China to lift punitive tariffs on US soybeans, pork

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm trying Waco, I'm really trying. But I don't understand how this is relevant to what we posted earlier.

You have some huge misconceptions. The 22 trillion figure you use is for our gross federal debt only. If you add the corporate, personal and state and local government debt to that you end up with a much larger number. Total USA debt as a % of GDP is actually closer to 365% than the 110% you quoted:


why do you add in other things than the federal debt? trying to dig yourself out of a hole? sounds like it to me.

is the US federal debt 22 trillion?

is the US GDP 19.5 trillion?


https://thesoundingline.com/total-us...-than-in-2008/

I don't know exactly how the soundingline or Reuters calculated total USA debt as % of GDP (365%) and total Chinese debt as a % of GDP (303% from your link) but it's safe to say US total debt as % GDP is higher than or comparable to China's.


if you don't like those numbers stop adding bullshit to your math. fuzzy math is left for the Paul Krugman's of the economic far left socialists. is that who you are?


Actually if you add in social security, medicare, medicaid and pension liabilities, our number goes way, way up. Your first link shows USA federal government liabilities going from 22 trillion to 118 trillion. AB Bernstein estimates total U.S. debt and entitlement liabilities, not just government, are 1832% of GDP!

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/real...-suggests.html

OK, I'm going to try to make your case for you now, although it's not a very good one. The Chinese debt is potentially more sustainable because less of it is owed to foreigners. This btw is one of the main reasons why Japanese public debt has been astronomical but sustainable, because the Japanese own the debt, not foreigners.


China does not hold the bulk of US debt, neither does Japan or Great Britain. Japan's debt is not sustainable. neither is China's. if that your opinion you are an idiot.

Why do foreigners own a lot of our debt? Because we run big trade deficits. Nobody here believes me on this when I've posted about it, but if you were to bring up national savings, the trade deficit would fall. Put another way, if we produce more and consume less, the trade deficit falls.

So why don't we impose tariffs? That would reduce the trade deficit. If our trade deficit goes to a surplus, probably the U.S. debt held by foreigners would decrease. Well, it doesn't work, at least not so far. Since Trump started imposing tariffs around the first of 2018, our trade deficit if anything has gone up:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...lance-of-trade

You're not seeing a huge migration of factories back to the U.S. Instead U.S. companies, and indirectly consumers, go ahead and pay the tariffs. Or production migrates to other countries, and our cost to buy that production goes up. This is because Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. are initially less efficient, and the companies (often Chinese) that are building new factories there to replace production from Chinese factories have to recover the cost of their investment.

those huge migrations of jobs back to the US is the result of one person .. Donald J Trump.

and that asshole Manchurian Candidate Obama said it would never happen. it did.

i guess Trump really did have a magic wand after all? this isn't the Obama economy. that faggot intentionally fucked the economy and tacked on 9 trillion.
you don't know shit. i talked to an expert in economics just the other day and he laughed at what you say. he's the one who reminded me that the US debt is 1:1 of GDP and China's debt is through the roof at 3 x that.

the expert i talked to has a degree in economics and finance and he's a stock broker. my stock broker actually. i think i'll forward your bullshit reply and let him rip it up and post it.

how about that???

you don't know shit.


BAHAHHAAAAAA

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

those huge migrations of jobs back to the US is the result of one person .. Donald J Trump.

and that asshole Manchurian Candidate Obama said it would never happen. it did.

i guess Trump really did have a magic wand after all? this isn't the Obama economy. that faggot intentionally fucked the economy and tacked on 9 trillion.
you don't know shit. i talked to an expert in economics just the other day and he laughed at what you say. he's the one who reminded me that the US debt is 1:1 of GDP and China's debt is through the roof at 3 x that.

the expert i talked to has a degree in economics and finance and he's a stock broker. my stock broker actually. i think i'll forward your bullshit reply and let him rip it up and post it.

how about that???

you don't know shit.


BAHAHHAAAAAA

Well, hopefully your stockbroker is good at picking stocks. You're comparing U.S. federal government debt as a % of GDP to total Chinese debt (government, personal and corporate) as % of GDP. You're comparing apples and oranges, it's irrelevant.

Yeah, that's a good idea, why don't you forward my reply and let him have at it.

