Why Hasn't Trump Put The Same Tariffs On Vietnam, Malaysia, and India

Yes as I pointed out in another thread this set to has as much not more to do with geopolitics than economics.

 

And Industrial Espionage, past Presidents have been happy to let them walk all over us, but not Trump. He stands up for America and our Workers and our Armed Forces.

 

Well, no matter how big and bad you are, if you are smart, you don’t start a fight with everyone at the bar at the same time. That’s the mistake germans made during WWII.

 

Tax break for the corporations was pointless then?

 

Please point that little titbid out to the farmers such as the soybeans farmers and also promptly inform Trump to stop with the additional subsidy we are paying through our tax dollars. I thought y'all are anti socialism.

 

He probably will in his second term.

 

Nike have been making shoes in Vietnam since 1995. A little research may help. Perhaps this is the reason why Trump doesn't want to put tariffs on the Vietnamese.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...exports-in-meeting-with-vietnam-idUSKCN1QG1HU'

 

Intersting non sequitur but a non sequitur none the less.

 

Strike two.When the government puts people in harms way in pursuit of needful policies it should do what it can to redress the damage done.

 

I had an opportunity to think about it more, and I think you are onto something in the first question that you posed. I think that in its essence, the current struggle with the Chinese is not really so much about the notion of free trade. The notion of free trade, like the notion of free markets, is merely an abstraction that don't exist in its pure form in reality. Too see this, consider this example from my experience with respect to free markets. A few years ago I began to experiment with operating a business in a shopping mall environment. So I started going around and visiting the leasing offices of various malls in the city. When I went to the mall that had very high end designer shops like Versace, Mui Mui, and Chanel, of course it was not a surprise to find out the price for leasing space in those spots was so high, that few could afford it. So right off the bat, they price you out of that market. So fair enough, you would expect that if you could afford it, no problem. Wrong! I was surprised to find out that even if you had the money they would not lease those spaces to you unless were a haute couture name such as I mentioned. And that is my point, the whole idea surrounding the notion of Manchester 'liberalism' was that by somehow, without interference, letting price and what people could and were willing to pay alone determine market outcomes, the result would be to free people from notions of race, caste, or political views in that sellers would sell to whomever could afford it. Hence the nomenclature Manchester liberalism. Now while we have a system that is somewhat like that, it is not necessarily so. Back to my experience, their are some vendors that simply will not sell to you unless you have a very big name. That is the reality.

With regard to free trade, in reality, we only need to look to the farm bill of 2008 to see how the US limits the amount of sugar that can be imported into the US. And, of course, we see how the Trade Act of 1974 can be used by the president to place restrictions on free trade.

And that brings me to my point, at the end of the day markets rest on humans, and humans are intrinsically motivated by the desire to obtain power so that they can fulfill their desires with as few restrictions as possible. So what really is going on between the US and China is more about a struggle between the elite classes of both countries over control of the Chinese system. And that's the real issue here. This isn't really so much about manufacturing jobs in the US as it is the elite classes in the US wanting more control over the Chinese system. Whether they admit it or not, that is the essence of the matter. And that, quite frankly, is why they are having problems reaching an agreement. The Chinese are willing to relinquish some amount of control to the elites of the west in order to be able to maintain access to western markets and western capital, but they draw a line at a certain point. One point I am certain they will not agree to is letting the elites in the west dictate to them extent and type of power their judicial system will have. For them, that strikes too far at the core of their notion of sovereignty. Because in essence, if push comes to shove, that is where they can exercise control.

Therefore I predict that as long as the elites of this country perceive that they have the level of control over other systems like Vietnamese that they want, then you will not see restrictions in the form of tariffs put in place on these countries. I don't know enough about what is going on with the Vietnamese system to be able to say whether or not it will happen in that case. But what I will say is that if it does happen, it will not be so much about free trade as it will be about control over the Vietnamese system.

 

If you wanted to root out Christianity from the face of the earth, you would start with the biggest and financially strongest of the Christian organizations, the Catholic church. If you could take down the Vatican and render it even more irrelevant than it is down to non-existence, the rest of the denominations would fall like dominos.

Substitute China for Catholic church if you wanted to establish trade that actually helps the USA.

 

So if you want to establish trade the actually helps the USA you need to root out China from the face of the earth?

 

No, you make them bleed until they see it your way. You go for the big Kahuna first.

 

What if you can't 'make them bleed' without making yourself bleed?

 

Of course you will bleed. Winning is the only thing. Like coach said, "I want you to go out there and bloody that center linebacker," and you know you're gonna bleed, too, but the CL is making too many tackles.

 

There are a couple of things that need to considered here

1. The US and Chinese economies are so interconnected at this point that either trying to inflict substantial harm on the other will result in intolerable harm to itself.
2. The effects that such actions have on the foreign policies of both countries will be detrimental to the interests of both.

 

Do nothing and the USA will die.

 

Do you really think that China has the capacity to destroy the US?

 

Yup.

 

Well we have two very different opinions on that issue.

 

Sure. That is fine. imo.

 

I see you believe in reparations. Are you saying because of the harm Trump have caused with his trade war, we have to pay farmers to make up for it? Three strikes for you all in one post.

 

Should reparations be paid to the families of the 60,000 or so who died, plus those who went blind, deaf, or lost one or more limbs, or got cancer from 55 gallon drums in Vietnam?

Nope. They gots to toughen up and keep putting one foot in front of the other. They are just owed what the VA provides, and should provide a bit better than they are.

 

Why are we paying reparations to farmer. Tell them to buck up and keep putting one foot in front of the other.

 

Why Hasn't Trump Put The Same Tariffs On Vietnam, Malaysia, and India.

I'm surprised I have to tell you this. These countries aren't stealing technology and business ownership.