User Tag List

Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: American consumers paying .1% increase in prices due to Trump's trade war with China

  1. #1
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,387
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 782 Times in 525 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    179457

    American consumers paying .1% increase in prices due to Trump's trade war with China

    According to an analyst at the CME Group, a very large financial organization, US consumers are paying a 1/10 of 1% price increase due to Trump's trade war with China. That is nothing yet you hear the Democrats and the mockingbird media claiming the consumer is getting hurt badly by Trump's actions. You know how much that really is, don't you? That's $.001 per dollar of purchase. In other words it costs one penny per every $10 of purchase price.

    What China had been getting away with was a $400 billion trade deficit per year for 10 years. That means they drained $4 trillion dollars out of the pockets of US citizens over a 10 year period. And now they are only costing us 1/10 of 1% in price increases. Just which policy is costing the US citizens the least amount? Trump's policies in a landslide. 400 billion divided by 330 million is $1,212 per year per every citizen in the US. How much do we have to buy at a price increase of 1/10 of 1% every year to equal that cost? To find that number we have to divide 1,212 by .001 which gives us $1,212,000 a year. I don't know how many of you buy more than $1 million a year in Chinese goods, but I would bet those people are only found in the top 1% or less of the income brackets.

    Greg Hunter covers this story and more in his Weekly News Wrapup for this week. It's a very interesting 26 minutes of news that you will never hear on the mockingbird media.

    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    “One and God make a majority.”
    ― Frederick Douglass

  2. #2
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    13,865
    Thanks
    7,907
    Thanked 10,006 Times in 5,611 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147752
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    mockingbird media
    Do you realize how often you say that? Almost as often as a... well, never mind.

    Anyway. It's not the dollar amount, it's the impact on the market.

    The president’s announcement jolted markets, which had bounced back sharply off Wednesday’s disappointing Fed rate cut only to have their legs cut out from underneath them by news of a heightened trade war.

    Trump’s move means that all Chinese goods entering the U.S. will be subject to some sort of duties. While the actual price tag of the latest action is technically just $30 billion, or about 0.14 percentage point of GDP, the psychological damage that could be inflicted comes at an inopportune time.

    “The direct impact of these tariffs is smaller than a bread box,” said Bill Adams, senior economist at PNC. “The larger effect is going to be through confidence channels and the effect on capital spending.”

    Indeed, if business surveys have been clear about anything it’s that American business is nervous about trade. The closely watched Institute of Supply Management manufacturing survey dipped again in July and is teetering on contraction territory, while the Federal Reserve’s key manufacturing gauge has fallen for consecutive quarters.

    Morgan Stanley strategists said the latest round of tariffs, if implemented, would contribute to “slowbalization,” or a continuation of lackluster growth, and could hasten a U.S. recession in as soon as three quarters.

    “One key reason: about 68% of the next goods tariffed will be consumer goods and autos/parts, with more potential for immediate impact to the economy,” Morgan Stanley strategist Michael Zezas said in a note.

    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

  3. #3
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,046
    Thanks
    615
    Thanked 3,340 Times in 2,125 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623766
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    According to an analyst at the CME Group, a very large financial organization, US consumers are paying a 1/10 of 1% price increase due to Trump's trade war with China. That is nothing yet you hear the Democrats and the mockingbird media claiming the consumer is getting hurt badly by Trump's actions. You know how much that really is, don't you? That's $.001 per dollar of purchase. In other words it costs one penny per every $10 of purchase price.

    What China had been getting away with was a $400 billion trade deficit per year for 10 years. That means they drained $4 trillion dollars out of the pockets of US citizens over a 10 year period. And now they are only costing us 1/10 of 1% in price increases. Just which policy is costing the US citizens the least amount? Trump's policies in a landslide. 400 billion divided by 330 million is $1,212 per year per every citizen in the US. How much do we have to buy at a price increase of 1/10 of 1% every year to equal that cost? To find that number we have to divide 1,212 by .001 which gives us $1,212,000 a year. I don't know how many of you buy more than $1 million a year in Chinese goods, but I would bet those people are only found in the top 1% or less of the income brackets.

    Greg Hunter covers this story and more in his Weekly News Wrapup for this week. It's a very interesting 26 minutes of news that you will never hear on the mockingbird media.

    Obviously your not an Austrian economics fan as you were telling ACultureWarrior if you believe in tariffs.
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  4. #4
    TOL Legend drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,046
    Thanks
    615
    Thanked 3,340 Times in 2,125 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    623766
    So in addition to paying the tariffs on imports, consumers will also be taxed to make welfare payments to farmers who lost sales due to the trade war. It's a double hit. Maybe Trump thinks two losses equals a win.

