Post New

1. Get the 10-year bond down.
2. Isolate...China.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/opinion/trump-t...

The breadth, speed and severity of President Trump’s actions, which he finalized only shortly before the Rose Garden announcement, sparked immediate panic across markets and among allies.

That they did. Hopefully no one here panicked and sold everything.

So what is the goal? Based on the administration’s public remarks, it is to eliminate large trade imbalances within a U.S.-led bloc that excludes China, other nonmarket economies and any country determined to continue running large surpluses at the expense of its partners. In remarks on Monday, Stephen Miran, the head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, emphasized that the administration also sees security commitments as indelibly tied to economic ones.
If those are the contours, Mr. Trump should say so, outline the kinds of concessions he expects from allies seeking to rebalance trade and detail the common policies toward China that all members of the bloc must adopt.

As I've said, Trump is putting the economy on a war footing. If the Chinese want to invade Taiwan in the next couple of years we shouldn't make things easy for them.

Well, those are Oren Cass' ideas of what Trump's goals should be. Not sure they're what the Administration's actual goals are. Or if the Administration has any actual goals beyond reducing trade deficits.

Well, those are Oren Cass' ideas of what Trump's goals should be. Not sure they're what the Administration's actual goals are. Or if the Administration has any actual goals beyond reducing trade deficits.

Well...yeah.
It's clear that Trump wants to isolate China and start forcing the re-alignment of the Western economies away from their influence. Would you like him to come out and say 'my secret strategy is to screw Xi over'?

It's clear that Trump wants to isolate China and start forcing the re-alignment of the Western economies away from their influence.

Then why the tariffs against Chinese manufacturing competitors? Or against the Western economies?

If you wanted to isolate China, you would impose whopping tariffs against China...and not against countries like Vietnam and Japan, who are competing against China to supply countries in Asia (and globally) with manufactured goods. A huge part of China's competitive advantage is scale - so you want to create incentives for relocating manufacturing out of China into low-cost countries that aren't China. You also wouldn't impose tariffs against all the countries in the region whose cooperation we need in order to contain China - why are you punishing Australia and South Korea and Cambodia and Burma and Laos and the Phillippines with massive tariff increases? You also wouldn't impose whacking high tariffs against the rest of the Western economies, because doing that only creates economic incentives for them to increase their exposure to Chinese influence, and burns their electorate against feeling friendly towards the U.S. It's hard to be the leader of a re-alignment of Western economies against China if you're kicking all those Western economies in the teeth with 10x tariff increases.

Again, maybe this is a goal that someone trying to find an after-the-fact justification for the completely thoughtless tariff structure might land on, as a rationalization for an utterly irrational economic policy. But it doesn't really make sense, and it's inconsistent with nearly every other part of the tariff program other than the China tariffs.

Again, maybe this is a goal that someone trying to find an after-the-fact justification for the completely thoughtless tariff structure might land on, as a rationalization for an utterly irrational economic policy. But it doesn't really make sense, and it's inconsistent with nearly every other part of the tariff program other than the China tariffs.

After the fact justification? I don't see that going on.

You also wouldn't impose whacking high tariffs against the rest of the Western economies, because doing that only creates economic incentives for them to increase their exposure to Chinese influence, and burns their electorate against feeling friendly towards the U.S.

Only if somebody over there is very, very, short sighted. Go ask the Italians what they think about the allure of Chinese capital and the hidden costs it brings.

After the fact justification? I don't see that going on.

Sure it is. There's no way that specific tariff policy was formulated with the idea of isolating China. You don't impose the massive tariffs on the other east Asian manufacturing centers if that's what the purpose of the tariffs is.

Only if somebody over there is very, very, short sighted. Go ask the Italians what they think about the allure of Chinese capital and the hidden costs it brings.

Yes, I know - there is an example of a country backing away from Belt and Road. But there's many, many, many other examples of countries not backing out of Belt and Road. And new examples of poorer countries turning to China for help after we torched all of our soft-power international programs.

But I wasn't talking about capital investment. If China's blocked from the U.S. market, they're going to have to make up for those lost customers by increasing their market share in other Western economies. Similarly, if they're blocking our exports from their markets, that creates an opportunity for other Western countries to export to China to fill that gap. Especially since we just dislocated a major one of their export markets by levying massive tariffs against our putative allies. So the most likely result of this tariff is to increase bilateral trade between China and all the other Western economies, as all of their surplus export capacity that can no longer land in the U.S. has to land somewhere.

A smart tariff policy against China would have involved tariffing only them, and working in close cooperation with our economic allies in the rest of the OECD and with the manufacturing centers of east Asia to also increase tariff barriers against China in coordination. Instead, we're doing the opposite of that - blowing up our economic relationships with most other developed countries and creating massive incentives for everyone other than the U.S. (including China) to work together to overcome what the U.S. has done to global markets.

It's clear that Trump wants to isolate China and start forcing the re-alignment of the Western economies away from their influence. Would you like him to come out and say 'my secret strategy is to screw Xi over'?

