So, when trump started tariffs with China, I was opposed to this. Now that Biden is doing the same, it gets me wondering. Do tariffs actually work to increase a country's production in a certain...
So, when trump started tariffs with China, I was opposed to this. Now that Biden is doing the same, it gets me wondering. Do tariffs actually work to increase a country's production in a certain sector? Or does the consumer always suffer higher prices with no end in sight?
Is there any way the consumer can actually benefit from this?
Tin foil hat time: I think the concern is that an over reliance on technology from China might allow the CCP to trigger a remote 'kill switch' bricking the devices. It's very likely that he has...
Tin foil hat time: I think the concern is that an over reliance on technology from China might allow the CCP to trigger a remote 'kill switch' bricking the devices. It's very likely that he has this theory because we might have such a switch.
They can't flat out ban them, so they just need to minimize the impact to cause no point.
I think it's a lot simpler than that. EV technology, solar, and batteries are the future. We don't want the US behind in that and relying on a hostile power with large ambitions, such as China,...
I think it's a lot simpler than that. EV technology, solar, and batteries are the future. We don't want the US behind in that and relying on a hostile power with large ambitions, such as China, with a leverage point over the US. It is in the US best interest to have good domestic production of these technologies.
China is willing to massively subsidize these advancements to get a market edge. They can pay their workers less and utilize slave labor for raw materials. I don't know if tariffs are the best way at preventing outsourcing of these important technologies, but they are a way.
I don’t think the US is any better a pick when it comes to having market dominance over key future technologies. You mention underpayment and slave labor, but the States engage in that too — just...
I don’t think the US is any better a pick when it comes to having market dominance over key future technologies. You mention underpayment and slave labor, but the States engage in that too — just look at the prison system for that.
I’ll grant that it’s in the United States’ best interest to do this, but I don’t think even I as a citizen here will reap any of the benefits, much less the world as a whole.
I think it's in the best interest of anyone who lives in the US or what is commonly referred to as the western world, including the EU. While far from perfect, both regions have significantly...
I think it's in the best interest of anyone who lives in the US or what is commonly referred to as the western world, including the EU. While far from perfect, both regions have significantly better freedoms than China.
The persecution of the Uyghur people in China is not comparable to the US prison system(as bad as that is). It is state sponsored violence and detention of a people based off their culture and beliefs. I don't see how anyone who is comfortable living in the western world can read the HRW summary on China and honestly think the west in on par with China.
It doesn't affect you as an American citizen beyond how it affects you as a consumer. It doesn't affect you as a consumer beyond ensuring you can't get affordable EVs for the foreseeable future....
Exemplary
It doesn't affect you as an American citizen beyond how it affects you as a consumer. It doesn't affect you as a consumer beyond ensuring you can't get affordable EVs for the foreseeable future. On a wider level, it doesn't affect anything at all except in how it plays into our overall economic cold war with China, which is to say that it's in the US's economic interests and against China's, as you point out. If either good things happening to the US or bad things happening to China make a little happy light flick on in your head, you will like this decision. If not, then not.
This is why the argument you got back to your rebuttal about slave labor in this discussion about EV manufacturing was an irrelevant but fair point about China being cruel to Uyghurs. The way China manufactures EVs has little to do with this decision, except to the extent that it risks allowing China to outperform the US on the market. But the manufacturing of EVs has nothing at all to do with people's reactions to this decision. From the US's perspective, the point is bolstering the U.S.'s economic interests relative to China. From powerless online posters' perspective, the point is team sports. This is equally true of those who say their problem with China is irrelevant moral concerns, those who say their problem with China is that it manufactures EVs in the same way they're going to be manufactured now, and those who say their problem with China is ... that they're going to put backdoors in all of their technology to destroy the US in a coordinated cyberattack.
I can more than understand someone having problems with China. If your politics are "fuck China for reasons x y z" and you perceive this decision as fucking China, then approving of this decision is merely behaving rationally. If your politics are "fuck the US for reasons x y z" and you perceive this decision as helping the US, then disapproving of this decision is merely behaving rationally. If your politics are "fuck China, fuck Trump", then approving of this decision and disapproving of it when Trump did the same thing is merely behaving rationally. Other concerns are factually irrelevant to the reason Biden made the decision, and logically incoherent when applied to people's responses to it. These are the actual terms of the debate.
