So is China the only one who uses under paid workers and poor quality materials?  And/or do they not have a higher volume of workers?

Every third World country has low labor costs relative to China to exploit for their own nation's benefit.  However, no country has lower labor costs as well as a gigantic labor force than China.  Hence, those other nations do contribute to the global economy, but none can match China's capabilities.

So, basically, if US consumer demand shifts from China to other countries, even if they are currently at maximum output, there are many options to increase production that won't necessarily increase price.  One way is to increase labor hours by paying overtime to current employees or hiring more.

Here are the problems with your attempts to argue with me.

You say if US consumer demand shifts from China to other countries, they will not suffer increased production costs.  This assumption is false because Trump only imposed tariffs on Chinese imports, not sanctions or bans of Chinese goods.  If Trump wanted to sever all economic activity like the US empire did with Russia, it would have done otherwise.  However, here is where China still is going to make money while American consumers will suffer.  Despite attempts by other third World nations trying to fill-in the perceived void caused by Trump's tariffs to China, most imported Chinese goods will still be cheaper than similar goods supplied by other nations due to China's superior economies of scale it has over every other producing nation on Earth.  In the end, China will still make some money, while American consumers will pay more for the same goods.

You also say those other third World nations could increase their own production output by paying overtime or hiring more workers, but you forget most of those countries are already working to full capacity given their own current economies of scale.  Hence, for those countries to go beyond their current production capacities will more likely result in diminishing marginal utility where they are actually losing profit for that additional production run, they undertake.

Every third World country has low labor costs relative to China to exploit for their own nation's benefit.  However, no country has lower labor costs as well as a gigantic labor force than China.  Hence, those other nations do contribute to the global economy, but none can match China's capabilities.

You said "Wrong" and didn't address my post about it.  Did you use the word "wrong" incorrectly?

I seriously don't think they can undercut China.  For it to be true, those countries must produce at a price point lower than China which is very unlikely.

The cost of living in those countries is less so that is always going to give them some advantages. Plus companies that rely on China to produce all their goods have been diversifying to other Asian countries so they aren't so reliant on one single country. They couldn't replace China overnight but it is on the horizon I think.

Then why are you even arguing with a drivers license based argument?

Reciprocity has multiple contexts.  But you had to muddy the water by trying to prove reciprocity for tariffs is like reciprocity for drivers licenses.  Now you're admitting they are not the same, which was my original point after you said reciprocity means the sides are equal.

Just stop.

I told you, the driver's license example was just to illustrate the concept of reciprocity.

You are trying to dress up a retaliatory tariff as a reciprocal tariff. Defend Trump's tariffs if you like, but I don't see why you persist in defending the dishonest representation he gives of the tariffs.

Here are the problems with your attempts to argue with me.

You say if US consumer demand shifts from China to other countries, they will not suffer increased production costs.  This assumption is false because Trump only imposed tariffs on Chinese imports, not sanctions or bans of Chinese goods.  If Trump wanted to sever all economic activity like the US empire did with Russia, it would have done otherwise.  However, here is where China still is going to make money while American consumers will suffer.  Despite attempts by other third World nations trying to fill-in the perceived void caused by Trump's tariffs to China, most imported Chinese goods will still be cheaper than similar goods supplied by other nations due to China's superior economies of scale it has over every other producing nation on Earth.  In the end, China will still make some money, while American consumers will pay more for the same goods.

You also say those other third World nations could increase their own production output by paying overtime or hiring more workers, but you forget most of those countries are already working to full capacity given their own current economies of scale.  Hence, for those countries to go beyond their current production capacities will more likely result in diminishing marginal utility where they are actually losing profit for that additional production run, they undertake.

Wrong.  There are way more people in those countries than there are currently jobs.  increasing demand would necessarily create more production demand, resulting in a demand for more labor.

Or, is it your learned belief that every able-bodied man, woman and child is already working 18 hour days to produce widgets even though China is currently keeping them from entering the US market due to economies of scale advantages?

Your logic escapes me.  If China currently corners the market on cheap widgets exported to the US and other countries, why are other countries currently producing the same widgets at 100% capacity?  in what markets are those other countries selling their goods?  It can't be in their own country, because the wages they are paid would not allow them to afford the widgets they make.

Here's the real problem. 

The U.S. had a $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit in 2024, and the largest deficits were with China and Mexico

The U.S. trade deficit with China was approximately $295.4 billion in 2024, which represents a 5.8% increase from the previous year.

This deficit is primarily due to higher imports from China compared to U.S. exports to the country.

What this means is, the companies trading with China have to find $295.4 billion to offset the deficit by increasing prices, taking on that much debt, selling property and equipment, or lowering labor costs by paying workers less in total compensation or firing people.

