The tariffs Trump’s Admin are using are mainly a leverage buying tool. Once China agrees to ‘play fair’, the tariffs will largely be withdrawn. Thus far, this tactic has worked well, but China has dug in its heels and is trying to resist. Once alternative markets open up their production flood gates, competition will drive China to the bargaining table, with Trump holding all the leverage.
Disclaimer: I do not like ‘permanent’ tariffs. The above is consistent with my position.
China has started lowering tariffs for products coming from other countries.
Honest question; what if China does not agree to “play fair” because they no longer need our markets and the tariffs last throughout President Trump’s term(s)?
I know it is a hypothetical, but also very realistic.
Actually, ‘realistic’ is your opinion. Look at the size of their economy and compare it to ALL OTHER nations with which the US trades fairly. Then reply with your current assessment of ‘realistic’. I don’t do ‘hypotheticals’ unless they are, IMO, realistic.
Ron, how about you give us a summary of how bad the trade imbalances were under your hero you voted for twice?
October 2, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
I do not recall my father being the POTUS.
The trade deficit increased by ~$7 billion, or 18.22%, during President Obama’s 8 year administration. It has increased nearly $6 billion, or 13.56% during the first 18 months under President Trump, and has increased each month since May 2018. To be fair, it is too early to determine where the trade deficit WILL go by the end of President Trump’s term(s).
Don’t you just hate it when the facts go against your narrative?
October 2, 2018 at 8:26 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
It’s only been about 20 months since POTUS took office, and ypu’re already concerned about the trade imbalance while the overall economy has been booming. Give the new agreements and actions time to filter through the economic system. You’re watching a kettle moments after it was placed on the stove to heat water.
October 3, 2018 at 7:50 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Read the following from my post and try again:
“To be fair, it is too early to determine where the trade deficit WILL go by the end of President Trump’s term(s).”
September 27, 2018 at 1:50 pm
PolarHypocrite says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
14
8
“I don’t do hypotheticals”
“Once alternative markets open up their production flood gates, competition will drive China to the bargaining table, with Trump holding all the leverage.” – this is even worse than a hypothetical, it is a pipe dream.
It is accepted by the people I speak with. But, your opinion is valued here… for its humor content.
October 1, 2018 at 11:42 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
I don’t create IDs to censor others or mock them, so IJ should take note of the above post and take the appropriate action(s) to ensure their website remains one of integrity and information, not mockery and satire. I suspect the post above arises from a poster who was previously involved in BOTting Conservatives’ posts and copying their posts to paste them in response to subsequent posts; i.e. an angry bird.
October 1, 2018 at 1:22 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Yogi wrote, ” I suspect the post above arises from a poster who was previously involved in BOTting Conservatives’ posts and copying their posts to paste them in response to subsequent posts;”
I suspect you are wrong…
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 AT 6:21 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 2Thumb down 6
But, your opinion is valued here… for its humor content.
October 1, 2018 at 3:37 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
I re-iterate my opinion that his/ her opinion is valuable as humor. I must assume you value my opinion, right? Or, have you tried to censor it?
October 1, 2018 at 9:06 am
stush says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Unlike the perpetrator of this situation, I did not attend the Wharton School. I was taught that tariffs are applied to protect a specific country’s fledgling industries and that the consensus has been that tariffs have a limited usefulness. In the current dispute, tariffs are more harmful than a help to those who must pay for them. I am surprised that the “stable genius” didn’t learn this at Penn. He must have been absent that day or the person who sat in and took notes for him neglected to get that lesson for him. Only goes to show that a little learning is a dangerous thing; he should have taken the rest of the course offering in Marco-economics. Only the ignorant would take this approach to “level” the playing field and fighting globalism is just trying to keep the dam from bursting with fingers. My conclusion is that he wants to rewrite the past which is unlikely; the American taxpayer will have to pay the bill for this debacle.
I agree that tariffs have a limited (life line) usefulness. A current example is the new USMCA, announced today as yet another of Trump’s accomplishments that help advance ‘MAGA’. Tariffs imposed or announced act to give the US bargaining leverage…. as I’ve said multiple prior times. Bears often repeat themselves when it seems no one is in the woods or on icebergs to hear them.
Free trade but fair trade. This country is through letting the world rip us off. The wuss from Canada has come around like we expected. Next up is China.