Yes, Donald J. Trump's deregulation and corporate tax cut had a lot to do with increasing employment. His tariffs didn't do jack shit to increase jobs.

[lustylad]

.

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm trying Waco, I'm really trying. But I don't understand how this is relevant to what we posted earlier.

You have some huge misconceptions. The 22 trillion figure you use is for our gross federal debt only. If you add the corporate, personal and state and local government debt to that you end up with a much larger number. Total USA debt as a % of GDP is actually closer to 365% than the 110% you quoted:

https://thesoundingline.com/total-us...-than-in-2008/

I don't know exactly how the soundingline or Reuters calculated total USA debt as % of GDP (365%) and total Chinese debt as a % of GDP (303% from your link) but it's safe to say US total debt as % GDP is higher than or comparable to China's.

Actually if you add in social security, medicare, medicaid and pension liabilities, our number goes way, way up. Your first link shows USA federal government liabilities going from 22 trillion to 118 trillion. AB Bernstein estimates total U.S. debt and entitlement liabilities, not just government, are 1832% of GDP!

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/real...-suggests.html

OK, I'm going to try to make your case for you now, although it's not a very good one. The Chinese debt is potentially more sustainable because less of it is owed to foreigners. This btw is one of the main reasons why Japanese public debt has been astronomical but sustainable, because the Japanese own the debt, not foreigners.

Why do foreigners own a lot of our debt? Because we run big trade deficits. Nobody here believes me on this when I've posted about it, but if you were to bring up national savings, the trade deficit would fall. Put another way, if we produce more and consume less, the trade deficit falls.

So why don't we impose tariffs? That would reduce the trade deficit. If our trade deficit goes to a surplus, probably the U.S. net debt held by foreigners would decrease. Well, it doesn't work, at least not so far. Since Trump started imposing tariffs around the first of 2018, our trade deficit if anything has gone up:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...lance-of-trade

You're not seeing a huge migration of factories back to the U.S. Instead U.S. companies, and indirectly consumers, go ahead and pay the tariffs. Or production migrates to other countries, and our cost to buy that production goes up. This is because Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. are initially less efficient, and the companies (often Chinese) that are building new factories there to replace production from Chinese factories have to recover the cost of their investment.

You beat me to it - excellent post! Waco's link includes "corporate, household and govt debt" in calculating China's debt/GDP ratio. Our own 1.1 ratio includes federal govt debt only. You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Also, I am skeptical whether the trade war will put a significant dent in our bilateral trade deficit with China. We buy over $500 billion a year from them and sell only $130 billion a year to them. We would have to quadruple our exports to close the gap! Ain't happening anytime soon. It's a huge structural deficit that will take decades to whittle down. I wouldn't focus on the deficit per se as much as changing the rules of the World Trade Organization and stopping their IP theft.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by lustylad

.

You beat me to it - excellent post! Waco's link includes "corporate, household and govt debt" in calculating China's debt/GDP ratio. Our own 1.1 ratio includes federal govt debt only. You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Also, I am skeptical whether the trade war will put a significant dent in our bilateral trade deficit with China. We buy over $400 billion a year from them and sell only $125 billion a year to them. We would have to more than triple our exports to close the gap! Ain't happening anytime soon. It's a structural deficit that will take decades to whittle down. I wouldn't focus on the deficit per se as much as changing the rules of the World Trade Organization and stopping their IP theft.

You are smart Lusty. I agree. Does this mean we wont have to pay the welfare to the farmers? ( Which they don't want by the way)

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

.

You beat me to it - excellent post! Waco's link includes "corporate, household and govt debt" in calculating China's debt/GDP ratio. Our own 1.1 ratio includes federal govt debt only. You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Also, I am skeptical whether the trade war will put a significant dent in our bilateral trade deficit with China. We buy over $400 billion a year from them and sell only $125 billion a year to them. We would have to more than triple our exports to close the gap! Ain't happening anytime soon. It's a structural deficit that will take decades to whittle down. I wouldn't focus on the deficit per se as much as changing the rules of the World Trade Organization and stopping their IP theft.

