Redpill me on the trade war with China

We stop growing soy and grow something else.

They did not reciprocate because it was still advantageous to the US. There is no reason that the US needs to be a manufacturing nation. It was not a defensive maneuver. Goods can be produced more cheaply in China than they can almost anywhere else (or at least that is the general trend) so in absolute terms, it does not matter if they have any trade barriers. Remember, costs are passed along at every step in the logistical line. If steel costs more, then the goods at the end (airplanes, motorcycles, whatever) are going to cost more by an order of magnitude. This is unpopular with the American consumer, so the status quo is established.

And then they impose a tariff on that?

Are you fucking retarded?

Ok how deep you wanna go - i have arguments of both side.

And desu surprisingly both make sense

>And desu surprisingly both make sense
That's where I am. So share if you have any.

>During the Cold War we offered countries like Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. access to US markets with little if any trade barriers. They did not reciprocate.
Doesn't sound like the U.S. to me. I don't know why we would offer to open our markets to them if they didn't reciprocate. The only reason I can think of is the U.S. preferred that they traded with us over the USSR and this preference was so strong that we didn't care if they opened up their markets or not.
>If the free trade meme worked, China/Mexico/whatever would not give a shit if we tariffed them because free trade theory always says that the best thing a country can do, regardless of what others do, is lower trade barriers.
And since you said that Korea, Japan and Taiwan didn't open their markets, you're implying that free trade doesn't work in practice, right?
>Then, if there are any positives (there likely won't be), they are going to be long-term. After the Dems drop Trump, all the gains will go to the Democratic successor. By not letting Trump score a win on the wall or on health care, they cornered him into doing something exceptionally stupid.
Interesting angle. Makes more sense then some of the hypotheses that's being peddled on Jow Forums.
>We stop growing soy and grow something else.
I don't think it's that easy to simply grow a different crop user. Farmers would have optimized their processes for soy over many years. You're talking about overhauling entire processes and methods.

>If China imposes tariffs on U.S. soybean farmers, how the fuck is it that we will win against them? I thought rural America forms the backbone of Trump's base.

You think a significant amount of "family farms" exist? Farming is big business.

this is very possible.

>You think a significant amount of "family farms" exist? Farming is big business.
So there are 10 Soybean farmers in the U.S? Fucking no. There are 300,000+ farms (not people) that make and sell soybean. That's at least 1 million votes if you assume that on an average a farm will employ at least 3 people.
agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Soybean Farming/Soybean_Farming.pdf

pack in boys

Major argument form the right -

Pack up for some history lessons

Before the World Wars trading was done imperially from colony to the mainland. Countries did not trade with neighbor because if any neighbour (or his subject) started a war them your supply chains would be fucked if you are dependent on them. So there are Imperial trade (Free trade with the empire - not so much outside)

Skipping over huge history and only taking account parts related to economics

This lead to competition for resources between the empires which ended with two world wars.

US was the only nation surving with no economic decline through out the war. Europe/Asia was a shit show.

US setup bretten woods system for trading and basicly told fuck off to old imperial system and that it would allow every one to trade with everyone else and it would use its navy only navy to survive to protect the trade.

It also provided access to its market to globe so the destroyed countries could export their way to affluence.

As USSR was communist - This was basicly subsidising an alliance of capitalist countries.

It worked well till america was having surplus when trading with rest of the world once US stopped having surplus and went of the gold standard.

Now everything currency which are pegged to dollar is now free floating on exchanges.

Enter - China into WTO

hold on i will continue this in another reply

>This lead to competition for resources between the empires which ended with two world wars.
First world war was more because of diplomatic tensions rather than a need for resources. Germany had sufficient resources to survive, but it didn't like being surrounded by hostile forces and nor did it like the fact that weaker nations than it had colonies and it didn't.

So no, you're assertion is wrong.
>US was the only nation surving with no economic decline through out the war. Europe/Asia was a shit show.
True.
>It also provided access to its market to globe so the destroyed countries could export their way to affluence.
Export what in return? France exports their cars to the U.S. and they become affluent? Aren't you missing out a key point here? For the nations to have become affluent due to trade with the U.S., they would have had to receive something in return from the U.S.. But Germany and Japan always exported more to the U.S. than they received from the U.S., so another assertion of yours is wrong here.