Let’s see now, Europe was the first to cave on tariffs, Mexico next, now Canada has seen the light. China is next on the docket. I’m not tired of winning yet.
This is comically wrong. 95% of Trump’s initial tariffs were on intermediate goods and capital goods instead of final goods. So things like products finished in the US, auto parts, or capital equipment used in investment like construction machinery. Those specifically hurt the US economy, not the Chinese economy. China and Canada specifically targeted final goods coming from the US, because they aren’t incompetent like Trump, his administration, and his followers. They aren’t doing tariffs on things like foreign goods that cause people to switch to the same good produced domestically. They are making the domestic production more expensive AND reducing investment in future capital.
The Chinese market is a strictly controlled government market. The destruction of individual business is not a concern. Yes, we are impacting their economy with these tariffs, but to think that this will simply spring back to normal is a dream. Farmers, who were already hurting prior to tariffs, are hurting bad. Land prices crashed, soy beans have crashed, corn has crashed, pork is losing more than $20 a head. The rate of bankruptcy and suicide in the farming community is escalating rapidly. The “bailout” is a joke. The amazing Trump recovery for his beloved farmers is a con job. Always was, always will be.
CalDude, why do you insist on posting Fake News? Just today, In his press conference last night, Trump boasted that soybean prices are quickly on the rise. The reason why Trump is living in our White House is due to a big part on the huge support he got from farm voters. Perhaps it is time for these same voters to quit whining about agricultural market prices, and simply wear their red MAGA hats with pride!
Trump is in the White House because Russia, in a conspiracy with Trump, and the FBI, interfered in the election, not because of the voters. Voters overwhelmingly wanted and voted for Clinton. Put on your dunce hat: it’s red and says MAGA.
China will not find another market. And tariffs is not about punishing China, tariffs for US is about survival. Last year – 800 billions trade deficit. To pay for those goods people borrowed money – 800 billions in debt with interest to pay. No country can continue like this forever.
Next issue – USD as reserve currency. US will loose reserve currency if they do not start production of goods. No one need freshly printed reserve currency not supported by anything at all. So US have a choice : produce, manufacture or loose reserve currency and become third world country.
How many months have passes since the inception of the tariffs? How long does it take for influences on economies to be realized in credible, significant stats?
For leverage. Ex: USMCA, announced this morning. Justa TrueDope has just been taken out back to the woodshed by Trump. They came back with an understanding of which party has the bigger economy and leverage in the matter. Thus, USMCA happened, to advance ‘MAGA’.
September 28, 2018 at 7:23 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Lana, do you mean to tell me that people had to borrow money to buy Chinese goods at Dollar Tree? I don’t think so.
Tariffs are always, always, anti-consumer. Consumers shop for the best deals for their needs, and do business with the producers that best meet their needs. Tariffs distort the market and reduce consumers’ standard of living by tinkering with prices. The location where something is produced holds little value for me, whether that is across city limits, state lines, or national borders.
I want to be allowed to shop for the best item that maximizes the welfare of me and my family. I can decide for myself what is “fair”, thank you very much.
If you don’t like another state’s or country’s policies, you can choose not to buy products from their producers, and you can try to persuade me likewise. But forcing choices through tariffs is little more than welfare to certain groups of producers, and I want none of it, period!
So you don’t mind if other countries raise tarriffs on American goods and services so that American products sell less in those countries. Got it.
And you don’t want to address those penalties on American workers. You think you can make the appropriate purchasing choices here in the US (even though foreign tarriffs have nothing to do with our own consumer market).
I see. The “Obama/Bush/Clinton” approach. Do nothing. Let our workers get hammered unfairly.
Placing you and your family in an economic welfare bubble is a mistake. You have to be able to think about what is best for your neighbors and friends as well, regardless of where you end up doing commerce. That will help to ensure the survival of our country versus you just meeting your short term goals in life. In the beginning the founders pledged their lives and fortunes to the establishment of our freedom; now it seems to be what is in it for me – more entitlements instead of helping our neighbor?
What about workers’ standards of living in the USA? Henry Ford figured that out long ago. You can’t let other countries steal our ideas and then put tariffs on our USA products – does that actually not bother you??
I voted for Pat Buchanan because he said he would ” stand on the seashore and point the ships back to their countries etc…” until they opened their borders to our products in a fair manner.