    China Turns Back to Brazilian Beans After Trade War Escalation
    The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

  5. #5
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,387
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 782 Times in 525 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    179457
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    Obviously your not an Austrian economics fan as you were telling ACultureWarrior if you believe in tariffs.
    Do you believe that Hayek and von Mises thought "free" trade meant one nation would pay tariffs on an average of around 20-25% and the nation on the other side of that trade would pay less than 5%? Is that what you think Hayek and von Mises thought was a fair deal? That manufacturers from nation A would have their prices jacked 25% in nation B, while manufacturers from nation B would have their prices raised <5% by nation A? Is that really what you think Hayek and von Mises had in mind when they spoke about free trade?

    That is exactly what our traitorous politicians and bureaucrats have done to US businesses and workers. As a result our businesses have been effectively locked out of foreign markets while other nations have been given what amounts to free access here. That's your idea of a fair and just way of doing things? I have read a lot of Hayek's and von Mises writings on economics and I have never seen that situation described as something to be desired by either of them. To them that was the antithesis of free trade.
    “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
    ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    “One and God make a majority.”
    ― Frederick Douglass

  6. #6
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    13,865
    Thanks
    7,907
    Thanked 10,006 Times in 5,611 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147752
    Wall St tumbles as yuan drop heightens U.S.-China trade war fears

    NEW YORK, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Wall Street's major indexes tumbled on Monday, with the benchmark S&P 500 dropping about 3%, as a fall in the yuan following U.S. President Donald Trump's vow to impose additional tariffs on Chinese goods sparked fears of a further escalation of the U.S.-China trade war.

    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to annabenedetti For Your Post:

    Rusha (August 8th, 2019)

  8. #7
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    13,865
    Thanks
    7,907
    Thanked 10,006 Times in 5,611 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147752
    Donald Trump’s Trade War with China Is Spiralling Out of Control


    History tells us that big movements in financial markets are difficult to predict, but when they come they happen very quickly. That is what we have seen over the past several days, as investors around the world have responded to a sudden escalation in the trade war between the world’s two largest economies, the United States and China, and the growing realization that at least one of these economies is being led by someone who doesn’t appear to understand the risks he is taking.

    The current crisis began on Thursday, when Trump—ignoring warnings from his top advisers—suddenly announced that his Administration would levy tariffs on an additional three hundred billion dollars’ worth of Chinese goods, beginning September 1st. After meeting in June with Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, Trump agreed not to take this step, and talks between the two sides resumed. But the President changed his mind after Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative, and Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, returned from talks in Shanghai without securing the concessions that Trump had been demanding, including an immediate agreement by China to boost its imports of U.S. agricultural products.

    When Lighthizer and Mnuchin briefed Trump about their trip in the Oval Office last Thursday afternoon, his response, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, was “Tariffs.” “Those present included his national-security adviser John Bolton, top economic adviser Lawrence Kudlow, China adviser Peter Navarro and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney,” the Journal story reported. “All of them, save Mr. Navarro, a China hawk, adamantly objected to the tariffs.”

    Dismissing the dangers that a trade war poses to the economy, Trump insisted on getting his way. . .



    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to annabenedetti For Your Post:

    Rusha (August 8th, 2019)

  10. #8
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    10,390
    Thanks
    257
    Thanked 3,509 Times in 2,374 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    425722
    As his friend, Howard Stern, predicted, being president has been a very bad experience for Donald Trump. His repeated failures and unpopularity eat at him constantly, pushing him to act out in more and more drastic ways. He's not going to get better;he's going to get worse.
    This message is hidden because ...

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Rusha (August 8th, 2019)

  12. #9
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    13,865
    Thanks
    7,907
    Thanked 10,006 Times in 5,611 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147752
    U.S. farmers suffer 'body blow' as China slams door on farm purchases

    Farmers can start applying for the next round of trade aid this month, but trade uncertainty makes long-term planning difficult.

    “We’ve been thankful for the aid payments. They have helped but we’d rather have open markets because it creates stability in our financial sectors,” said Derek Sawyer, 39, a corn, soybean, wheat and cattle farm from McPherson, Kansas.

    “There’s just so much volatility right now because nobody knows the rules of the game and nobody knows how to look at things going forward.”

    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

  13. #10
    TOL Legend annabenedetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    13,865
    Thanks
    7,907
    Thanked 10,006 Times in 5,611 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147752

    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us