As you have shown, the possibility of underpaid or slave labor being used in the process is factually not something anyone factored into the decision, nor could it factor into anyone's reactions to it. Due to the way Chinese manufacturing is structured, there would be plenty of underpaid and slave labor involved in producing EVs if we bought them from China. Due to the way non-Chinese global manufacturing and American domestic manufacturing are structured, there will be plenty of underpaid and slave labor involved in producing EVs when we do not buy them from China. Taking underpaid or slave labor out of the equation is not actually a proposition on the table here, was not a factor in the decision-making process of those in power, and is not a factor in the libinal spectator response of anyone out of power.
Trying to take moral sides on dry economic positional contests between two world powers doesn't really make any sense unless you're just acting out your moral priors with respect to one or both of those two world powers, which is precisely why moral arguments about this decision inevitably devolve into debates about the parties' unrelated moral priors on the US and China. Otherwise, I guess you might be mad about it because it is going to impede your ability to personally buy an EV or might debatably hinder world climate goals. Otherwise, the most that really makes any sense to say about this decision is that it is economically and geopolitically correct from the US's point of view and is therefore unsurprising. And it's fucking international economic policy so I'm still not sure why we're expecting more than that. Countries impose tariffs in response to perceived economic threats all the time. Anyone struggling to contort their mind to imagine how it's secretly a brave humanitarian intervention just seems like they're firmly in the grip of ideology to me.
Maybe not you directly, but if Chinese EV makers put US automakers out of business, those manufacturing jobs everyone yells about disappear. The US being a dominant power in the world 100%...
Maybe not you directly, but if Chinese EV makers put US automakers out of business, those manufacturing jobs everyone yells about disappear. The US being a dominant power in the world 100% benefits US citizens even if you aren't on the board of a company the tariffs directly help.
Only if the US auto industry uses this opportunity to become competitive. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai etc are going to have to compete with Chinese automakers. They can’t slap on 100% tariffs because...
Only if the US auto industry uses this opportunity to become competitive. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai etc are going to have to compete with Chinese automakers. They can’t slap on 100% tariffs because they sell in the Chinese market, so they’d get symmetrical tariffs. The US can do this because the US auto industry is already completely outcompeted outside of the US.
What happens in a decade when Toyota, which has been in brutal competition with BYD or whatever, comes in and severely undercuts Ford and GM? Are we going to tariff Japanese cars too?
At what point are US consumers stuck with gas guzzling garbage from Ford and GM because they suck ass at making cars but employ sufficient swing voters to get protection?
For electronics, particularly telecommunications switches, it actually is a concern that they could be used for espionage. For solar panels, not so much. They don’t have an Internet connection.
For electronics, particularly telecommunications switches, it actually is a concern that they could be used for espionage. For solar panels, not so much. They don’t have an Internet connection.
So Trump's past and future strategy is to put tariffs on all goods from China. Biden didn't lower the Trump tariffs, but the tariffs Biden is adding specifically targets key "Green Economy" goods...
So Trump's past and future strategy is to put tariffs on all goods from China. Biden didn't lower the Trump tariffs, but the tariffs Biden is adding specifically targets key "Green Economy" goods that he wants the US to develop. This can help US green industries have time to develop tech and manufacturing capacity to eventually become naturally competitive with Chinese industries.
At the moment, Chinese solar and EV companies could easily outcompete US solar and EV companies if they competed on a level playing field. While this may result in higher prices for US consumers in the short term, it will protect the manufacturing jobs that Americans always complain about losing and prevent China from withholding certain goods in any potential conflict.
The Biden administration announced stiff new tariff rates Tuesday on $18 billion worth of Chinese imports. The White House said the tariff hikes were necessary to protect American industries from unfair competition.
Starting this year, President Joe Biden will quadruple tariffs on imported Chinese electric vehicles, from 25% to 100%. The import tax on Chinese solar cells will double, from 25% to 50%. And tariffs on some Chinese steel and aluminum imports will increase more than three-fold, from 7.5% today up to 25%.
The president also directed U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to more than triple the tariff rates on lithium-ion batteries for EVs and lithium batteries meant for other uses. Starting in 2025, tariffs on imported Chinese semiconductors will jump from 25% to 50%.
First-time tariffs will be imposed on Chinese imports of medical needles and syringes, as well as massive ship-to-shore cranes, the White House said in a fact sheet. Chinese rubber medical gloves and some respirators and face masks will also be hit with higher tariff rates.
Some items, like batteries and natural graphite, will have longer phase-in periods for tariffs. The White House said this is partly to give the U.S. manufacturing sector time to scale up to a point where enough batteries are being produced domestically to meet consumer demand.