We are not perfect, either, but why is it they always want the USA to pay for all these initiatives? We’re supposed to be the biggest culprit in global warming while China’s air pollution is awful, but we’re still supposed to pay the lion’s share of the global warming research per the climate change accord?
When we implement or raise tariffs, other countries will do likewise, just as they are doing now. So, apparently, you’re the one who doesn’t mind if other countries raise tariffs on American goods. Got it.
Free-market conservatives are the ones who think we should do nothing, because they don’t care about our workers. They consider caring about workers to be communist.
Clueless. What were the Chinese tarriffs 2 years ago under Obama. What were the corresponding US tarrifs at that time?
How have Chinese tarriffs changed this year? Hello? Trump recognizes we are still the biggest gorilla in the jungle and he is willing to punish countries that take advantage of us with high tarriffs, countries like China that also steal all of our business and military secrets.
Trump renegotiated NAFTA with Mexico. What are the new terms compared to the old. What are the Canadian tarriffs on our goods compared to the US tarriffs on Canadian goods?
Trump’s stated position: he would like a world with ZERO tarriffs. But he isn’t going to pretend other countries aren’t screwing us anymore, like you-know-who did for 8 years
Craig, had the wicked witch of the east won, our trade imbalances would continue to grow as they were under the former POTUS. Other countries knew he was weak, would do nothing to reign in their tariffs like our President has done. They also knew he would do nothing to encourage business since he didn’t in 8 very long years.
I await a specific article by IJ staff or a guest author about the new USMCA. The politically biased comments on that will be a thing to behold… and IJ staff to ‘police’.
I see you spent exactly 0 seconds clicking on the article. Here, I’ll help you out:
“Many foreign business people and politicians have underestimated the determination of Chinese people to support the government in a trade war,” said Mu, vice chairman of Yihai Kerry, owned by Singapore-based Wilmar International (WLIL.SI).
The comments echo a growing confidence within China’s soybean industry and government that the world’s largest pork-producing nation can wean itself off U.S. soy exports – a prospect that would decimate U.S. farmers, upend a 36-year-old trading relationship worth $12.7 billion last year, and radically remap global trade flows.
It has nothing to do with you eating soybeans. And, by the way, if you eat pork and beef on a regular basis, you are eating soybeans.
Yogi,
Nice, I hear Rush use “Chi Comms” all the time. It’s obvious who you religiously listen to. Listen, I never said I agree with it, actually. And, it isn’t just someone’s opinion, it is, “The executive from one of China’s biggest soybean crushers sat on a panel at a Kansas City agricultural exports conference…” It’s fair to say this person is in the know about China’s plans, or the lack thereof, for our soybean exporting going forward. And, that is a concern because they have been a large buyer of that product.
They have a strategy to skirt the US with little financial pain, as the article states. This impacts the American farmer and should be a concern. We had better start finding alternative markets for our hard-working farmers, don’t you think? If China won’t need us, I’m suggesting we had better find someone who will, that is all. Or, you can join Agent and keep your head in the sand and pray you are wrong about rising sea levels.
Sure is nice to have a President who understands and puts Americans first. He is doing the job we elected him to do. The massive trade imbalances are in the process of going away. Our economy has been revived, taxes lowered, regulations cut and we are the largest producer of energy in the world. Congratulations Mr. President for doing an outstanding job.
Chi-Comms is a term used during the Vietnam War, and perhaps was coined during the Korea War.
TDS goes hand in hand with Rush bashing. I rarely have to time to listen to him, unless I’m traveling in the car on my way to/from lunch. Get a clue: people who say things that other people say aren’t blind followers of one person; they just use the same lingo, especially local cliches and phrases.
Polar, yay for Free and Fair. The US, under our great President is tired of getting ripped off by almost all of our trading partners. No reason at all for us to have a trading deficit, but leaders from the past allowed it. Too bad, so sad. China, you are next up. You need our markets more than we need yours.
The tariffs Trump’s Admin are using are mainly a leverage buying tool. Once China agrees to ‘play fair’, the tariffs will largely be withdrawn. Thus far, this tactic has worked well, but China has dug in its heels and is trying to resist. Once alternative markets open up their production flood gates, competition will drive China to the bargaining table, with Trump holding all the leverage.
Disclaimer: I do not like ‘permanent’ tariffs. The above is consistent with my position.
China has started lowering tariffs for products coming from other countries.
Honest question; what if China does not agree to “play fair” because they no longer need our markets and the tariffs last throughout President Trump’s term(s)?
