Trade War with China

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
Upcoming $200 billion tariff exempts cellphone and laptops.
Why?
US trying to protect Qualcomm in cellphone and Intel/AMD in laptops.
So only hurting US tech will make US feel the pain, not soybean, agriculture, energy, etc. Those US doesn't care as much.

Basically, US wants China to remain in low ended subassembly work for US high tech. This area US leaves China alone.

Things like furnitures, toys, textiles with no US components or tech will get hit. US consumers will paid heavier price, but US trade Hawks want to hollow out China industries that don't serve US tech.
 
Last edited:
T

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
China should put up big tariff on US components bringing in from Taiwan or US for assembly work and export to US.
China government can collect tariff and made US consumers pay. Other places like South East Asia can't handle that kind of volume.

Domestically, China should promote its own CPUs and memory. Although less advanced but good enough to do the job.

Two pronged attack, domestically replacement and collect tariff revenues from US chips and make US consumers pay more.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
That logic is completely ludicrous.

Let's do a simple thought experiment. Country A and Country B are locked in a cold war, a geopolitical competition. In both Country A, and Country B, their geopolitical interests do not perfectly reflect the interests of their nation's populace.
Country A's geopolitical interests do not reflect Populace A's aggregate interests perfectly, and Country B's geopolitical interests do not reflect Populace B's aggregate interests perfectly either.

However, that does not mean that from the perspective of Populace A, the geopolitical interest of Country A and the geopolitical interest of Country B are "little different" -- remember, Country A and Country B are locked in a geopolitical competition.
So, yes, Country A's geopolitical interest may not reflect all of the demands and wants of its Populace A, however Country B's geopolitical interest would most certainly cause significant harm and result in the deliberate undermining of Populace A's interests as well.

From the perspective of Populace A, the "difference" is one where your own government Country A's geopolitical interests may not be able to achieve all of your own desires, but the government of Country B and their geopolitical interests are directly hostile to both the interests of Country A and Populace A.
Click to expand...
What "geopolitical interest " the US has in the South Chinese sea?

Why is it the interest of the USA citizens to keep a big pile of USA military personnel in SK, Japan, and support a wide array of activities in that zone?

And it is a geopolitical issue, that can cause full Armageddon without any reason, but I talked about smaller decisions made by top leaders/billionaires every day ,about investment , where to move money, where to invest, where to send his/her children.

If the USA government can make hard decisions that kills millions of Americans for 110 years now, then why you think that in China the leaders will not make similar bad decisions (or, in worst case, egoist/sadistic decisions ) that going again the interest of the population? ( start with that :what business the USA had in the first world war ? )

And if you interested about that how an average citizen decide about his/her country future then just check the foreign politics of Switzerland .
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
So China should accept American subjugation because there's "little difference between the Chinese/usa controllers"?
Click to expand...

Not China. My point is that, the Chinese(or the USA,UK, German) citizens doesn't has to accept that a subgroup of people making decisions about them, regardless if the subgroup is a few billionaire/politician with any nationality.
And the prosperity of a country in long term is about that how well the power transfer from this subgroup back to the general population.

This is the middle income trap.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Oh gosh.... This is not just a salad; it's an Amazonian jungle of bullshit you write...
Anlsvrthng said:
Not China. My point is that, the Chinese(or the USA,UK, German) citizens doesn't has to accept that a subgroup of people making decisions about them, regardless if the subgroup is a few billionaire/politician with any nationality.
And the prosperity of a country in long term is about that how well the power transfer from this subgroup back to the general population.

This is the middle income trap.
Click to expand...
Chinese people also don't accept that; that's why poor Chinese people work so hard to become rich Chinese people! How hard is this for you to understand? LOL

Chinese people want to work hard, make progress, and make China the most powerful nation on earth so our children inherit the world in a position of power; that desire is as natural as birds flying and lions roaring. Can you live in peace with this fact or is does it just drive you crazy that Chinese people can band our powers together to achieve great feats for our country? Either way, your verbal diarrhea won't change it one bit.

Anlsvrthng said:
If the USA government can make hard decisions that kills millions of Americans for 110 years now, then why you think that in China the leaders will not make similar bad decisions (or, in worst case, egoist/sadistic decisions ) that going again the interest of the population? ( start with that :what business the USA had in the first world war ? )
Click to expand...
Because they have not done so. If the CCP begins to act like that in the future, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Certainly, we don't preemptively revolt against our own government because it's a possibility that in the future, they may make bad decisions LOL. You do that crazy shit in Europe??
Anlsvrthng said:
And if you interested about that how an average citizen decide about his/her country future then just check the foreign politics of Switzerland.
Click to expand...
And Switzerland can be invaded in 12 seconds by anyone if the world fell into a bad state, so I'd rather not learn from them.
 
