As we near a trade war with China, Ivanka's products are exempt from tariffs

So it looks like his daughter's company dodges a economic bullet, while businesses and regular people over in the U.S. will be greatly affected by these tariffs. I'm not surprised though, since the primary reason why he ran for office was to profit off as being the president.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-tariffs-spares-clothing-shoes-ivanka-safe_us_5b42a597e4b09e4a8b2e72c3

I say no bilateral trade between the democratic nations and China, no financial exchange, no immigration, complete isolation between the Reds and the free world. Nothing short of that is reasonable. Also contain their spreading influence.

Disgraceful. Far from unexpected, but still disgraceful. I better hurry on writing my novels, 'cause Trump's government is making all dystopian tropes reality.

Zontar:
I say no bilateral trade between the democratic nations and China, no financial exchange, no immigration, complete isolation between the Reds and the free world. Nothing short of that is reasonable. Also contain their spreading influence.

I'll let you know when that's halfway practical.

Also the Cold War wants their labels back. And you duck how Trump is using the presidency for personal profit.

erttheking:

Zontar:
I say no bilateral trade between the democratic nations and China, no financial exchange, no immigration, complete isolation between the Reds and the free world. Nothing short of that is reasonable. Also contain their spreading influence.

I?ll let you know when that?s halfway practical.

Also the Cold War wants their labels back. And you duck how Trump is using the presidency for personal profit.

It's an irony that capitalism made China such an important part in the global economy that severing ties with them would cause a crippling economic crisis. And now Trump is disrupting the free market, which will make life in America much more expensive for the working class. Way to go, Mr. President. Way to go...

CaitSeith:
And now Trump is disrupting the free market, which will make life in America much more expensive for the working class.

China is in no way describable as part of the free market, it's just a market connected to the free market, but not a part of it. In the long run a complete end to bilateral trade with China would only be good for the working class since most of the hurt we've had over the past two decades stems from unbenificial trade agreements with China and other third world nations. Those trade agreements where made on the promise that liberalisation of the economy would lead to a liberalisation of politics in those countries. It hasn't, so it's time to pull the thorn out of our gut, deal with the wound and set things right.

Zontar:
I say no bilateral trade between the democratic nations and China, no financial exchange, no immigration, complete isolation between the Reds and the free world. Nothing short of that is reasonable. Also contain their spreading influence.

What about a peaceful co-existance?

Samtemdo8:

Zontar:
I say no bilateral trade between the democratic nations and China, no financial exchange, no immigration, complete isolation between the Reds and the free world. Nothing short of that is reasonable. Also contain their spreading influence.

What about a peaceful co-existance?

We can have peaceful co-existence without them colonising Africa, threatening the democracies of East Asia or screwing us over economically.

Zontar:

We can have peaceful co-existence without them colonising Africa

Oh yeah, god forbid a world power attempt to colonize another country or start imperial wars for resources... <.< >.>

Something something something Clinton dynasty, something something oligarchy.

BreakfastMan:

Zontar:

We can have peaceful co-existence without them colonising Africa

Oh yeah, god forbid a world power attempt to colonize another country or start imperial wars for resources... <.< >.>

They're actually going about it the smart way, they're buying off dictators and using the use of a more educated workforce to justify building cities and settling into them. It's as nefarious as it is brilliant.

Zontar:

BreakfastMan:

Zontar:

We can have peaceful co-existence without them colonising Africa

Oh yeah, god forbid a world power attempt to colonize another country or start imperial wars for resources... <.< >.>

They're actually going about it the smart way, they're buying off dictators and using the use of a more educated workforce to justify building cities and settling into them. It's as nefarious as it is brilliant.

With you saying this in one thread and you saying America should invade borderline failed states in another, and you saying America should take over Canada in a third, you're making my head spin.

erttheking:

Zontar:

BreakfastMan:

Oh yeah, god forbid a world power attempt to colonize another country or start imperial wars for resources... <.< >.>

They're actually going about it the smart way, they're buying off dictators and using the use of a more educated workforce to justify building cities and settling into them. It's as nefarious as it is brilliant.

