Billionaire says China Will Suffer more

[JimmySpeaks]

https://www.thestreet.com/economy/billionaire-bill-ackman-sends-hard-nosed-message-on-china-u-s-trade-war
 

Bill Ackman knows that China has more to risk than America does.   But I’d rather take RVs word for it. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

7 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

https://www.thestreet.com/economy/billionaire-bill-ackman-sends-hard-nosed-message-on-china-u-s-trade-war
 

Bill Ackman knows that China has more to risk than America does.   But I’d rather take RVs word for it. 

True, but what he describes is a permanent inflationary effect for the US, too. If US companies are forced to abandon China to find the next best labor deal, it will still be the next best. So prices will still go higher.

Worse for China, sure. But still very bad for the US.

That said, China is the biggest culprit when it comes to unfair trade practices, and should be the target of hard negotiations. But I believe the tariffs need to be targeted at unfair trade practices, rather than the current across the board craziness of using a made up formula that equates any and all goods imbalances as unfair, while ignoring services imbalances that typically go in the other direction, and the fact that many imbalances are structural (i.e. China has cheaper labor, and nothing will change that).

And a policy needs to be well thought out, rather than the willy nilly, reactionary, at the whim, set of "policies" Trump is currently pursuing.

[PortaJohn]

30 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

True, but what he describes is a permanent inflationary effect for the US, too. If US companies are forced to abandon China to find the next best labor deal, it will still be the next best. So prices will still go higher.

Worse for China, sure. But still very bad for the US.

That said, China is the biggest culprit when it comes to unfair trade practices, and should be the target of hard negotiations. But I believe the tariffs need to be targeted at unfair trade practices, rather than the current across the board craziness of using a made up formula that equates any and all goods imbalances as unfair, while ignoring services imbalances that typically go in the other direction, and the fact that many imbalances are structural (i.e. China has cheaper labor, and nothing will change that).

And a policy needs to be well thought out, rather than the willy nilly, reactionary, at the whim, set of "policies" Trump is currently pursuing.

WKN, I don't think thoughtful & well balanced takes are appropriated for this forum.  Just the vibes I get

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

WKN, I don't think thoughtful & well balanced takes are appropriated for this forum.  Just the vibes I get

To the Zoo with you!!    

[PortaJohn]

4 minutes ago, ionel said:

To the Zoo with you!!    

Can we rename it the Jungle?  Every time you enter Guns n Roses starts blasting off in the background?

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Can we rename it the Jungle?  Every time you enter Guns n Roses starts blasting off in the background?

Works for me ... welcome to ...

[mspart]

We have a jungle here in Seattle.

mspart

[Husker_Du]

2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

True, but what he describes is a permanent inflationary effect for the US, too. If US companies are forced to abandon China to find the next best labor deal, it will still be the next best. So prices will still go higher.

Worse for China, sure. But still very bad for the US.

That said, China is the biggest culprit when it comes to unfair trade practices, and should be the target of hard negotiations. But I believe the tariffs need to be targeted at unfair trade practices, rather than the current across the board craziness of using a made up formula that equates any and all goods imbalances as unfair, while ignoring services imbalances that typically go in the other direction, and the fact that many imbalances are structural (i.e. China has cheaper labor, and nothing will change that).

And a policy needs to be well thought out, rather than the willy nilly, reactionary, at the whim, set of "policies" Trump is currently pursuing.

i agree. but at least someone is trying to do something about it instead of letting the country (and the world) get absolutely fleeced for a generation.

[red viking]

10 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

https://www.thestreet.com/economy/billionaire-bill-ackman-sends-hard-nosed-message-on-china-u-s-trade-war
 

Bill Ackman knows that China has more to risk than America does.   But I’d rather take RVs word for it. 

I said China would "win" if there can be a winner. Trump already caved so I was right. 

[ionel]

11 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Bill Ackman knows that China has more to risk than America does.   

Ackman?  I only opened this cause thought it was a video interview with rv.  

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

I said China would "win" if there can be a winner. Trump already caved so I was right. 

China won’t win.  They need to be stopped as they’re cheating the world.  China has already quietly dropped TARIFFS on certain items.  They can’t outlast America.  

[JimmySpeaks]

5 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

True, but what he describes is a permanent inflationary effect for the US, too. If US companies are forced to abandon China to find the next best labor deal, it will still be the next best. So prices will still go higher.

Worse for China, sure. But still very bad for the US.

That said, China is the biggest culprit when it comes to unfair trade practices, and should be the target of hard negotiations. But I believe the tariffs need to be targeted at unfair trade practices, rather than the current across the board craziness of using a made up formula that equates any and all goods imbalances as unfair, while ignoring services imbalances that typically go in the other direction, and the fact that many imbalances are structural (i.e. China has cheaper labor, and nothing will change that).

And a policy needs to be well thought out, rather than the willy nilly, reactionary, at the whim, set of "policies" Trump is currently pursuing.

For now yes. Not permanent.   India and others will make up the difference and get rich doing it.