Last edited:
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
Everything you said are small exceptions and caveats that are not to be considered when working with big data like the population of China. Two assumptions are undoubtedly true (and they're so simple I wouldn't have to explain them to anything with a double digit IQ). 1) Chinese people pay taxes to China and Americans pay taxes to the US; it has nothing to do with your nationalism or what you want your taxes to be spent on. 2) Out of 1,000 Chinese people, the average sentiment will skewer heavily towards China over the USA and out of 1,000 Americans, the average sentiment will skewer heavily towards the US over China; this data is not affected by Chinese people who hate themselves or Americans who join ISIS.

Big picture: Chinese people pay taxes to China and Americans pay taxes to the US. Everyone wants to pay less taxes but it has no effect on this big picture.

What is "household income ratio"? Ratio to what? Are you making up metrics? LOL Once again, provide source for the wealthy Chinese paying way less tax than the average Chinese and compare that to the proportion of overall wealth owned by the wealthy against the overall wealth owned by the regular people. You've got a lot of homework to do if you want to keep mumbling about this.
Click to expand...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The tax payment is true only if you residing in one country only,or if you have a micro company bound to one country.

As soon as you become mobile between multiple country, or your company big enough to operate across borders the tax payment become optional,and you can choose where to pay.

So, as soon a Chinese(usa, canadian ect ) get access to foreign sale channels / investment opportunities the options for tax avoidance become dramatically big.

As well, it gives an option to channel out money from countries . I see on everyday that Chinese companies selling stuff for overseas without profit, just to get out money from the country.

This is the reason why the USA elite doesn't want trade war with China.
For them the unrestricted flow of money/good is the main source of wealth.

Practically, if there is a big international player then after that he will stay big, and has advantage over smaller competitors due to the lower taxation rate.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Anlsvrthng said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The tax payment is true only if you residing in one country only,or if you have a micro company bound to one country.

As soon as you become mobile between multiple country, or your company big enough to operate across borders the tax payment become optional,and you can choose where to pay.

So, as soon a Chinese(usa, canadian ect ) get access to foreign sale channels / investment opportunities the options for tax avoidance become dramatically big.

As well, it gives an option to channel out money from countries . I see on everyday that Chinese companies selling stuff for overseas without profit, just to get out money from the country.

This is the reason why the USA elite doesn't want trade war with China.
For them the unrestricted flow of money/good is the main source of wealth.

Practically, if there is a big international player then after that he will stay big, and has advantage over smaller competitors due to the lower taxation rate.
Click to expand...
First of all, "Private consumption to GDP" ratio is not "household income" ratio; that's why ALL the words are different. Secondly, that figure has nothing to do with how much taxes rich Chinese pay vs how much taxes poor Chinese pay and you have failed to find any evidence for your claim that rich Chinese people pay proportionally far less taxes by wealth than regular Chinese people.

Now let's talk about you making the traditional small mind mistake again. You failed to see the big picture, so you took an exception to the rule to argue against the big picture; life doesn't work like that. Yes, some Chinese companies have overseas operations and pay taxes to the host country, and some foreign companies pay taxes to China because they operate in China. This doesn't confuse me into thinking that Chinese and foreign companies pay taxes to Chinese and foreign governments so they are all the same, because I'm not stupid like you. Firstly, Chinese companies usually pay taxes to China as well since they are still headquartered in China even if they have foreign operations. Secondly, the BIG PICTURE, that you always miss, is that in general, Chinese companies/people pay taxes to China and those taxes are used for the military budget; making Chinese people richer will boost the taxes collected and increase the resources available to the Chinese military. It's not possible to argue against this overall prevailing fact with small exceptions like you keep trying to do.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
solarz said:
Yes to free education, no to minimum wage.

Education enables social mobility, which enables progress. Minimum wage creates vacuums in the job market, instills a sense of entitlement, and in fact causes social stagnation. A common refrain among young job seekers is that they can't get jobs without experience, but they can't get experience without jobs. The value of many entry-level jobs are in fact not worth the minimum wage, so employers end up divvying those duties among more senior employees, thus denying entry-level job seekers those opportunities.

