Trump's trade war with China

[Correll]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

 

[Brain357]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Sorry it’s bad news for your beliefs.

 

[bendog]

As things stand now, the Dow has lost over 575 points, the Nasdaq over 200 points, and the S&P over 65 points.

Today, the Dow is at 25,690. On March 15, the Dow was 25,440. Because of Trump's trade war with China, the market has been treading water for five months.

Here is an update on those figures. Matters are far worse than my earlier report.

The Dow is down 800 points, the Nasdaq is down 242 points, and the S&P is down 86 points. The Dow is currently at 25,480, 40 points higher than it was five months ago.

Naturally, Trump and Trump's Democrat, Peter Navarro, the architect of the trade war with China, are both blaming the Fed, according to the Trump Network, otherwise known as Fox News.

“This is basically the Federal Reserve’s problem,” Navarro said. “They are causing this because when Jay Powell got in this chairman he proceeded to rein in interest rates by at 100 interest points, too far too fast. Even though the Trump economy is rock solid, it slowed us down a bit because of those higher interest rates.”

Trump joined the chorus, tweeting, "The Fed has got to do something! The Fed is the Central Bank of the United States, not the Central Bank of the World."

This, of course, is good for my health. If Trump ever accepted blame for his screwed up policy and apologized, I might have a coronary.

What Trump and his Democrat are saying is meant for his base. They are gullible enough to believe it. No one else will.

Let's take a look at the facts. On August 1, Trump announced a 10% tariff on $300B of Chinese goods that are popular with American consumers, clothing, shoes, computers, cell phones, etc. That precipitated the worst week of the year for the stock market. The following Monday, August 5, Trump's announcement caused the worst day of the year. The Dow plunged 760 points.

On August 12, the Dow lost 391 points, but then on August 13 The US Trade Representative announced a delay of Trump's tariffs on several categories of Chinese-made consumer goods until December 15. Those goods include cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, certain toys, computer monitors, and certain items of footwear and clothing, and the Dow shot up more than 400 points.

Tariffs on popular consumer goods cause higher prices. Even Trump admitted that yesterday. Higher prices cause inflation. Inflation causes less demand. Less demand causes unemployment. Tariffs cause recession, Econ 101.

Today, August 15, the stock market set another record. Now it is the worst day of the year. The reason, recession fears. The Times reports, "Trade-war worries hammered financial markets again on Wednesday as data from Germany and China showed trouble for manufacturing-reliant economies, while the bond market renewed fears of an American recession."

But our President thinks the Fed is to blame. The complete lack of comprehension on the part of our current President never ceases to amaze me.

"If anyone had doubts that trade was the thing hanging over the market, today seals it," said Bill Stone, chief investment officer with Avalon Investment & Advisory.

The real question is whether Navarro and Lighthizer still have any faith that Trump's negotiating style of public confrontations are likely to lead to a trade deal that actually protects IP and makes markets more transparent.

 

[Correll]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Sorry it’s bad news for your beliefs.

lol!


Nothing I have ever said, would imply that an end to the current upswing in manufacturing would be "bad news for my beliefs".


Justify your stupid claim, or admit that you were just spouting shit.

 

[Brain357]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

 

[Brain357]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Sorry it’s bad news for your beliefs.

lol!


Nothing I have ever said, would imply that an end to the current upswing in manufacturing would be "bad news for my beliefs".


Justify your stupid claim, or admit that you were just spouting shit.

You are pro everything trump and tariffs. Wasn’t he bringing manufacturing back? Bad news.

 

[Correll]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

What do you imagine that means?

 

[Correll]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Sorry it’s bad news for your beliefs.

lol!


Nothing I have ever said, would imply that an end to the current upswing in manufacturing would be "bad news for my beliefs".


Justify your stupid claim, or admit that you were just spouting shit.

You are pro everything trump and tariffs. Wasn’t he bringing manufacturing back? Bad news.

Have you ever heard of something called the Business Cycle?

 

[bendog]

There's no rational basis to dispute that Trump's tariffs are tanking the economy, and not just in mftring that will continue to lag from where it was even before the 2000 recession. The tariffs increase US firms prices, so they 1) eat some costs which cuts profits, which makes stoiks underperform, which makes firms decide to not expand sales capacity and 2) they hurt sales abroad too.

One can logically argue that his is just "shared pain and there's a light at the end of the tunnel" in the form of freer trade and not a locomotive made in china. No one knows which it would be.

the contraction - or increased prices - is not because of anything Trump has not created. Eventually it would have happened but what happened is Trump.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wait him out for WHAT exactly? What is Xi hoping to gain in this?

Xi is hoping to get a new president that is more reasonable and willing to negotiate and does not conduct diplomacy via tweets.

I sincerely hope this is true. I am pretty damn confident that it is not.

It looks to me that XI is looking to restore China as the premier world power. Limiting US control over international markets and putting China there would basically achieve this. The reason that the US can essentially bully the world into doing what is in the interest of the US is because the planet's economy is tied to us. IF Trump had leveraged the rest of our allies to address China's bad faith trade policies then he may have forced them to the table. What Trump has done instead is try and take them on 1 to 1 and they are responding by shoring up their position in the global economy instead of ours.