Also, the Bretton Woods system was set up to establish the dollar as a reserve currency instead of gold. This was done to help European countries to start trading with each other to get their infrastructure back in order. Instead of European nations trading with each other via Gold exchanges, the U.S. took everyone's gold for safekeeping and permitted the exchange of $35 for every ounce of gold in Fort Knox. That was the Bretton Woods system which was compromised by Nixon's Vietnam war - not some shit Navy crap you just peddled.
>As USSR was communist - This was basicly subsidising an alliance of capitalist countries.
True, but not for the reason you mentioned. It was for petrodollar.

Yeah, your understanding of history is vague and incorrect.

has a deeper understanding than you do.

Furthermore, saying that trade only existed between colony and metropole is absolutely specious - tariffs were a thing starting in the late 1800s, and only were lifted in the US with the passing of the income tax. The 1920s saw an increase in international trade, and when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was instituted, the Great Depression was prolonged.

>There is no reason that the US needs to be a manufacturing nation.
...said every dumbfuck overconfident country who gets invaded and has no heavy industry to crank out war materials

So they can grow something else instead of toxic shit that is making women fat and turning men into low t cucks. Soy is not food soy is not food soy is not food.

The purpose of the trade war is the destroy parasitic (((multinational conglomerates))). It's fucking great.

Attached: 453408457457n.jpg (581x553, 54K)

Americans will have to eat more soy.
This is going to be great for other soy producing countries. China will buy up all our soy.

Attached: trump the soy peddler.png (581x152, 32K)

Saged fake news . Soy is barely shipped to the Chinks

Nuclear weapons mean no invasion, dum dum.

>So they can grow something else instead of toxic shit that is making women fat and turning men into low t cucks.
Do you know how difficult it is to simply grow another crop? Mechanized farming is optimized for a particular crop. You can't just fucking tell farmers to grow something else.
>The purpose of the trade war is the destroy parasitic (((multinational conglomerates))). It's fucking great.
Great. Do you have anything more insightful than your opinions?

>First world war was more because of diplomatic tensions rather than a need for resources. Germany had sufficient resources to survive, but it didn't like being surrounded by hostile forces and nor did it like the fact that weaker nations than it had colonies and it didn't.

I told you i was talking about ECONOMIC IMPACT and NOT the CAUSE.

> Export what in return? France exports their cars to the U.S. and they become affluent? Aren't you missing out a key point here? For the nations to have become affluent due to trade with the U.S., they would have had to receive something in return from the U.S.. But Germany and Japan always exported more to the U.S. than they received from the U.S., so another assertion of yours is wrong here.

Goods mostly. What nations trade

Yeah, your understanding of history is vague and incorrect.

Eh see - I told you i was talking about ECONOMIC IMPACT and NOT the CAUSE.

> Furthermore, saying that trade only existed between colony and metropole is absolutely specious - tariffs were a thing starting in the late 1800s, and only were lifted in the US with the passing of the income tax. The 1920s saw an increase in international trade, and when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was instituted, the Great Depression was prolonged.

Ok lets see - > So there are Imperial trade (Free trade with the empire - not so much outside)

> (Free trade with the empire - not so much outside)

> Free trade within no free trade outside

Since there was trade and there no free trade outside- what else was there

FUCKING TARRIFS

Atleast let me get a flow before bombarding me

At this rate if you are lazy might as well go on youtube and pick a lefty and see his view on trade and then picky a righty see his views.

Check/Google there ideas and come to your conclusion

>Atleast let me get a flow before bombarding me
Ok. Sorry. Please go on. So I gather that the summary of your first post was
>It worked well till america was having surplus when trading with rest of the world once US stopped having surplus and went of the gold standard.
>Now everything currency which are pegged to dollar is now free floating on exchanges.
>Enter - China into WTO

You're not much of a thinker eh?

Except that is wrong. There were tariffs, not because of economic protectionism, but because the US gov. had few means of attaining revenue. There was trade outside, starting in the 20s, at least in the United States, but that got wiped out with Smoot-Hawley. Many schools of economic thought were pushing for it and mercantilism began dying out in the 1800s.

> soya
> rural...
soya is a commodity crop, grown almost exclusively by giant agra-corps, solely on the basis of a generous subsidy package with almost zero market/tillage controls.
even if con-agra and archer daniels midlands have to sell their soy as animal feed for pennies to the bushel, they will still do very well for themselves just on the subsidy.
soya isnt a family farm crop, its not even a mega-farm crop. its a corporate crop.
there are maybe a few hundred americans who actually work in those fields, the rest is illegals managers/executives (who live in big cities and vote democrat) and (((commodity traders)))
rural america doesnt need soya, soya needs rural america to die so they can plant more acreage of soya that nobody wants, but washington cant stop throwing money at.