Korea and Japan are having talks with China to develop a shared response to US tariffs.


European countries are working on developing an economic future apart from the United States.

So if the administration’s strategy is to isolate China, at this stage, the tariffs seem to be effecting the isolation of the United States.

Not surprising. The tariffs were slapped on with no discernable adherence to any economic formula and administration spokesmen were sending mutually contradictory messages.


One can view such confusion as Trump playing 3D chess, or as simply an indication of this administration’s incoherence.


As the author of this policy is also famous for bankrupting business after business, I’ll bote for the latter interpretation.

Would you like him to come out and say 'my secret strategy is to screw Xi over'?

He pretty much has said that Dope. He just doesn't seem to have any recognizable plan to do that.

"Well...yeah.
It's clear that Trump wants to isolate China and start forcing the re-alignment of the Western economies away from their influence." - Dumbass Dope

Uh, Trump's tariffs have gotten China, South Korea, and Japan to sit down and negotiate for the first time in decades. If Trump really wants to isolate China, he is going about it the wrong way. He is driving the rest of the world closer to China.

What is clear is a couple days ago even you were recognizing how insane Trump's tariff policy was and now you are looking for some way to justify it, at least in your mind.

As I've said, Trump is putting the economy on a war footing.

This is absolute bullshit that makes a great soundbite.

There's no way that specific tariff policy was formulated with the idea of isolating China. You don't impose the massive tariffs on the other east Asian manufacturing centers if that's what the purpose of the tariffs is.

Okay, fair. Was thinking more of Europe there.

If China's blocked from the U.S. market, they're going to have to make up for those lost customers by increasing their market share in other Western economies. Similarly, if they're blocking our exports from their markets, that creates an opportunity for other Western countries to export to China to fill that gap.

Well...that's the thing. They really don't import much from a lot of people; the Chinese currently have a €291Bn trade deficit with the Europeans. That's about the same as it is for us. Given that the Euros are rapidly de-industrializing their dependence on China over the next few years is only going to increase, not decrease.

A smart tariff policy against China would have involved tariffing only them, and working in close cooperation with our economic allies in the rest of the OECD and with the manufacturing centers of east Asia to also increase tariff barriers against China in coordination. Instead, we're doing the opposite of that - blowing up our economic relationships with most other developed countries and creating massive incentives for everyone other than the U.S. (including China) to work together to overcome what the U.S. has done to global markets.

I wouldn't have upped the blast radius this much, true.

This is absolute bullshit that makes a great soundbite.

Is it, now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/03/20...

Adm. John Aquilino, head of the Indo-Pacific Command, said Wednesday he believes China’s military will be prepared to invade Taiwan by 2027, meeting a goal U.S. military officials believe Chinese President Xi Jinping set to reunite Taiwan with China’s mainland with force if necessary.

Just some rando talking. I'll let you look at the date of the article and tell us who was President when it was written.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2021/11/taiwa...

Taiwan Is Safe Until at Least 2027, but with One Big Caveat

More randos talking. I mean, Rand and Rando. How random can one be?

You're right. Total BS and nobody should be thinking about, I don't know, what happens if/when the balloon goes up and we depend on China for everything like we do now.

Who plans for this stuff? Seriously.

Okay, fair. Was thinking more of Europe there.

Even those as well. If your goal is to force "the re-alignment of the Western economies away from [China's] influence" then imposing a whacking big tariff on European imports alongside the Chinese tariffs is still a terrible idea.

One predictable effect of this tariff regime is to increase bilateral trade between other Western economies and China - because the U.S. exports a lot to China. You know our largest export markets? Number one and two are obviously Canada and Mexico - but number three is China, to the tune of about $145 billion.

After the U.S. and China end up with massive tariff barriers between them, you now have a $100+ billion hole in the Chinese market where U.S. exports used to go. That hole is going to get filled by Western exports. It's especially going to get filled by Western exports because you've erected trade barriers against your allies, who now have to find new export markets for their goods that are being priced out of the U.S. market.

This isn't a policy program that is going to isolate China from the Western economies. It's a policy program that will isolate the U.S. from the Western economies, and instead drive them closer to China. Contrary to your assertion, China is already the third largest export market for the EU (behind only the U.S. and the UK) - and this tariff regime is only going to drive Europe's and China's economies closer together.

A trade policy that was an effort to actually reduce the Western economies away from China's influence would have required cooperating with the other Western economies. You'd want joint action to raise tariff barriers against China while improving access to Western markets for Chinese competitors, to encourage firms to reduce Chinese industrial prowess by moving their production out of China into other countries.

I wouldn't have upped the blast radius this much, true.