With you saying this in one thread and you saying America should invade borderline failed states in another, and you saying America should take over Canada in a third, you're making my head spin.

Zontar:

erttheking:

Zontar:

They're actually going about it the smart way, they're buying off dictators and using the use of a more educated workforce to justify building cities and settling into them. It's as nefarious as it is brilliant.

With you saying this in one thread and you saying America should invade borderline failed states in another, and you saying America should take over Canada in a third, you're making my head spin.

And I feel no need to dignify that with a response.

erttheking:

Zontar:

erttheking:

With you saying this in one thread and you saying America should invade borderline failed states in another, and you saying America should take over Canada in a third, you're making my head spin.

And I feel no need to dignify that with a response.

Well you just did so....

Zontar:

erttheking:

Zontar:

They're actually going about it the smart way, they're buying off dictators and using the use of a more educated workforce to justify building cities and settling into them. It's as nefarious as it is brilliant.

With you saying this in one thread and you saying America should invade borderline failed states in another, and you saying America should take over Canada in a third, you're making my head spin.

I mean, a little consistency would be nice at least.

EDIT: Also, surprised you used a clip with a non-white person in it. You are growing!

Zontar:

Samtemdo8:

Zontar:
I say no bilateral trade between the democratic nations and China, no financial exchange, no immigration, complete isolation between the Reds and the free world. Nothing short of that is reasonable. Also contain their spreading influence.

What about a peaceful co-existance?

We can have peaceful co-existence without them colonising Africa, threatening the democracies of East Asia or screwing us over economically.

How are we, the West, not colonising Africa. Isn't Soros and Gates both in there trying to 'fix things'. Sure it's not the government doing it, but those two get massive tax breaks from their 'charity.' Don't get me wrong, China doing some dodgy stuff, but so are many Western companies. It doesn't make it okay just becuase the government is involved.

That's without considering the fact that America doesn't buy land, it bombs it. Once these clients states appease the US, the bombing stops. Which still makes the US worse. Peaceful stealing your land is slightly better than invasion.

Also, Trump threatened trade sanctions against Colombia due to advertising over breastfeeding. Once a country Trump couldn't push over (Russia) got involved, he back away. How is that an ideology to start a trade war over? Didn't Trump threaten to remove aid to poor countries if they did vote his way a few months ago? I can't remember the specifics but I seem to remember that being frivolous too.

BreakfastMan:

Zontar:

We can have peaceful co-existence without them colonising Africa

Oh yeah, god forbid a world power attempt to colonize another country or start imperial wars for resources... <.< >.>

Well that's ambition for you, and ambition is a hell of a drug :P

Oh man, this thread is comedy gold and it's not even off the first page yet.

Zontar:
the Reds

Tell me against how China is communist despite the workers DEFINITELY not owning the means of production, despite the wage disparity being off the charts rather than the communist thing of "everyone must earn equal pay", despite encouraging a culture based on making as much money as you can by any means possible and damn intellectual property rights in the process, etc?

Zontar:

They're actually going about it the smart way, they're buying off dictators and using the use of a more educated workforce to justify building cities and settling into them. It's as nefarious as it is brilliant.

With you saying this in one thread and you saying America should invade borderline failed states in another, and you saying America should take over Canada in a third, you're making my head spin.

To quote Yatzee: "Consistency would be nice!"

WolvDragon:
So it looks like his daughter's company dodges a economic bullet, while businesses and regular people over in the U.S. will be greatly affected by these tariffs. I'm not surprised though, since the primary reason why he ran for office was to profit off as being the president.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-tariffs-spares-clothing-shoes-ivanka-safe_us_5b42a597e4b09e4a8b2e72c3

If the EU, Canada and China were serious about dissuading Trump from his little trade war spectacle, they would be sanctioning the Trump Organisation directly.

Maybe they're worried that will make him even angrier.

Zontar:
I say no bilateral trade between the democratic nations and China, no financial exchange, no immigration, complete isolation between the Reds and the free world. Nothing short of that is reasonable. Also contain their spreading influence.