Am I crazy or is this really just going to increase the cost of goods and basically raise inflation, just so we can watch Russia and tons of other countries get cheaper goods?
Am I crazy or is this really just going to increase the cost of goods and basically raise inflation, just so we can watch Russia and tons of other countries get cheaper goods?
It will almost certainly raise the prices of some or all of these products, but these are just a few categories that do not make up a humongous portion of overall US trade with China. This targets...
It will almost certainly raise the prices of some or all of these products, but these are just a few categories that do not make up a humongous portion of overall US trade with China. This targets $18 billion in imports; the US imports over $400 billion in goods from China every year.
I'd say the goal is focused on economic growth and protection of the manufacturing base (and jobs) moreso than cheaper goods. I'm probably biased, but I see this as a good thing for the Western...
I'd say the goal is focused on economic growth and protection of the manufacturing base (and jobs) moreso than cheaper goods.
I'm probably biased, but I see this as a good thing for the Western countries so long as the regulations are held to encourage domestic companies to shift their manufacturing to green energy products too.
Capitalists: "The free market will solve all of your problems." Also capitalists: "No, not like that. We need nationalist protectionism in the form of tariffs, so people buy our garbage instead of...
Capitalists: "The free market will solve all of your problems."
Also capitalists: "No, not like that. We need nationalist protectionism in the form of tariffs, so people buy our garbage instead of what they actually want."
Capitalists: *arbitraging labor around the world*
Also capitalists: "No, you can't live and work where you want." *border control and visa policies*
I'd rather buy a $10K BYD Seagull, even with the tariff, than a $50K shitbox made by a Muskrat.
So, when trump started tariffs with China, I was opposed to this. Now that Biden is doing the same, it gets me wondering. Do tariffs actually work to increase a country's production in a certain sector? Or does the consumer always suffer higher prices with no end in sight?
Is there any way the consumer can actually benefit from this?
Tin foil hat time: I think the concern is that an over reliance on technology from China might allow the CCP to trigger a remote 'kill switch' bricking the devices. It's very likely that he has this theory because we might have such a switch.
They can't flat out ban them, so they just need to minimize the impact to cause no point.
I think it's a lot simpler than that. EV technology, solar, and batteries are the future. We don't want the US behind in that and relying on a hostile power with large ambitions, such as China, with a leverage point over the US. It is in the US best interest to have good domestic production of these technologies.
China is willing to massively subsidize these advancements to get a market edge. They can pay their workers less and utilize slave labor for raw materials. I don't know if tariffs are the best way at preventing outsourcing of these important technologies, but they are a way.
I don’t think the US is any better a pick when it comes to having market dominance over key future technologies. You mention underpayment and slave labor, but the States engage in that too — just look at the prison system for that.
I’ll grant that it’s in the United States’ best interest to do this, but I don’t think even I as a citizen here will reap any of the benefits, much less the world as a whole.
I think it's in the best interest of anyone who lives in the US or what is commonly referred to as the western world, including the EU. While far from perfect, both regions have significantly better freedoms than China.
The persecution of the Uyghur people in China is not comparable to the US prison system(as bad as that is). It is state sponsored violence and detention of a people based off their culture and beliefs. I don't see how anyone who is comfortable living in the western world can read the HRW summary on China and honestly think the west in on par with China.
It doesn't affect you as an American citizen beyond how it affects you as a consumer. It doesn't affect you as a consumer beyond ensuring you can't get affordable EVs for the foreseeable future. On a wider level, it doesn't affect anything at all except in how it plays into our overall economic cold war with China, which is to say that it's in the US's economic interests and against China's, as you point out. If either good things happening to the US or bad things happening to China make a little happy light flick on in your head, you will like this decision. If not, then not.
This is why the argument you got back to your rebuttal about slave labor in this discussion about EV manufacturing was an irrelevant but fair point about China being cruel to Uyghurs. The way China manufactures EVs has little to do with this decision, except to the extent that it risks allowing China to outperform the US on the market. But the manufacturing of EVs has nothing at all to do with people's reactions to this decision. From the US's perspective, the point is bolstering the U.S.'s economic interests relative to China. From powerless online posters' perspective, the point is team sports. This is equally true of those who say their problem with China is irrelevant moral concerns, those who say their problem with China is that it manufactures EVs in the same way they're going to be manufactured now, and those who say their problem with China is ... that they're going to put backdoors in all of their technology to destroy the US in a coordinated cyberattack.