I no longer think that Xi really wants a deal with the US. I think he would rather see us isolated so that China can exert much more influence on the rest of the world.

That is long term. Short term, he wants to keep the massive trade surplus.

Based on?

Why would he want to support action for the short term that is 100 percent counter to his long term goal? That is nonsensical.

What are you even talking about?

Xi's goals cannot be to 'maintain a large trade surplus with the US' AND want to isolate the US on the world stage.

I do not think China really wants trade to resume with the US as it had before. It would be FAR better for Xi to replace as much of that surplus with the US with other nations. That would give them a LOT more power on the world stage while greatly diminishing ours.

And our "allies" were never going to back US. They are too used to the US being the world's bitch on trade.

Going "back?" Who said anything about going back. The US has ENORMOUS economic influence over most of the word, over virtually all of the productive world. Rather than beat China over the head with every trading partner we have, Trump goes on a bunch of trade battles with out allies at the same time as taking on China. That is asinine. He should deal with China from the greatest position of power. A position that used all the European markets as well. Instead, we are dealing with China from a weaker position than we could be in.

For someone that is supposedly sup[posed to be good at making a deal, this is the most basic rule in negotiating.[/QUOTE

"Backing" someone in this context, was obviously a reference to "supporting" someone.

Of course they would back us. Trump simply had to use trade to leverage them into cooperating. That outcome is FAR more viable for Europe than Trump's current trade policies with Europe. What he should have done is use US leverage on the other major economies to bring them all to bear on China. That actually would have given us even more leverage with Europe after the fact to address tariffs and trade policy as China's position would be diminished. Instead, he squandered almost all of that leverage and now we stand alone against China.

And surprise surprise, China is using that to their advantage and expanding their power over world trade. That WILL lead to worse deals with China, not better. Or, more likely, to China simply ignoring obligations as they have in the past to a grater degree.[/QUOTE]

 

[basquebromance]

"just prior to World War I emerged one of the historic disasters in American history, the creation of the Fed" - Alan Greenspan, 1964

 

[bendog]

Xi is hoping to get a new president that is more reasonable and willing to negotiate and does not conduct diplomacy via tweets.

I sincerely hope this is true. I am pretty damn confident that it is not.

It looks to me that XI is looking to restore China as the premier world power. Limiting US control over international markets and putting China there would basically achieve this. The reason that the US can essentially bully the world into doing what is in the interest of the US is because the planet's economy is tied to us. IF Trump had leveraged the rest of our allies to address China's bad faith trade policies then he may have forced them to the table. What Trump has done instead is try and take them on 1 to 1 and they are responding by shoring up their position in the global economy instead of ours.

I no longer think that Xi really wants a deal with the US. I think he would rather see us isolated so that China can exert much more influence on the rest of the world.

That is long term. Short term, he wants to keep the massive trade surplus.

Based on?

Why would he want to support action for the short term that is 100 percent counter to his long term goal? That is nonsensical.

What are you even talking about?

Xi's goals cannot be to 'maintain a large trade surplus with the US' AND want to isolate the US on the world stage.

I do not think China really wants trade to resume with the US as it had before. It would be FAR better for Xi to replace as much of that surplus with the US with other nations. That would give them a LOT more power on the world stage while greatly diminishing ours.

And our "allies" were never going to back US. They are too used to the US being the world's bitch on trade.

Going "back?" Who said anything about going back. The US has ENORMOUS economic influence over most of the word, over virtually all of the productive world. Rather than beat China over the head with every trading partner we have, Trump goes on a bunch of trade battles with out allies at the same time as taking on China. That is asinine. He should deal with China from the greatest position of power. A position that used all the European markets as well. Instead, we are dealing with China from a weaker position than we could be in.

For someone that is supposedly sup[posed to be good at making a deal, this is the most basic rule in negotiating.[/QUOTE

"Backing" someone in this context, was obviously a reference to "supporting" someone.

Of course they would back us. Trump simply had to use trade to leverage them into cooperating. That outcome is FAR more viable for Europe than Trump's current trade policies with Europe. What he should have done is use US leverage on the other major economies to bring them all to bear on China. That actually would have given us even more leverage with Europe after the fact to address tariffs and trade policy as China's position would be diminished. Instead, he squandered almost all of that leverage and now we stand alone against China.

And surprise surprise, China is using that to their advantage and expanding their power over world trade. That WILL lead to worse deals with China, not better. Or, more likely, to China simply ignoring obligations as they have in the past to a grater degree.

[/QUOTE]
Europe had the same complaints we had with China: IP and lack of access to markets, and govt actually selling stuff at less than the cost of production.

That's why Trump is now sending Pompano to ask for a "reset." Not gonna happen.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump is showing the world they do not need us as much as they thought they did and not near as much as we think they do.

 

[Brain357]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

What do you imagine that means?

