NASA & other news from space
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 11:37am
Wordle - daily game
- Proclivities - May 6, 2024 - 11:21am
Politically Uncorrect News
- R_P - May 6, 2024 - 11:16am
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't...
- pilgrim - May 6, 2024 - 9:57am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 6, 2024 - 9:52am
Trump
- Steely_D - May 6, 2024 - 9:44am
Global Warming
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 9:29am
Israel
- R_P - May 6, 2024 - 9:23am
Tales from the RAFT
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 6, 2024 - 9:19am
NYTimes Connections
- ptooey - May 6, 2024 - 8:39am
NY Times Strands
- ptooey - May 6, 2024 - 8:34am
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - May 6, 2024 - 7:40am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 6, 2024 - 6:22am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Coaxial - May 6, 2024 - 4:36am
Food
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 6, 2024 - 4:17am
Farts!
- RazzCat - May 5, 2024 - 10:03pm
What Did You See Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 5, 2024 - 5:28pm
What can you hear right now?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 5, 2024 - 5:27pm
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Antigone - May 5, 2024 - 5:06pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 4:38pm
The Abortion Wars
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 3:27pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 5, 2024 - 3:12pm
The Obituary Page
- Red_Dragon - May 5, 2024 - 2:53pm
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 5, 2024 - 2:16pm
Ukraine
- thisbody - May 5, 2024 - 12:33pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- GeneP59 - May 5, 2024 - 12:07pm
volcano!
- geoff_morphini - May 5, 2024 - 9:55am
Song of the Day
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 5, 2024 - 9:26am
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc)
- miamizsun - May 5, 2024 - 6:16am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 5, 2024 - 12:03am
Favorite Quotes
- Isabeau - May 4, 2024 - 5:21pm
Anti-War
- R_P - May 4, 2024 - 3:24pm
Iran
- Red_Dragon - May 4, 2024 - 12:03pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - May 4, 2024 - 11:18am
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 4, 2024 - 10:24am
SCOTUS
- Steely_D - May 4, 2024 - 8:04am
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 3, 2024 - 4:51pm
The Dragons' Roost
- GeneP59 - May 3, 2024 - 3:53pm
Name My Band
- oldviolin - May 3, 2024 - 3:04pm
RightWingNutZ
- islander - May 3, 2024 - 11:55am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- MrDill - May 3, 2024 - 11:41am
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - May 3, 2024 - 9:46am
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 3, 2024 - 9:36am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 3, 2024 - 9:24am
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- R_P - May 3, 2024 - 7:54am
Derplahoma!
- sunybuny - May 3, 2024 - 4:56am
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum
- miamizsun - May 3, 2024 - 4:36am
What Makes You Laugh?
- miamizsun - May 3, 2024 - 4:31am
Main Mix Playlist
- R567 - May 3, 2024 - 12:06am
Who Killed The Electric Car??? -- The Movie
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 2, 2024 - 9:51pm
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 5:56pm
What Makes You Sad?
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 3:35pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
Breaking News
- thisbody - May 2, 2024 - 2:57pm
Questions.
- oldviolin - May 2, 2024 - 9:13am
And the good news is....
- Bill_J - May 1, 2024 - 6:30pm
Things you would be grating food for
- Manbird - May 1, 2024 - 3:58pm
Economix
- black321 - May 1, 2024 - 12:19pm
I Heart Huckabee - NOT!
- Manbird - Apr 30, 2024 - 7:49pm
Democratic Party
- R_P - Apr 30, 2024 - 4:01pm
Oh, The Stupidity
- haresfur - Apr 30, 2024 - 3:30pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 30, 2024 - 1:46pm
Canada
- black321 - Apr 30, 2024 - 1:37pm
New Music
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 29, 2024 - 11:36am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 29, 2024 - 8:34am
Photos you haven't taken of yourself
- Antigone - Apr 29, 2024 - 5:03am
Britain
- R_P - Apr 28, 2024 - 10:47am
Birthday wishes
- GeneP59 - Apr 28, 2024 - 9:56am
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 27, 2024 - 9:53pm
Classical Music
- miamizsun - Apr 27, 2024 - 1:23pm
LeftWingNutZ
- Lazy8 - Apr 27, 2024 - 12:46pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 27, 2024 - 12:17pm
The Moon
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:08pm
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- fractalv - Apr 26, 2024 - 8:59pm
Musky Mythology
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 7:23pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Trade War
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
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
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 18, 2018 - 11:54am |
|
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
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.
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
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
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
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
Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 16, 2018 - 10:31pm |
|
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
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
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
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
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
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
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 11, 2018 - 12:23pm |
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: And you call yourself an economist
|
|
westslope
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
Gender:
|
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 t rade deficit with China
|
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Gender:
|
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
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
Gender:
|
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
Location: BC sage brush steppe
|
Posted:
Jul 11, 2018 - 11:07am |
|
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: Canada? Are you sure? Are you really sure? Or is this Team Trump Nordic speaking?
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
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?
|
|
|