I can more than understand someone having problems with China. If your politics are "fuck China for reasons x y z" and you perceive this decision as fucking China, then approving of this decision is merely behaving rationally. If your politics are "fuck the US for reasons x y z" and you perceive this decision as helping the US, then disapproving of this decision is merely behaving rationally. If your politics are "fuck China, fuck Trump", then approving of this decision and disapproving of it when Trump did the same thing is merely behaving rationally. Other concerns are factually irrelevant to the reason Biden made the decision, and logically incoherent when applied to people's responses to it. These are the actual terms of the debate.
As you have shown, the possibility of underpaid or slave labor being used in the process is factually not something anyone factored into the decision, nor could it factor into anyone's reactions to it. Due to the way Chinese manufacturing is structured, there would be plenty of underpaid and slave labor involved in producing EVs if we bought them from China. Due to the way non-Chinese global manufacturing and American domestic manufacturing are structured, there will be plenty of underpaid and slave labor involved in producing EVs when we do not buy them from China. Taking underpaid or slave labor out of the equation is not actually a proposition on the table here, was not a factor in the decision-making process of those in power, and is not a factor in the libinal spectator response of anyone out of power.
Trying to take moral sides on dry economic positional contests between two world powers doesn't really make any sense unless you're just acting out your moral priors with respect to one or both of those two world powers, which is precisely why moral arguments about this decision inevitably devolve into debates about the parties' unrelated moral priors on the US and China. Otherwise, I guess you might be mad about it because it is going to impede your ability to personally buy an EV or might debatably hinder world climate goals. Otherwise, the most that really makes any sense to say about this decision is that it is economically and geopolitically correct from the US's point of view and is therefore unsurprising. And it's fucking international economic policy so I'm still not sure why we're expecting more than that. Countries impose tariffs in response to perceived economic threats all the time. Anyone struggling to contort their mind to imagine how it's secretly a brave humanitarian intervention just seems like they're firmly in the grip of ideology to me.
Maybe not you directly, but if Chinese EV makers put US automakers out of business, those manufacturing jobs everyone yells about disappear. The US being a dominant power in the world 100% benefits US citizens even if you aren't on the board of a company the tariffs directly help.
Only if the US auto industry uses this opportunity to become competitive. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai etc are going to have to compete with Chinese automakers. They can’t slap on 100% tariffs because they sell in the Chinese market, so they’d get symmetrical tariffs. The US can do this because the US auto industry is already completely outcompeted outside of the US.
What happens in a decade when Toyota, which has been in brutal competition with BYD or whatever, comes in and severely undercuts Ford and GM? Are we going to tariff Japanese cars too?
At what point are US consumers stuck with gas guzzling garbage from Ford and GM because they suck ass at making cars but employ sufficient swing voters to get protection?
For electronics, particularly telecommunications switches, it actually is a concern that they could be used for espionage. For solar panels, not so much. They don’t have an Internet connection.
So Trump's past and future strategy is to put tariffs on all goods from China. Biden didn't lower the Trump tariffs, but the tariffs Biden is adding specifically targets key "Green Economy" goods that he wants the US to develop. This can help US green industries have time to develop tech and manufacturing capacity to eventually become naturally competitive with Chinese industries.
At the moment, Chinese solar and EV companies could easily outcompete US solar and EV companies if they competed on a level playing field. While this may result in higher prices for US consumers in the short term, it will protect the manufacturing jobs that Americans always complain about losing and prevent China from withholding certain goods in any potential conflict.
Biden was also publicly opposed to it when Trump did it, fwiw.
For what it's worth, Trump wanted to put a tariff on all Chinese goods.
From the article:
Am I crazy or is this really just going to increase the cost of goods and basically raise inflation, just so we can watch Russia and tons of other countries get cheaper goods?
It will almost certainly raise the prices of some or all of these products, but these are just a few categories that do not make up a humongous portion of overall US trade with China. This targets $18 billion in imports; the US imports over $400 billion in goods from China every year.
I'd say the goal is focused on economic growth and protection of the manufacturing base (and jobs) moreso than cheaper goods.
I'm probably biased, but I see this as a good thing for the Western countries so long as the regulations are held to encourage domestic companies to shift their manufacturing to green energy products too.
Capitalists: "The free market will solve all of your problems."
Also capitalists: "No, not like that. We need nationalist protectionism in the form of tariffs, so people buy our garbage instead of what they actually want."
Capitalists: *arbitraging labor around the world*
Also capitalists: "No, you can't live and work where you want." *border control and visa policies*
I'd rather buy a $10K BYD Seagull, even with the tariff, than a $50K shitbox made by a Muskrat.