Trump tariffs don’t work.

 

[Correll]

Xi is hoping to get a new president that is more reasonable and willing to negotiate and does not conduct diplomacy via tweets.

I sincerely hope this is true. I am pretty damn confident that it is not.

It looks to me that XI is looking to restore China as the premier world power. Limiting US control over international markets and putting China there would basically achieve this. The reason that the US can essentially bully the world into doing what is in the interest of the US is because the planet's economy is tied to us. IF Trump had leveraged the rest of our allies to address China's bad faith trade policies then he may have forced them to the table. What Trump has done instead is try and take them on 1 to 1 and they are responding by shoring up their position in the global economy instead of ours.

I no longer think that Xi really wants a deal with the US. I think he would rather see us isolated so that China can exert much more influence on the rest of the world.

That is long term. Short term, he wants to keep the massive trade surplus.

Based on?

Why would he want to support action for the short term that is 100 percent counter to his long term goal? That is nonsensical.

What are you even talking about?

Xi's goals cannot be to 'maintain a large trade surplus with the US' AND want to isolate the US on the world stage.

I do not think China really wants trade to resume with the US as it had before. It would be FAR better for Xi to replace as much of that surplus with the US with other nations. That would give them a LOT more power on the world stage while greatly diminishing ours.

And our "allies" were never going to back US. They are too used to the US being the world's bitch on trade.

Going "back?" Who said anything about going back. The US has ENORMOUS economic influence over most of the word, over virtually all of the productive world. Rather than beat China over the head with every trading partner we have, Trump goes on a bunch of trade battles with out allies at the same time as taking on China. That is asinine. He should deal with China from the greatest position of power. A position that used all the European markets as well. Instead, we are dealing with China from a weaker position than we could be in.

For someone that is supposedly sup[posed to be good at making a deal, this is the most basic rule in negotiating.[/QUOTE

"Backing" someone in this context, was obviously a reference to "supporting" someone.

Of course they would back us. Trump simply had to use trade to leverage them into cooperating. That outcome is FAR more viable for Europe than Trump's current trade policies with Europe. What he should have done is use US leverage on the other major economies to bring them all to bear on China. That actually would have given us even more leverage with Europe after the fact to address tariffs and trade policy as China's position would be diminished. Instead, he squandered almost all of that leverage and now we stand alone against China.

And surprise surprise, China is using that to their advantage and expanding their power over world trade. That WILL lead to worse deals with China, not better. Or, more likely, to China simply ignoring obligations as they have in the past to a grater degree.

[/QUOTE]




1. No other nation has the ability to give China such a trade policy, nor is any other nation that stupid. Xi obviously wants to maintain that surplus, regardless of whether he increases trade with other nations, or whatever long term diplomatic plans he has.


2. I don't think they would.

 

[Correll]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

What do you imagine that means?

Trump tariffs don’t work.

Have you ever heard of the Business Cycle?

 

[Brain357]

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

Tariffs are bad economics.

US manufacturing contracts for the first time in three years amid China trade war

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

What do you imagine that means?

Trump tariffs don’t work.

Have you ever heard of the Business Cycle?

Sure have.

 

[Correll]

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

Every other mention of manufacturing, over the last 2 years, have been tracking employment.

Suddenly we are tracking PMI?


Why? Because it gives you something to attack Trump on.

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

What do you imagine that means?

Trump tariffs don’t work.

Have you ever heard of the Business Cycle?

Sure have.

So, the business cycle is the economy going though regular up and downs,


anyone that would cite a normal downturn or even less reasonably, any random piece of negative economic news as "proof" that a specific economic policy is "not working",


is either utterly ignorant or lying.

 

[Brain357]

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

Heres some employment news.

Layoffs for U.S. Steel: Is Trump Listening? - Market Realist

What do you imagine that means?

Trump tariffs don’t work.

Have you ever heard of the Business Cycle?

Sure have.

So, the business cycle is the economy going though regular up and downs,


anyone that would cite a normal downturn or even less reasonably, any random piece of negative economic news as "proof" that a specific economic policy is "not working",


is either utterly ignorant or lying.

Well steel industry doing poorly. Manufacturing doing poorly. Economy only has 2% growth. Labor force participation rate low. Market is stagnant. Yeah lots of indicators really.

 

[Correll]

What do you imagine that means?

Trump tariffs don’t work.

Have you ever heard of the Business Cycle?

Sure have.

So, the business cycle is the economy going though regular up and downs,


anyone that would cite a normal downturn or even less reasonably, any random piece of negative economic news as "proof" that a specific economic policy is "not working",


is either utterly ignorant or lying.

Well steel industry doing poorly. Manufacturing doing poorly. Economy only has 2% growth. Labor force participation rate low. Market is stagnant. Yeah lots of indicators really.

Indicators of a business cycle that might be reached a turning point.


Average length of an expansion is 59 months.


This one is a new record at 121 months and counting.

Anyone that would cite an economic expansion ending at 121 months as proof of a failed economic policy,


is lying.