>You're not much of a thinker eh?
Look man, after reading about this, there are good arguments on both sides. Trump is confident that China will blink because China's main export partner is the E.U. and the U.S., so imposing tariffs will hurt the Chinese economy. China on the other hand imports many products from the U.S. which is manufactured by Trump's base. Also, China doesn't have to win the trade war with Trump, it simply has to prolong it and drag it out. I'm just trying to see the bigger picture so that I can decide for myself who has the advantage.

Now, did you just come here to speak shit, or do you have something of value to add?

>soya is a commodity crop, grown almost exclusively by giant agra-corps, solely on the basis of a generous subsidy package with almost zero market/tillage controls.
Ok, this makes sense. So soyabean is made by rich farmers, and not poor ones? Or they're made by corporations. You're implying that soybean farmers are not necessarily Trump's base?
>even if con-agra and archer daniels midlands have to sell their soy as animal feed for pennies to the bushel, they will still do very well for themselves just on the subsidy.
Interesting.
>soya isnt a family farm crop, its not even a mega-farm crop. its a corporate crop.
Fuck me.
>there are maybe a few hundred americans who actually work in those fields, the rest is illegals managers/executives (who live in big cities and vote democrat) and (((commodity traders)))
rural america doesnt need soya, soya needs rural america to die so they can plant more acreage of soya that nobody wants, but washington cant stop throwing money at.
Holy fuck, and the case is cracked open.

Attached: cohle.gif (500x328, 1.98M)

The US imposed over $100 Billion in tariffs and China retaliated by imposing about 2-3% of that back against the US. They selected industries or maximum political effect, especially red/purple states that would hinder Trump the most.

Economically their response was laughable. Politically it was somewhat effective. However, lower soy (etc.) prices means a vast array of foodstuffs will be cheaper for the American middle class, which equates to a direct increase in middle class spending power. Lowering food prices is exactly the same as lowering fuel prices - it immediately and drastically improves middle class economics action.

The irony is that our MSM mouthpieces are all parroting the "muh soy farmers" meme as if they are China state-run mouthpieces. This is exactly what China wants, and the MSM knows it. They don't care. They will amplify the "muh soy farmers" meme for maximum political affect, which China (smartly) predicted. The MSM, as usual, is the real enemy.

Add to this the fact that "muh soy farmers" are massive agri-businesses to the 99th percentile (while the MSM tries to meme them as poor wittle injured farmers).

That's the red pill. Any more questions?

It doesn't matter that China will be hurt more. China can think longer term, because their pres just became pres for life. This is a goddamn mid-term year, and if the Dems get a wave they will be howling for Trump's blood.

The US is China's largest export country, but that still makes up a fraction (below 5%) of their exports. And we would be targetting shit (i.e. software, high-end electronic goods) which China 100% does not give a shit about.

USA need backup to Vietnam instead for China. Enemy of enemy is friend.
Vietnam has many worker, cheap worker than Chinese.

Tariffs means that soy prices will go up, and that the price of soy, which is passed on at every stage of the chain. So anything that eats soy is also getting affected. Which is nothing about how they are also imposing tariffs on beef. Protip: there are 300k soy farming jobs in the US. All of those are in jeopardy now.

And why should the MSM be a puppet of Trump? How is that helping?

>doesnt sound like the US to me...
thus proving youre not paying attention.
japan, western europe, south korea, germany, all of them were re-built by US tax dollars and we let their shit flood our markets because they were in such bad shape, and they desperately wanted our food and raw materials.
we got the best of that trrade situation for a while, but then, once they were back on their feet, THEY started imposing tariffs "to bolster domestic markets" and washington said "Duhh OK! dat sounds like a gud plan!" and those tariffs have been growing and growing every year while ours remain practically zero.
Protip: nobody ever paid back the "loans" from the marshall plan or the Lend/Lease program that came before. washington generously forgave those debts and let US taxpayers foot the bill, after all, it's not their money, so why should they give a wet shit?
washington thinks US taxpayers are their personal giving tree, and just give us a shake when they want more shit to give away for free.
> free trade doesnt work?
no. "free trade" is bullshit.
we dont have "free trade" we have "ruinously expensive trade"
japan, SoKo, the EU, et al can sell their shit in america with ZERO tariffs, while everything we produce faces massive tariffs on their end.
from their standpoint, free trade is awesome, they can dump their cheapo crap into our stores, while our shit is priced out of the market, and anything their people want bad enough will line their govt's pockets before it gets to the people who wanted it bad enough to pay an extra 40-150% tax on it
you dont seem to understand what tariffs are.
they arent a fee charged from one govt to another, this is the idea lefties want tio instill, it is just a TAX on products from foreign sources in a local market.
trumps tariffs dont send a bill to china, it levies a tax on chinese aluminium and steel before it ever reaches the market, just like any of the many taxes businesses pay.