I agree 100% with your remedy. From the little I've read, China entered the WTO as a poor, developing country. That's no longer the case, and they should play by the rules of the developed world, including lowering their tariffs. And stopping IP theft should be the other main goal. I'd like to see them permitting our companies to compete more fairly in China. If all this happened it would be a win-win situation, better for the Chinese and better for the rest of the world.

Waco, He denies it, but LL's Steve Mnuchin in real life. He knows heaps more about this than you, me or your broker. I agree with a lot of your posts and positions btw, but not the ones about trade.

[oeb11]

Good discussion and lots of good points, Gentlemen.

Thanks!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by themystic

You are smart Lusty. I agree. Does this mean we wont have to pay the welfare to the farmers? (Which they don't want by the way)

We can help our farmers using the money generated by the tariffs. We've already lined up $28 billion in farm aid disbursements from what I read.

Btw I went back and edited my previous post to correct the numbers for our trade with China. Based on 2017 data, our imports were $505.5 billion versus exports of only $129.9 billion.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I don't know where 500 billion per year comes from, but that's a fair point. The problem is that we're taking the wrong approach if that's our goal. We should be working with other countries to make this happen. Otherwise the Chinese just stop selling to us and sell to them instead. This article addresses your point and is enlightening:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...ossible-2019-9

The article has a lot of fair points.

I disagree that we are at our industrial capacity, though.

We could expand manufacturing in the US over time.

All it takes is capital, which we print/create when we need it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

He denies it, but LL's Steve Mnuchin in real life.

That's right, I'm Steve Mnuchin.

I play good cop to Peter Navarro's bad cop.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

That's right, I'm Steve Mnuchin.

I play good cop to Peter Navarro's bad cop.

From what we read in the press it’s not entirely an act. You and Kudlow are on one side and Lighthizer and Navarro the other. And Lighthizer is agreeing with you more and more.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Good discussion and lots of good points, Gentlemen.

Thanks!

That’s just what this thread needed, the Doctor Dipshit seal of approval. No contribution, just a DNA sample.

Thank you Mr. Mod!

(But I also agree with you ... on this.)

[Brot]

Meanwhile:


We are not even back to where we started in trade with the Chinese. Election cycle kicking in lets throw a commodity bone to the noisy one.

American companies continue lining up to bow to Chinese demands for entry into their lucrative market. With a fresh pat on the head they run to pay themselves bonuses subsidized in part by the tax incentives for their partnership with their Chinese master.

Chinese "investors" with bottomless bags of money are buying any Technology that they cannot steal.

Our Allies sit on the sideline licking the fresh wounds of their encounters with Trump, who brilliantly held up their dripping cooperation for the Chinese to see.

Our national debt balloons during this modest expansion as the Chinese continue blowing into it.

Meanwhile, meanwhile; our supply chains lie picked apart; our infrastructure stagnant and neglected.


Please pick this apart.

[Yssup Rider]

Can’t do it.

Twitler is all Icing and no cake.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Can’t do it.

Twitler is all Icing and no cake.

Obama’s a fruitcake.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Brot

Meanwhile:


We are not even back to where we started in trade with the Chinese. Election cycle kicking in lets throw a commodity bone to the noisy one.

American companies continue lining up to bow to Chinese demands for entry into their lucrative market. With a fresh pat on the head they run to pay themselves bonuses subsidized in part by the tax incentives for their partnership with their Chinese master.

Chinese "investors" with bottomless bags of money are buying any Technology that they cannot steal.

Our Allies sit on the sideline licking the fresh wounds of their encounters with Trump, who brilliantly held up their dripping cooperation for the Chinese to see.

Our national debt balloons during this modest expansion as the Chinese continue blowing into it.

Meanwhile, meanwhile; our supply chains lie picked apart; our infrastructure stagnant and neglected.


Please pick this apart.

I think you exaggerated. That said, Huawei is a case in point. It's a company built on theft of intellectual property. They've stolen from European and Canadian companies as well as U.S. businesses. It shouldn't be too hard to put the screws to them, hopefully in a way that wouldn't wreck supply chains. However, because the main aim of U.S. trade policy with China is to reduce the bilateral trade deficit, Huawei is a bargaining chip. We'll let Huawei off the hook if the Chinese buy more from us and we buy less from them.

We should be going after the players that hurt our businesses through illegal and unfair means, not manufacturers of clothing and commodity electronics that don't even compete with our companies.