I know it is a hypothetical, but also very realistic.
Actually, ‘realistic’ is your opinion. Look at the size of their economy and compare it to ALL OTHER nations with which the US trades fairly. Then reply with your current assessment of ‘realistic’. I don’t do ‘hypotheticals’ unless they are, IMO, realistic.
How Trump of you to totally bypass an honest question.
Why does a hypothetical need to be realistic in order to provide your opinion?
Ask me any hypothetical on tariffs or the economy, and I will answer. It is called debating like adults.
Ron, how about you give us a summary of how bad the trade imbalances were under your hero you voted for twice?
I do not recall my father being the POTUS.
The trade deficit increased by ~$7 billion, or 18.22%, during President Obama’s 8 year administration. It has increased nearly $6 billion, or 13.56% during the first 18 months under President Trump, and has increased each month since May 2018. To be fair, it is too early to determine where the trade deficit WILL go by the end of President Trump’s term(s).
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
Don’t you just hate it when the facts go against your narrative?
It’s only been about 20 months since POTUS took office, and ypu’re already concerned about the trade imbalance while the overall economy has been booming. Give the new agreements and actions time to filter through the economic system. You’re watching a kettle moments after it was placed on the stove to heat water.
Read the following from my post and try again:
“To be fair, it is too early to determine where the trade deficit WILL go by the end of President Trump’s term(s).”
“I don’t do hypotheticals”
“Once alternative markets open up their production flood gates, competition will drive China to the bargaining table, with Trump holding all the leverage.” – this is even worse than a hypothetical, it is a pipe dream.
It is accepted by the people I speak with. But, your opinion is valued here… for its humor content.
I don’t create IDs to censor others or mock them, so IJ should take note of the above post and take the appropriate action(s) to ensure their website remains one of integrity and information, not mockery and satire. I suspect the post above arises from a poster who was previously involved in BOTting Conservatives’ posts and copying their posts to paste them in response to subsequent posts; i.e. an angry bird.
Yogi wrote, ” I suspect the post above arises from a poster who was previously involved in BOTting Conservatives’ posts and copying their posts to paste them in response to subsequent posts;”
I suspect you are wrong…
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 AT 6:21 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 2Thumb down 6
But, your opinion is valued here… for its humor content.
I re-iterate my opinion that his/ her opinion is valuable as humor. I must assume you value my opinion, right? Or, have you tried to censor it?
Unlike the perpetrator of this situation, I did not attend the Wharton School. I was taught that tariffs are applied to protect a specific country’s fledgling industries and that the consensus has been that tariffs have a limited usefulness. In the current dispute, tariffs are more harmful than a help to those who must pay for them. I am surprised that the “stable genius” didn’t learn this at Penn. He must have been absent that day or the person who sat in and took notes for him neglected to get that lesson for him. Only goes to show that a little learning is a dangerous thing; he should have taken the rest of the course offering in Marco-economics. Only the ignorant would take this approach to “level” the playing field and fighting globalism is just trying to keep the dam from bursting with fingers. My conclusion is that he wants to rewrite the past which is unlikely; the American taxpayer will have to pay the bill for this debacle.
I agree that tariffs have a limited (life line) usefulness. A current example is the new USMCA, announced today as yet another of Trump’s accomplishments that help advance ‘MAGA’. Tariffs imposed or announced act to give the US bargaining leverage…. as I’ve said multiple prior times. Bears often repeat themselves when it seems no one is in the woods or on icebergs to hear them.
Polar, we will soon be trading MAGA for KAG.
Free trade but fair trade. This country is through letting the world rip us off. The wuss from Canada has come around like we expected. Next up is China.
Let’s see now, Europe was the first to cave on tariffs, Mexico next, now Canada has seen the light. China is next on the docket. I’m not tired of winning yet.
This is comically wrong. 95% of Trump’s initial tariffs were on intermediate goods and capital goods instead of final goods. So things like products finished in the US, auto parts, or capital equipment used in investment like construction machinery. Those specifically hurt the US economy, not the Chinese economy. China and Canada specifically targeted final goods coming from the US, because they aren’t incompetent like Trump, his administration, and his followers. They aren’t doing tariffs on things like foreign goods that cause people to switch to the same good produced domestically. They are making the domestic production more expensive AND reducing investment in future capital.
