- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The dangers of a tariff war.... China offers a cheaper alternative
Posted on 4/16/25 at 12:03 pm to bamabonners
Posted on 4/16/25 at 12:03 pm to bamabonners
Wait…I thought we had China boxed in right now…
1
Posted on 4/16/25 at 12:03 pm to wdhalgren
quote:Inevitable result of affulence. How many people can (and do!) grow their own food these days?
And therein lies a big part of the problem. America's been domesticated like a pet. We're losing the ability to provide for our own needs.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 12:28 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Hmmmm.....
Is this where we pretend the USA and the EU are equally welcoming of foreign companies moving production to within their borders, and also pretend the USA and EU have equal amounts of land available for such investment?
Posted on 4/16/25 at 12:29 pm to PorkSammich
quote:
Wait…I thought we had China boxed in right now…
We do. This does not change that reality.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 1:04 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Inevitable result of affulence. How many people can (and do!) grow their own food these days?
Relying on a marxist autocracy to provide necessities that you can't produce in your own country does not equal affluence. Borrowing money or selling off assets to finance the things you need from foreign trade also does not equal affluence. It's dependence on an untrustworthy source and the opposite of affluence.
This post was edited on 4/16/25 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 4/16/25 at 3:31 pm to Figgy
quote:
Our consumption is one thing. Losing trading partners entirely is another or to a lesser scale losing market share but retaining trading partners. Everything is being renegotiated.
The argument I keep seeing is that our international trade has been mutually beneficial (it wasn't but that's the argument for status quo). What we're finding out right now is whether anybody else actually believed that. Trump didn't say he wanted to run a trade surplus, he said it had been happening on unfair terms that were damaging the US (he is correct) and he wanted balanced trade. If countries had said, "okay, let's have meetings and do what it takes to even it up", that would've indicated they saw a benefit from balanced trade with the US. Even if Trump said it in an unkind (but not inaccurate) way, if it's to their benefit, then do what's right for your country and the world.
Instead, what we got was unabashed condemnation from some of our "trading partners". That means they saw trade with the US as a one way street, intended only to strengthen their economy and send us further into dependency and economic decline. We were already in a trade war. Those weren't our "partners", they were acting in an adversarial manner toward the US and some of them are not interested in real negotiation to balance trade with the US. I count China and Europe among that group. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia joins them after this Ukraine war is concluded.
This post was edited on 4/16/25 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 4/16/25 at 3:35 pm to bamabonners
They are not low priced. They are heavily governmental subsidized. China has no concept of “profit” or “loss” in a capitalist sense. Selling items is a means to an end for the CCP.
Posted on 4/16/25 at 3:35 pm to bamabonners
Im sure European car manufacturers are in love with this idea.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News