Tariffs are intended to either increase exports from the US to China, reduce exports from China to the US, or both.  No matter what, increasing the cost of imports from China would create opportunities to start importing from other countries or start producing more in the US which creates more jobs and increases economic growth as well as adding more revenue to our tax collections.

Here's the real problem. 

The U.S. had a $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit in 2024, and the largest deficits were with China and Mexico

The U.S. trade deficit with China was approximately $295.4 billion in 2024, which represents a 5.8% increase from the previous year.

This is the big flaw in Trump's thinking. Trump thinks trade deficits are terrible and other countries taking advantage of us when that is not the case. Trade deficits and surpluses are always going to exist, money doesn't flow equally back and forth between every country.

I think tariffs against China are justifiable for different reasons but when it comes to these global tariffs Trump is putting in place he is putting his thumb on a worldwide scale that does a better job of balancing itself than when big government tries to control a market.

This is the big flaw in Trump's thinking. Trump thinks trade deficits are terrible and other countries taking advantage of us when that is not the case. Trade deficits and surpluses are always going to exist, money doesn't flow equally back and forth between every country.

I think tariffs against China are justifiable for different reasons but when it comes to these global tariffs Trump is putting in place he is putting his thumb on a worldwide scale that does a better job of balancing itself than when big government tries to control a market.

"Trade deficits and surpluses are always going to exist, money doesn't flow equally back and forth between every country."


Yet you somehow believe tariffs have to be equal to be reciprocal or fair. 

Think logically.  If there's a trade deficit of billions, and both the US and China charge the same/equal tariff rates (your definition of reciprocal), then what's the point of tariffs?   Raising the cost of exports equally between two countries only increases prices in both markets.  Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Financial expert Kevin O'Leary says US tariffs on China should be 400%.  FYI:  "IP" = Intellectual Property...

have you even looked at the list of tariffs other countries put on US goods?

This is the big flaw in Trump's thinking. Trump thinks trade deficits are terrible and other countries taking advantage of us when that is not the case. Trade deficits and surpluses are always going to exist, money doesn't flow equally back and forth between every country.

I think tariffs against China are justifiable for different reasons but when it comes to these global tariffs Trump is putting in place he is putting his thumb on a worldwide scale that does a better job of balancing itself than when big government tries to control a market.

have you even looked at the list of tariffs other countries put on US goods?

I don't think he knows how "other countries'" economies function.  Balance?  LOL!  Try oppressive taxes and slave wages.

have you even looked at the list of tariffs other countries put on US goods?

Yes I did. I looked at Japan in more depth and Trump's 24% has no bearing on the tariff's Japan puts on US goods, they aren't even close to Japan's average of about 4% tariff on our goods.

"Trade deficits and surpluses are always going to exist, money doesn't flow equally back and forth between every country."


Yet you somehow believe tariffs have to be equal to be reciprocal or fair. 

Think logically.  If there's a trade deficit of billions, and both the US and China charge the same/equal tariff rates (your definition of reciprocal), then what's the point of tariffs?   Raising the cost of exports equally between two countries only increases prices in both markets.  Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Financial expert Kevin O'Leary says US tariffs on China should be 400%.  FYI:  "IP" = Intellectual Property...

I didn't say they have to be reciprocal or fair. I said Trump is being dishonest by claiming his tariffs are reciprocal or fair. Trump is engaging in protectionism, these are, ironically, traditionally liberal political stances.

There is a trade deficit between me and Mcdonalds. I have bought many burgers from them but they never buy anything from me but that's ok because trade doesn't have to be equal on all levels. McDonalds isn't unfair to me or cheating me out of my money because they don't buy stuff from me directly proportional to how much I have bought from them.

As it pertains to China I do support more aggressive tariffs on China but not because of the deficit rather because of their aggression, their IP theft, and a number of other factors. That is entirely different than the tariffs on our friends and neighbors.

your post i was responding to said "global tarriffs" and when i asked about the "other countries" and you respond "i looked at japan"
FOCUS

Yes I did. I looked at Japan in more depth and Trump's 24% has no bearing on the tariff's Japan puts on US goods, they aren't even close to Japan's average of about 4% tariff on our goods.

your post i was responding to said "global tarriffs" and when i asked about the "other countries" and you respond "i looked at japan"
FOCUS

He only looked at Japan, because he can't do his own homework. 

Japan was likely the first country other than China to appear in his google results.

 

I didn't say they have to be reciprocal or fair. I said Trump is being dishonest by claiming his tariffs are reciprocal or fair. Trump is engaging in protectionism, these are, ironically, traditionally liberal political stances.

There is a trade deficit between me and Mcdonalds. I have bought many burgers from them but they never buy anything from me but that's ok because trade doesn't have to be equal on all levels. McDonalds isn't unfair to me or cheating me out of my money because they don't buy stuff from me directly proportional to how much I have bought from them.