The Chinese market is a strictly controlled government market. The destruction of individual business is not a concern. Yes, we are impacting their economy with these tariffs, but to think that this will simply spring back to normal is a dream. Farmers, who were already hurting prior to tariffs, are hurting bad. Land prices crashed, soy beans have crashed, corn has crashed, pork is losing more than $20 a head. The rate of bankruptcy and suicide in the farming community is escalating rapidly. The “bailout” is a joke. The amazing Trump recovery for his beloved farmers is a con job. Always was, always will be.
CalDude, why do you insist on posting Fake News? Just today, In his press conference last night, Trump boasted that soybean prices are quickly on the rise. The reason why Trump is living in our White House is due to a big part on the huge support he got from farm voters. Perhaps it is time for these same voters to quit whining about agricultural market prices, and simply wear their red MAGA hats with pride!
Except for the fact that they haven’t.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-said-soybean-prices-gone-171400339.html
Trump is in the White House because Russia, in a conspiracy with Trump, and the FBI, interfered in the election, not because of the voters. Voters overwhelmingly wanted and voted for Clinton. Put on your dunce hat: it’s red and says MAGA.
China will not find another market. And tariffs is not about punishing China, tariffs for US is about survival. Last year – 800 billions trade deficit. To pay for those goods people borrowed money – 800 billions in debt with interest to pay. No country can continue like this forever.
Next issue – USD as reserve currency. US will loose reserve currency if they do not start production of goods. No one need freshly printed reserve currency not supported by anything at all. So US have a choice : produce, manufacture or loose reserve currency and become third world country.
The trade deficit has actually increased since the tariffs were implemented.
https://www.dw.com/en/us-trade-deficit-surges-hits-all-time-highs-with-china-and-eu/a-45371856
How many months have passes since the inception of the tariffs? How long does it take for influences on economies to be realized in credible, significant stats?
Funny thing is, the trade deficit was decreasing from February to may of this year. Why disrupt that trend?
For leverage. Ex: USMCA, announced this morning. Justa TrueDope has just been taken out back to the woodshed by Trump. They came back with an understanding of which party has the bigger economy and leverage in the matter. Thus, USMCA happened, to advance ‘MAGA’.
Lana, do you mean to tell me that people had to borrow money to buy Chinese goods at Dollar Tree? I don’t think so.
Tariffs are always, always, anti-consumer. Consumers shop for the best deals for their needs, and do business with the producers that best meet their needs. Tariffs distort the market and reduce consumers’ standard of living by tinkering with prices. The location where something is produced holds little value for me, whether that is across city limits, state lines, or national borders.
I want to be allowed to shop for the best item that maximizes the welfare of me and my family. I can decide for myself what is “fair”, thank you very much.
If you don’t like another state’s or country’s policies, you can choose not to buy products from their producers, and you can try to persuade me likewise. But forcing choices through tariffs is little more than welfare to certain groups of producers, and I want none of it, period!
So you don’t mind if other countries raise tarriffs on American goods and services so that American products sell less in those countries. Got it.
And you don’t want to address those penalties on American workers. You think you can make the appropriate purchasing choices here in the US (even though foreign tarriffs have nothing to do with our own consumer market).
I see. The “Obama/Bush/Clinton” approach. Do nothing. Let our workers get hammered unfairly.
Placing you and your family in an economic welfare bubble is a mistake. You have to be able to think about what is best for your neighbors and friends as well, regardless of where you end up doing commerce. That will help to ensure the survival of our country versus you just meeting your short term goals in life. In the beginning the founders pledged their lives and fortunes to the establishment of our freedom; now it seems to be what is in it for me – more entitlements instead of helping our neighbor?
What about workers’ standards of living in the USA? Henry Ford figured that out long ago. You can’t let other countries steal our ideas and then put tariffs on our USA products – does that actually not bother you??
I voted for Pat Buchanan because he said he would ” stand on the seashore and point the ships back to their countries etc…” until they opened their borders to our products in a fair manner.
We are not perfect, either, but why is it they always want the USA to pay for all these initiatives? We’re supposed to be the biggest culprit in global warming while China’s air pollution is awful, but we’re still supposed to pay the lion’s share of the global warming research per the climate change accord?
When we implement or raise tariffs, other countries will do likewise, just as they are doing now. So, apparently, you’re the one who doesn’t mind if other countries raise tariffs on American goods. Got it.