Low wage jobs have a place in the economy. They are a springboard for better, higher paying jobs. With the minimum wage, I often see middle-aged people working as cashiers and waiters, and complain how their wages aren't enough to raise a family.

In China, if you feel your job doesn't pay enough, there are a hundred people waiting to fill your role. This creates an incentive to work hard to better oneself. In China, you can't even get married without a decent job and some assets, but in Canada, people feel secure enough to get married young, work a minimum wage job for a decade, then wonder why they can't afford to raise their kids on a minimum wage salary.




I would say the exact opposite. Offering free education, even higher education, would be much more valuable than offering cash.

The problem with welfare is that it's seen as charity, when really, it should be seen as an investment for the future of society.
Click to expand...

No, what you see in the UK is that the minimum wage VARIES according to age. That blows away your argument for a minimum wage stopping the inexperienced from being paid less in entry level jobs.

On university education, the UK government provides loans to cover the £9000 (12000USD) annual cost. But the repayment terms are generous for lower earners, so the government only expects to recover half of all the money, by the time the debts are written off at the age of 50.

Plus you don't seem to realise that in even in high-income countries in North America, Europe, Japan etc, the median average wage is only 1500-2500USD per month. There simply aren't enough high paying jobs for people to jump to, even if you work really really hard.

Hence why I think higher minimum wages are better. Look at the minimum wages below.

Singapore: None
Hong Kong: USD 4.5 per hour
Korea: USD 7 per hour
UK (25+): USD 10.1 per hour
UK (Apprentice): USD 4.8 per hour

If you take the UK which has a relatively high minimum wage, you're still only looking at a salary of USD 1600 per month. It's a similar story in the USA etc

And remember, most citizens in any country are on low wages, and they will decide not to reproduce given the high costs of having a baby.

In China, we can already see that people can't afford to have more than 1 child, which is going to become a huge demographic problem in the future.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Anlsvrthng said:
Not China. My point is that, the Chinese(or the USA,UK, German) citizens doesn't has to accept that a subgroup of people making decisions about them, regardless if the subgroup is a few billionaire/politician with any nationality.
And the prosperity of a country in long term is about that how well the power transfer from this subgroup back to the general population.

This is the middle income trap.
Click to expand...

What make you think that billionaire make decision on the life of Chinese people ? Because they are not
If you see the composition of CCP inner sanctum most of them are either "princeling", Academician, Bureaucrat, or career diplomat. but sofar I know none of the billionaire ever inducted into the inner sanctum of power
They are allowed to join the party but that is it
Ziang Jemin, Hu Jintao are bureaucrat, Xi JInping is priceling I mean this people are the guardian of Chinese revolution spirit since their family are closely connected to the making of PRC They will never allowed billionaire to take reign of government
So your assertion is completely out of this world

The same with America prior to 60's most of the politician come from wealthy family like Rockefeller, Roosevelt, Kennedy These people are well educated and take it upon themselves to be the guardian of American sipirit
Thing went downhill went they allowed the rich to influence the politic by allowing them to contribute money to the election using PAC(people action committee) And held politician prisoner to their own agenda
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
because I'm not stupid like you.
Click to expand...

I don't know what background you came from, but I am sure no one proud of you in that background .

manqiangrexue said:
Firstly, Chinese companies usually pay taxes to China as well since they are still headquartered in China even if they have foreign operations. Secondly, the BIG PICTURE, that you always miss, is that in general, Chinese companies/people pay taxes to China and those taxes are used for the military budget; making Chinese people richer will boost the taxes collected and increase the resources available to the Chinese military. It's not possible to argue against this overall prevailing fact with small exceptions like you keep trying to do.
Click to expand...

Maybe I miss something, but you arguing about that if a person will be nationalistic even if it means he has to pay more taxes?

Additionally you can not explain that how the competitive advantage of the non-taxpayers can be eliminated by this way.

Third, it is about dividend paid for shareholders that can be taxed in the home country .If the company wants to grow, wants to move out assets from China ect. then they can easily manipulate the books to no one has a chance to catch them, because that would needs audition by several country a the same time, and in legally coordinated manner.
And that doesn't exist .

C'mon, I see it every day.
The billing between different countries happens by ways that make it possible to realise the profit in the lowest taxation country, and afterwards they can invest that money into the lowest salary country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top