Trump Has Gotten China to Lower Its Tariffs. Just Toward Everyone Else.

[elitenapper]

Thank you for providing the proof that NOT one industrialized country on the list contained in your list has signed neither a free trade agreement with China (and especially has none of those proposed agreements kicked in) nor China has lowered tariffs for imports into China from that country SINCE the beginning of the US-China trade war. That was my claim and your link confirms that. Look at the first link and go down the list of industrialized countries. Not a single one has signed a deal where China lowers import tariffs since the start of the trade war.

The claim in the OP was that "China has lowered tariffs for industrialized countries other than the US since the beginning of the trade war between US and China" (I paraphrase). That was and remains inaccurate and factually wrong. You just seem too proud to admit.

I rest my case.

Wrong again. Sorry. You don't have a case, only illogical arguments & conclusions.

I posted only 3 of the many links from the OP's footnotes, which you probably didn't bother to read, and somehow that 3 links "proved" your claim?

I don't want drag this on, as you seem to be more interested in defending your illogical conclusions than searching for facts.

Interestingly at this point, your logical errors can be established without reference to particular facts in the article. I'll briefly discuss the main one.

Your (best case scenario) funny argument can be stated as: If a, b, c are required for Y to be true, and person P shows a & b only, then (i) Y is false, and (ii) P is biased.

to illustrate with an extreme example:

person D: Who is the President of the United States?

person P: Donald Trump. I know this because I dreamed about his beautiful, sexy wife last night and the 2 eggs on the plate at breakfast this morning got me thinking about her again.

person D: You are so biased. Donald Trump is clearly not the President of the United States.

You don't need a signed bilateral agreement for one party to take unilateral action. Thought that was clear from the very title of this thread?

He changed the frame of reference perhaps to suit his preferred political narratives, and yet still got the logic and conclusions wrong.

 

[tsznecki]

Clearly Myeongdong is a shopping district dominated by tourists. Your definition of retail seems to only center around shopping malls and shopping districts catering to tourists with highly inflated prices. How do you choose only the locations with duty free centers located within with tourist buses all over the parking area to claim how widely accepted RMB is?

Why is there even $500 trading accounts being mentioned? That's talking out of your ass and you definitely have insecurity and/or personality issues trying to be the big guy on ET. This is obviously a waste of time and energy talking to some idiot with a 5 year old mental state focused on attacking everyone who don't agree with him. Ignored bye.

If I'm ignored, how am I quoting you? LOL. I can smell the confusion and scent of Dunning Kruger on you.

Nice twisting the facts to suit your viewpoint. Tourism isn't retail? Is water not wet too?

Selective choice runs in your thinking I see, perhaps you should ask if your mother is also your father's sister?

 

[tsznecki]

You pick a few exceptions but do not see the forest for the trees. I am pretty certain I got around Asia a little more often than you did/do. RMB is not widely accepted as exchange currency outside China. I do not care whether you found a few exceptions. I feel you do not understand basic statistics all too well. Just because a distribution has an average and just because most data are centered around such average does not preclude the fact that there are outliers that are defined by that distribution. You are basically claiming that because you found a few exceptions the mean/median must be centered around those exceptions.

Instead of giving verbal diarrhea about stats perhaps you could show some examples of your points being correct, or it's he said she(you) said.

How is anyone supposed to take your claims as the average/median without any proof? Nobody will be holding their breath for your proof volpunter. I've been pretty civil with you in this discussion thus far.

 

[Cuddles]

He changed the frame of reference perhaps to suit his preferred political narratives, and yet still got the logic and conclusions wrong.

Obviously misunderstood the premise of the article, and rather than admit it, doubled down, and tried to steer the conversation into something that was never in discussion, hoping people wouldn't hand him his ass in the process.

What boggles the mind is trying to make the argument that tariffs are bilateral as if equal to a trade agreement, when his very own sun King has been issuing unilateral punitive tariffs for 2 years now.

 

[bone]

Other than "orange man bad" - it's too easy to get lost in the demagoguery.

A paradigm shift has already taken place in the past several months. Now, a very legitimate argument could be made against the use of tariffs - but China would be very mistaken to think that a Democratic House and Executive Branch would give them any respite. This has been a long time coming, and both political parties agree that China needed to be confronted. You won't find one Presidential Candidate that espouses a return to "business as usual" with China.