The blast radius is how you know that this is after-the-fact trying to find a justification for this mess. This tariff program was unequivocally not designed with isolating China in connection with national security containment. That's why we have higher tariffs on countries like Vietnam and Lesotho than China. Heck, we have pretty much the same tariff on Taiwan as China. Every single nation's tariff (including that of China) is entirely based on nothing more than the size of their trade deficit and exports. No effort was made to adjust any number anywhere on the chart to anything specific about that nation (friend or foe, Asia or South America, big or small, military ally or security rival). Nothing went into the calculation but the relative proportion of trade deficit to exports.

Because of how the tariffs were structured, there isn't some master goal of the tariff actions other than to reduce trade deficits. Lots of people that have actually given some thought to international trade and security are coming up with lots of ways that the tariffs could be structured to meet some actual goals, but these comments all take the same form: here's some goals that the tariff program could be able to achieve, if only Trump were to modify everything to match the type of tariff program that I am suggesting here. It's just a nicer way of saying that Trump's actual tariff policy isn't going to achieve anything but economic disruption and have some nasty unintended consequences even for our China policy....but here's a much better plan that I'm going to pretend is actually hidden inside Trump's plan, if only he would change his plan to match the one I'm thinking of.

It's clear that Trump wants to isolate China and start forcing the re-alignment of the Western economies away from their influence.

Keep trying to sanewash Trump. It's not at all clear. In fact, your excuse for his stupidity makes no sense at all given the way he has handled tariffs. But dream on.

As I've said, Trump is putting the economy on a war footing.

OH! hahahahahahaha! Funniest thing I've seen all week. How clueless can you be!

AL: So what is the goal? Based on the administration’s public remarks, it is to eliminate large trade imbalances within a U.S.-led bloc that excludes China, other nonmarket economies and any country determined to continue running large surpluses at the expense of its partners. In remarks on Monday, Stephen Miran, the head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, emphasized that the administration also sees security commitments as indelibly tied to economic ones.
If those are the contours, Mr. Trump should say so, outline the kinds of concessions he expects from allies seeking to rebalance trade and detail the common policies toward China that all members of the bloc must adopt.

DOPE:As I've said, Trump is putting the economy on a war footing

ME This is absolute bullshit that makes a great soundbite.

DOPE: Is it, now.

YES You posited that the tariffs were to put the economy on war footing, and your response evades and doesn't explain how the tariffs put our economy on war footing. In fact the tariffs do not put us on war footing at all. One can't look back in US History and see where we tried to downsize the government while spontaneously introducing large tariffs on our allies and spending large amounts to ship out illegal aliens and build walls which occupies the Army and the Air Force. Putting the economy on a war footing isn't being done and those are empty words.

World War I
Poster issued during World War I by the educational division of the U.S. Food Administration

In mobilizing for World War I, the United States expanded its governmental powers by creating institutions such as the War Industries Board (WIB) to help with military production.[4] Others, such as the Fuel Administration, introduced daylight saving time in an effort to save coal and oil while the Food Administration encouraged higher grain production and "mobilized a spirit of self-sacrifice rather than mandatory rationing."[

World War II

In the case of World War II, the U.S. government took similar measures in increasing its control over the economy. The Fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation across the English Channel before the Battle of Britain provided the sparks that were needed to begin the country's conversion to a wartime economy and the July 1940 passing of the Two-Ocean Navy Act. The 1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor prolonged and expanded those measures.

Washington felt that a greater bureaucracy was needed to help with mobilization.[6] The government raised taxes which paid for half of the costs of the war and borrowed money in the form of war bonds to cover the rest of the bill.[4] "Commercial institutions like banks also bought billions of dollars of bonds and other treasury paper, holding more than $24 billion at the war's end."[6] The creation of a handful of agencies helped funnel resources towards the war effort. One prominent agency was the War Production Board (WPB), which "awarded defense contracts, allocated scarce resources – such as rubber, copper, and oil – for military uses, and persuaded businesses to convert to military production."[4]

The United States mass-produced many vehicles, such as ships (i.e. Liberty ships), aircraft (i.e. North American P-51 Mustang), jeeps (i.e. Willys MB), and tanks (i.e. M4 Sherman).

Two thirds of the American economy had been integrated into the war effort by the end of 1943.[4] Because of the massive cooperation between government and private entities, it could be argued that the economic measures enacted prior to and during the Second World War helped lead the Allies to victory.

Introducing chaos is not putting our economy on a war footing.

You posited that the tariffs were to put the economy on war footing, and your response evades

Evades what? You called BS, I answered. Not my fault that actual government sources are saying this. You just don't want to hear it.

Putting the economy on a war footing isn't being done and those are empty words.

It implies a lot, were one equipped to think it through. Alas.

I'm glad you know how to quote Wikipedia without attribution. That shows us you can at least type a couple of things into da Google and <CTRL-C> and <CTRL-V> your way to writing posts. Awesome.

Question for you.
What percentage of America's GPD did manufacturing represent in the late 1930's vs. now? I'll give you part of the answer: right now manufacturing is ~10% of our total GDP.

You're constantly braying on about the South China Sea and Chinese aggression. How do you propose to confront them if we have to buy everything from them?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.