Keep building bigger box ships when is it going to end.
This book is pretty good. Outlines the 100 year plan China has had since 1948. Pretty eye opening. https://thehundredyearmarathon.com/
Iâll bookmark this to watch. TY
The American propaganda machine at work??
If you canât compete, blame it on somebody else. Murica #1!!!
BTW; If China decided to stop trading with USA, who would hurt the most?
From Sydney Morning Herald, 22. Dec. 2016:
I just wonder about the logic in starting a trade war to âbring back jobsâ when the US is already at full employment. The unemployment rate is at a 17 year low and there are more jobs available than qualified takers to fill them:
In the unlikely event that all those âstolenâ jobs are returning, who are going to fill them?
Even if the Labour Force Participation Rate should increase further (it is now only 63%) that is not enough and migration into US is not welcome.
Population growth by natural increase is not very likely as the birth rate are low and the average living age is now rising, thus creating an aging population, not increased work force:
A great place to negotiate for fairer trade would have been within the framework of the TPP, but guess who decided to drop out of it. Heâd rather play whack-a-mole with tariffs and to hell with our allies. I donât have to wonder what a 25% tariff will do to the cost of a new ship built in the US. I can do the math.
Jones Act, it was nice to know ya.
We needed these tariffs 30 years ago. âFree tradeâ is a joke. Itâs been âfreeâ for everyone else, but not for the US. We need whatever level of tariffs is necessary to eliminate trade deficits.
We need tariffs to protect basic industries for national and economic security. The same reason we need the Jones Act. It is illogical to support the Jones Act, but not support tariffs.
A 25% tariff on foreign steel will not raise the cost of Jones Act vessels by 25%. I donât know the percentage, but a lot of American steel is used in US vessels now. The cost of steel is significant fraction of the cost of shipbuilding, but still only a fraction of the cost. Machinery and labor are much larger cost components.
I doubt that the 25% tariffs on foreign steel will add over 2% to the cost of the typical US vessel. Obviously, larger simple vessels (like deck barges) will see larger cost increases than smaller complex vessels.
2 Likes
I wish we could eliminate the trade deficit or at least get it a little closer to real. I donât think itâs ever going to happen Walmart and Amazon will see to it.
I agree. The problem I see the American population likes its disposable trinkets coming from a far. And as long as easy credit and cheap merchandise is the norm the problem isnât going anywhere
This is a bigger problem than we realize and when it manifests itself look out. Many states are so far upside-down now itâs only a matter of time.
If you want to get trade parity you have to produce something that buyers in the countries you have trade deficit with wants.
It is no use to ask; why are we buying more European cars than they are buy US made cars?
You need to ask; what type of cars are wanted in Europe?
Then make cars to suite the taste and regulatory requirements that applies in Europe, just like Europeans do to sell cars in US. (Oh, and every bolt and nut etc. used have to be metric)
PS> For UK, Japan and most former British colonies the cars have to be right hand drive.
A lot of American products are very popular in Europe and Japan, but some countries impose high tariffs and others erect a variety of non-tariff barriers. China requires a lot of technology transfer. Obviously, the US exports trillions of dollars worth of products every year.
I donât suggest that the uS should do anything unfair. However, reciprocal tariffs, and reciprocal non-tariff barriers should be used to prevent any country from consistently running a large trade surplus against us.
Current trade policy started out 70 years ago as a gift to Europe, Japan, and Korea to help them rebuild their economies after WW II. Itâs long past time to stop this giveaway program that we can no longer afford.
Yes the US exports $tr. worth of goods every year, but imports $$tr. as well. Much of the export is military equipment, which is not always based on WTO trading rules. On the contrary, it is often used to offset trade imbalance of other items and/or commodities (oil etc) after pressure from US.
There are also a lot of export in things that doesnât need transport by sea or air, such as Movies, TV shows, Games etc., just to mention a few.
There are also financial and other services that US has always been the champion of demanding freedom for.
If you look at what the US has gained from free markets in goods and services and US firms having the freedom to operate businesses like mines, oil exploration and manufacturing for domestic and export markets all over the world, the picture becomes VERY different.
In all the years when America have been the world hegemon the flow of export and US overseas business has been to the benefit of the US.
In some cases they have used their position as the dominant partner and military superpower to demand access to markets without reciprocal access to US markets, but that is conveniently forgotten as other countries are now able to not only compete, but actually outcompete and even dominate in many of the markets that America had believed they had a âGod given rightâ to command.
Get used to it and adjust to compete on even terms through fair a reciprocal trade deals, like the TPP. (You got a lot of concessions there)
If Walmart and Amazon didnât have any customers, then they would not be in business. Letâs face it. The general public likes lower prices and, for the most part, doesnât really care where their stuff comes from. . . . and it has ALWAYS been that way.
1 Like
You are correct people donât care itâs to bad. I wonât say itâs always been that way though.
And itâs a downward spiral. Low priced goods from low standard countries cause decent paying jobs here to go away which makes for less disposable income which causes people to seek lower prices⌠On and onâŚa literal race to the bottom. Another example of things weâve âaccomplishedâ in the last 70 years.
Well put itâs going to be interesting how things play out the next few generations we have become almost exclusively a consumer nation this cannot sustain itself for very long without some changes.
1 Like
Yes most people like to buy stuff that is cheap, but also value for money. Why pay more for something that doesnât perform better, taste better, or is of better quality, just because it bears a label that is regarded as a âBrand Nameâ.
The answer is obviously that it is perceived to carry status to own or wear âBranded goodsâ, but in most cases the extra cost is for the name, not for the quality. People pay dearly for âstatusâ.
(As long as it has the label on the outside to be easily identified as such)
Nor is it for the cost of manufacturing, as most of the âbrandedâ stuff is made with cheap labour in the same countries as the Walmart get their junk from. You can buy most branded âoverrunâ items from Factory Outlets in the countries where they are made at a fraction of the price charge at stores in the big cities.
Some, even in China, pay extra for the âMade in USAâ label, believing they are getting quality and status by doing so, only to find they can find China made products that has the same, or even better, quality and functionality.
There is a reason why advertising is a major industry and the main revenue source for some of the most âvaluableâ companies on Wall Street. People are easily fooled.
What you type there is true in very many cases particularly the type of things youâll find in Wal Mart.
This is why capitalism cannot run without regulations. What the consumer wants (lowest price) and what companies want (highest profits) are not always in the best interest of the country (no decent paying jobs). Unfortunately one of our âaccomplishmentsâ of the last 70 years has been our elected officials acting in their own best interests vice the best interests of the country.
The âaccomplishment the last 70 yearsâ is NOT only a US thing, it is something that has affected most people around the world.
Since WWII Europe and many places in Asia has had to rebuild both their infrastructure and in many cases, their political system. USA escaped any damages to either.
The Marshall Plan helped both Europe and USA. Europe to rebuild and USA to keep their manufacturing base humming, until such time as there became markets to sell to.
China had the added calamities of the Mao-era and only really got started developing their economy 30 years or so ago. They have made remarkably well in lifting people out of poverty and developing their economy to where they are about to overtake USA as the largest single economy in the world.
You may not realize how much USA has gained from free trade and how much you have to loose by isolating yourself from it.
It is kind of stupid to spend 70 years preaching and pressuring other countries to adopt your policy of free trade and free markets, only to shut the door when you are ready to reach your goal and for everybody to reap the benefits.
However, China still needs Western technologies and sales markets.
China needs USA more than USA needs China, I think