Tariffs and political pressure have already worked in one sense: Silicon Valley has turned away from Chinese-sourced capital in a very dramatic fashion, and every company that imports Chinese made goods into the US is taking a long, hard look at their supply chain and are actively pursuing alternatives. Between the current spat and the 2010 Chinese embargo on rare earths - their reputation as a reliable producer has been breached. And Mexico and Vietnam (among a dozen other Countries) are wasting no time in capitalizing on that perception.

 

[GRULSTMRNN]

On ignore for talking too deep out of your ass

Wrong again. Sorry. You don't have a case, only illogical arguments & conclusions.

I posted only 3 of the many links from the OP's footnotes, which you probably didn't bother to read, and somehow that 3 links "proved" your claim?

I don't want drag this on, as you seem to be more interested in defending your illogical conclusions than searching for facts.

Interestingly at this point, your logical errors can be established without reference to particular facts in the article. I'll briefly discuss the main one.

Your (best case scenario) funny argument can be stated as: If a, b, c are required for Y to be true, and person P shows a & b only, then (i) Y is false, and (ii) P is biased.

to illustrate with an extreme example:

person D: Who is the President of the United States?

person P: Donald Trump. I know this because I dreamed about his beautiful, sexy wife last night and the 2 eggs on the plate at breakfast this morning got me thinking about her again.

person D: You are so biased. Donald Trump is clearly not the President of the United States.





He changed the frame of reference perhaps to suit his preferred political narratives, and yet still got the logic and conclusions wrong.

 

[GRULSTMRNN]

And on ignore you go, too. I stated the argument and backed it up, disagreeing on issues is what makes life better, just being a cunt and ignoring points, that were backed up, is not. Play your "I want to feel outraged" game with others. Adios amigo.

Instead of giving verbal diarrhea about stats perhaps you could show some examples of your points being correct, or it's he said she(you) said.

How is anyone supposed to take your claims as the average/median without any proof? Nobody will be holding their breath for your proof volpunter. I've been pretty civil with you in this discussion thus far.

 

[GRULSTMRNN]

I am not so sure on that. First, I am fully in favor of Trump tightening the screws on China. But would any Democrat president have done so and at similar timing? I highly doubt it. After all Obama has done nothing in 8 years during which China really committed most economic crimes. Nor has any other Democrat candidate prioritized this issue ever.

What worries me and keeps me from putting trades in size on off the back of the China squeeze is that Trump may just back off too soon. The upcoming election is a huge bummer and might prove a show stopper. Republicans can simply not risk a full scale recession that a major escalation between the US and China might cause.

Other than "orange man bad" - it's too easy to get lost in the demagoguery.

A paradigm shift has already taken place in the past several months. Now, a very legitimate argument could be made against the use of tariffs - but China would be very mistaken to think that a Democratic House and Executive Branch would give them any respite. This has been a long time coming, and both political parties agree that China needed to be confronted. You won't find one Presidential Candidate that espouses a return to "business as usual" with China.

Tariffs and political pressure have already worked in one sense: Silicon Valley has turned away from Chinese-sourced capital in a very dramatic fashion, and every company that imports Chinese made goods into the US is taking a long, hard look at their supply chain and are actively pursuing alternatives. Between the current spat and the 2010 Chinese embargo on rare earths - their reputation as a reliable producer has been breached. And Mexico and Vietnam (among a dozen other Countries) are wasting no time in capitalizing on that perception.

 

[SunTrader]

LMAO tRumpers think they understand tariffs by listening/reading ..... tRump nonsense.

For the umteenth time a country can put on and take off a tariff based on their own wishes - with or without a treaty.

 

[themickey]

Other than "orange man bad" - it's too easy to get lost in the demagoguery.

A paradigm shift has already taken place in the past several months. Now, a very legitimate argument could be made against the use of tariffs - but China would be very mistaken to think that a Democratic House and Executive Branch would give them any respite. This has been a long time coming, and both political parties agree that China needed to be confronted. You won't find one Presidential Candidate that espouses a return to "business as usual" with China.

Tariffs and political pressure have already worked in one sense: Silicon Valley has turned away from Chinese-sourced capital in a very dramatic fashion, and every company that imports Chinese made goods into the US is taking a long, hard look at their supply chain and are actively pursuing alternatives. Between the current spat and the 2010 Chinese embargo on rare earths - their reputation as a reliable producer has been breached. And Mexico and Vietnam (among a dozen other Countries) are wasting no time in capitalizing on that perception.

The turning point was when China built missile batteries in SouthPacific & claiming those islands/atolls as their territory.
That's when the West woke up well & truely.
The One Belt Road is a continuation of their world strategy.