Free-market conservatives are the ones who think we should do nothing, because they don’t care about our workers. They consider caring about workers to be communist.
Clueless. What were the Chinese tarriffs 2 years ago under Obama. What were the corresponding US tarrifs at that time?
How have Chinese tarriffs changed this year? Hello? Trump recognizes we are still the biggest gorilla in the jungle and he is willing to punish countries that take advantage of us with high tarriffs, countries like China that also steal all of our business and military secrets.
Trump renegotiated NAFTA with Mexico. What are the new terms compared to the old. What are the Canadian tarriffs on our goods compared to the US tarriffs on Canadian goods?
Trump’s stated position: he would like a world with ZERO tarriffs. But he isn’t going to pretend other countries aren’t screwing us anymore, like you-know-who did for 8 years
Stop being such a partisan hack; think!
Are you really asking how Chinese tariffs have changed? Can you say soybeans? That’s just one example. Stop being a partisan hack; think.
Soybeans are the only commodity ever subject to tarriffs. . .
Cars? Electrical Equipment? Etc.?
Hello?
Craig, had the wicked witch of the east won, our trade imbalances would continue to grow as they were under the former POTUS. Other countries knew he was weak, would do nothing to reign in their tariffs like our President has done. They also knew he would do nothing to encourage business since he didn’t in 8 very long years.
Interesting article on the soybean trade war right here:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-soymeal-insight/inside-chinas-strategy-in-the-soybean-trade-war-idUSKCN1LZ0J9
I dunno about others, but I can eat quite well without soybeans in my diet.
I await a specific article by IJ staff or a guest author about the new USMCA. The politically biased comments on that will be a thing to behold… and IJ staff to ‘police’.
I see you spent exactly 0 seconds clicking on the article. Here, I’ll help you out:
“Many foreign business people and politicians have underestimated the determination of Chinese people to support the government in a trade war,” said Mu, vice chairman of Yihai Kerry, owned by Singapore-based Wilmar International (WLIL.SI).
The comments echo a growing confidence within China’s soybean industry and government that the world’s largest pork-producing nation can wean itself off U.S. soy exports – a prospect that would decimate U.S. farmers, upend a 36-year-old trading relationship worth $12.7 billion last year, and radically remap global trade flows.
It has nothing to do with you eating soybeans. And, by the way, if you eat pork and beef on a regular basis, you are eating soybeans.
Thanks for posting someone’s opinion which agrees with yours. Both are enlightening and amusing.
‘Growing confidence’, according to WHO EXACTLY? Top Chi-Comms?
Man does not live by br… soy beans alone.
Yogi,
Nice, I hear Rush use “Chi Comms” all the time. It’s obvious who you religiously listen to. Listen, I never said I agree with it, actually. And, it isn’t just someone’s opinion, it is, “The executive from one of China’s biggest soybean crushers sat on a panel at a Kansas City agricultural exports conference…” It’s fair to say this person is in the know about China’s plans, or the lack thereof, for our soybean exporting going forward. And, that is a concern because they have been a large buyer of that product.
They have a strategy to skirt the US with little financial pain, as the article states. This impacts the American farmer and should be a concern. We had better start finding alternative markets for our hard-working farmers, don’t you think? If China won’t need us, I’m suggesting we had better find someone who will, that is all. Or, you can join Agent and keep your head in the sand and pray you are wrong about rising sea levels.
Sure is nice to have a President who understands and puts Americans first. He is doing the job we elected him to do. The massive trade imbalances are in the process of going away. Our economy has been revived, taxes lowered, regulations cut and we are the largest producer of energy in the world. Congratulations Mr. President for doing an outstanding job.
And, this is your brain on Sean Hannity – any questions?
Spoken like a true Anti-American Progressive Socialist, the party of the Resistance.
but YOU upvoted yourself…
Chi-Comms is a term used during the Vietnam War, and perhaps was coined during the Korea War.
TDS goes hand in hand with Rush bashing. I rarely have to time to listen to him, unless I’m traveling in the car on my way to/from lunch. Get a clue: people who say things that other people say aren’t blind followers of one person; they just use the same lingo, especially local cliches and phrases.
Polar, yay for Free and Fair. The US, under our great President is tired of getting ripped off by almost all of our trading partners. No reason at all for us to have a trading deficit, but leaders from the past allowed it. Too bad, so sad. China, you are next up. You need our markets more than we need yours.