As it pertains to China I do support more aggressive tariffs on China but not because of the deficit rather because of their aggression, their IP theft, and a number of other factors. That is entirely different than the tariffs on our friends and neighbors.

Another poor example.

I didn't say they have to be reciprocal or fair. I said Trump is being dishonest by claiming his tariffs are reciprocal or fair. Trump is engaging in protectionism, these are, ironically, traditionally liberal political stances.

There is a trade deficit between me and Mcdonalds. I have bought many burgers from them but they never buy anything from me but that's ok because trade doesn't have to be equal on all levels. McDonalds isn't unfair to me or cheating me out of my money because they don't buy stuff from me directly proportional to how much I have bought from them.

As it pertains to China I do support more aggressive tariffs on China but not because of the deficit rather because of their aggression, their IP theft, and a number of other factors. That is entirely different than the tariffs on our friends and neighbors.

Since when did McDonald's and EEF become countries?  Point of fact:  if McDonald's pays a tariff on supplies and/or food products imported from other countries, then EEF would, in fact, be paying McDonald's the same tariff percentage.

Tariff
A list or system of duties imposed by a government on imported or exported goods.

Do you consider McDonald's drive-thru to be a port?  Is that where they export their goods to customers?

Time to Educate EEF again.

There's a massive difference between wholesale, retail, and consumer purchases. 

McDonald's is a retailer.  They buy their inventory wholesale.  Some of that inventory may be imported from Mexico, Canada, etc.  if the US imposes a tariff on imported beef, then the distributor who sells that beef to McDonald's paid that tariff.  The price McDonald's paid for that imported beef was, in fact, higher because they in turn pay the importer the tariff fee. 

When EEF goes to McDonald's and orders his 4 Big Macs for lunch, he's paying the tariff on imported Canadian beef. 

Tariffs are nothing more than another tax with regards to who ultimately pays it.  So, yes, EEF is paying the tariff on Canadian beef at McDonald's, not because he eats more Big Macs than McDonald's buys whatever EEF sells for a profit, but because trade tariffs are ultimately paid by the consumer/end user.  That's how taxes and any other cost a company must pay the government works.

Since when did McDonald's and EEF become countries?  Point of fact:  if McDonald's pays a tariff on supplies and/or food products imported from other countries, then EEF would, in fact, be paying McDonald's the same tariff percentage.

Tariff
A list or system of duties imposed by a government on imported or exported goods.

Do you consider McDonald's drive-thru to be a port?  Is that where they export their goods to customers?

Time to Educate EEF again.

There's a massive difference between wholesale, retail, and consumer purchases. 

McDonald's is a retailer.  They buy their inventory wholesale.  Some of that inventory may be imported from Mexico, Canada, etc.  if the US imposes a tariff on imported beef, then the distributor who sells that beef to McDonald's paid that tariff.  The price McDonald's paid for that imported beef was, in fact, higher because they in turn pay the importer the tariff fee. 

When EEF goes to McDonald's and orders his 4 Big Macs for lunch, he's paying the tariff on imported Canadian beef. 

Tariffs are nothing more than another tax with regards to who ultimately pays it.  So, yes, EEF is paying the tariff on Canadian beef at McDonald's, not because he eats more Big Macs than McDonald's buys whatever EEF sells for a profit, but because trade tariffs are ultimately paid by the consumer/end user.  That's how taxes and any other cost a company must pay the government works.

He's going to move goal post and change McDonalds to Jack in the Box, which still is a poor example.

I didn't say they have to be reciprocal or fair. I said Trump is being dishonest by claiming his tariffs are reciprocal or fair. Trump is engaging in protectionism, these are, ironically, traditionally liberal political stances.

There is a trade deficit between me and Mcdonalds. I have bought many burgers from them but they never buy anything from me but that's ok because trade doesn't have to be equal on all levels. McDonalds isn't unfair to me or cheating me out of my money because they don't buy stuff from me directly proportional to how much I have bought from them.

As it pertains to China I do support more aggressive tariffs on China but not because of the deficit rather because of their aggression, their IP theft, and a number of other factors. That is entirely different than the tariffs on our friends and neighbors.

Absolutely idiotic. Someone did not take econ or probably failed the fuck out of it by comparing a business to a consumer in regards to tariffs. Just stop already. So fucking stupid. eyeeatingfish is a special type of stupid. Stop arguing 1+1= infinity. Fucking clown, midget pron show gone horribly wrong.

Absolutely idiotic. Someone did not take econ or probably failed the fuck out of it by comparing a business to a consumer.in regards to tariffs. Just stop already. So fucking stupid. Stop arguing 1+1= infinity. Fucking clown, midget pron show gone horribly wrong.

Can the 2A forum impose a tariff on members who use the site far more than others, but who don't provide anything of value?   Sounds like a textbook example of an 'imbalance" which needs corrective action.

Classifieds excluded, or course.