinese and/or US importer/exporters, or by some combination of those.

---

So if consumers aren't paying the difference, then companies are. That is what I said before. Businesses are absorbing the effects of the tariffs. And the reduction in margins or sales will have big economic consequences.

I should also add that the US dollar has strengthened against the yuan since the tariffs were implemented (I want to say a ~10% swing). So that has softened the effects of the tariffs from the US perspective.

quote:

---

Please tell me how farmers are being affected

---

US ag exports to Chine declined. The government is writing to checks to farmers because of this.

quote:

---

Are you trying to suggest that a Chinese worker would command the same wage as an American in the absence of trade barriers?

---

Hardly.
They'd command the wage they were worth.

Are you trying to suggest China would be competitive without IP theft, support of trademark or copyright infringement, encumbered imports, subsidized exports, manipulated currency, etc.?

It's sort of an argument that given a choice between two career fields, bank robber and CME Commodity Trader, and given that each would produce equal income (until arrest), someone would choose to rob banks . . . because . . . well, just because. Not very logical, is it? Neither is the claim RedChina would do as well in an open symmetric trade market.

quote:

---

So if consumers aren't paying the difference, then companies are.

---

Negative.
"Companies" may be absorbing some costs. The CNY has (been devalued) dropped 10% in two months. China eats that cost. Are OriginatingCompanies/Exporters absorbing the differential? . . . if so China ultimately eats that cost. Subsidies? . . . China eats that cost.

Definitively to this point though, the OMG-Tarrrrriffs-Are-Gonna-Kill-Consumers hysteria has proven to be so much tripe. Inflation is nonexistent.