That is almost completely impractical. The US would have to convince every other country in the world to sanction China - even if it would have catastrophic effects on that country's economy - on the basis that it would benefit the US to do so.

For example, here in Australia we make quite a lot of money exporting stuff to China. Used to be coal; these days it's livestock, because a growing Chinese middle class wants red meat as a status symbol. To totally cut off all trade with China, DPRK-style, the US would have to convince Australia that it was in Australia's best interest to stop selling anything to China or buying anything from China or even accepting immigrants from China.

From personal experience in academia, I can say that Australia's enviable tertiary education system is made profitable in large part by Chinese international students seeking something they can't get in China (a reputable degree.) Education is, in fact, Australia's third-largest export market. "Locking off" China completely would essentially close every major university in Victoria and New South Wales by denying them access to fee-paying international students.

And that's just one industry, in one country, out of the entire world. It's a bit of a hard sell. And any country that the US tries to convince would, with a moment's thought, realise that if the rest of the world locks off China and they don't, they stand to make an incredible profit from being essentially the only medium through which China can conduct international trade - in much the same way China itself turns quite a profit from being the DPRK's only significant trading partner.

No; if the US wants to address Chinese misconduct in the Pacific market, then ironically the best way to do that would have been the much-hated Trans-Pacific Partnership. For all its faults, the TPP really would have streamlined and standardised international trade between the US and virtually every other Pacific nation - except China, which was not a signatory. The benefits of free Pacific trade enjoyed by TPP signatories would then serve as a motivator for China to improve its behaviour and as a credible threat to punish misconduct. Withdrawing from the TPP in effect created a vacuum of economic influence that China is now trying to exploit.

WolvDragon:
So it looks like his daughter's company dodges a economic bullet, while businesses and regular people over in the U.S. will be greatly affected by these tariffs. I'm not surprised though, since the primary reason why he ran for office was to profit off as being the president.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-tariffs-spares-clothing-shoes-ivanka-safe_us_5b42a597e4b09e4a8b2e72c3

Well colour me surprised... Trump told the truth, he did drain the swamp in DC and he than proceeded to place it right into the white house.

Zontar:
I say no bilateral trade between the democratic nations and China, no financial exchange, no immigration, complete isolation between the Reds and the free world. Nothing short of that is reasonable. Also contain their spreading influence.

Such a harsh policy would probably cause more harm than good. Whether we like it or not China has become one of the biggest trading actors in the world. This said, I would approve of putting global pressure on China to stop its "unfair" trading policies. The problem right now is that Trump has pretty much doomed that plan. By conducting diplomacy like the Joker would he created many enemies and disgruntled most of the US's historic Allies. The US is now officially considered an unreliable and backstabbing ally. Moving out of the Paris Agreement, the Iran Deal (followed by threats towards any company which would breach US sanctions regardless of their country of origin) and putting tariffs on goods from allied countries were all bad moves. Why would anyone now want to join a backstabbing nation in their crusades?

Zontar:
In the long run a complete end to bilateral trade with China would only be good for the working class since most of the hurt we've had over the past two decades stems from unbenificial trade agreements with China and other third world nations.

A significant part, yes; "most" is highly questionable.

Millions of relatively high skill working class jobs in manufacturing would have gone anyway because of automation. After that you also have to consider weakened labour unions, deregulation, etc. as policies that have contributed to wage stagnation.

Agema:

Zontar:
In the long run a complete end to bilateral trade with China would only be good for the working class since most of the hurt we've had over the past two decades stems from unbenificial trade agreements with China and other third world nations.

A significant part, yes; "most" is highly questionable.

Millions of relatively high skill working class jobs in manufacturing would have gone anyway because of automation. After that you also have to consider weakened labour unions, deregulation, etc. as policies that have contributed to wage stagnation.

Not to mention that all prices will rise significantly with higher wages, pricing the working class out of buying anything but the most basic products. Rendering the whole process moot

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here