Farmer are going to have a hard time for the next few years.

>However, lower soy (etc.) prices means a vast array of foodstuffs will be cheaper for the American middle class, which equates to a direct increase in middle class spending power.
So you're saying that China's tariffs will lower the prices of Soy in the U.S. and that improves the consumer spending power? But this is assuming the sellers will lower the market price of soy which is already pretty low.
>Add to this the fact that "muh soy farmers" are massive agri-businesses to the 99th percentile (while the MSM tries to meme them as poor wittle injured farmers).
Interesting. This user
implied the same.
>That's the red pill. Any more questions?
What if China drags out the trade war? Even if they lose on the soy front, they can just continue to be a thorn in Trump's side.
>The US is China's largest export country, but that still makes up a fraction (below 5%) of their exports.
Dude, what? The U.S. accounts for more than 20% of China's exports. E.U. accounts for another 20%.
statista.com/statistics/256350/main-export-partners-for-china-by-export-value/

If you take away the U.S. and E.U., then China trades with Hong Kong (about 20%) and the ASEAN countries (about 20%). The rest are all useless.

So no, the U.S. and the E.U. are China's main export partners outside Asia.

> tariffs mean soy prices will go up...
IN CHINA!
when china imposes a tariff on soy, that soy becomes more expensive IN CHINA.
they dont set the prices in america you moron.
if anything, china putting tariffs on soy will LOWER prices for soy on the american commodity markets, since the chinks will be buying less, or seeking out other lower cost sources, or most likely, creating a soy substitute made from lead paint, old car batteries and discarded newspapers.
this would result in soy going unsold until the prices fall. this is how markets work.
that commie flag is no joke, you really are economically illiterate.

>Vietnam has many worker, cheap worker than Chinese.
It will take time to shift all jobs from China to Vietnam. Are you willing to wait?
Redpill after redpill. Great post user.

>if anything, china putting tariffs on soy will LOWER prices for soy on the american commodity markets, since the chinks will be buying less, or seeking out other lower cost sources, or most likely, creating a soy substitute made from lead paint, old car batteries and discarded newspapers.

Attached: 1500034591.jpg (235x214, 8K)

It's good idea to wait
Both side Vietnam and USA win.
We need stop China, don't let China become too powerful

> why dont rich farmers grow soya?
soya has a shit tier market price, and is what we call "resource intensive"
soya is a crop that is very cost effective in enormous feilds where its all mechanized and specific to a single crop, very much like wheat, but unlike wheat, soya is not a staple in the US, and has no built in market. most of US soya is farmed EXCLUSIVELY based on the generous subsidy (which sucks if you grow a few hundred acres, but is pretty good if you plant a few hundred thousand...) and either gets exported to asia, or is sold as animal feed.
soya requires specific machinery, lots of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and huge scale planting to turn a profit, which only large corporations can afford to do, but lacks a ready market, or even a boutique market so its a corporate cash crop that gets nearly 100% of its return on investment from federal taxpayer subsidized gibsmedats programs
only by killing off family farms and buying up more land to plant a trash crop that is bankrolled by Washington and sold to foreigners can con-agra and ADM thrive.
this is just how soya works.

t. international socialist

>So you're saying that China's tariffs will lower the prices of Soy in the U.S. and that improves the consumer spending power? But this is assuming the sellers will lower the market price of soy which is already pretty low.

Yes that's what I'm saying. We will be overproducing soy now, so in order to get people to buy what they have, producers will lower prices. This is basic supply/demand curve economic theory, which has proven to be a reliable model for the real world. If sellers don't lower the price, then the market won't demand any more than they do now, which means all the extra soy that producers have will not go to market. Obviously that's untenable for producers.

>What if China drags out the trade war? Even if they lose on the soy front, they can just continue to be a thorn in Trump's side.

Drag it out? You mean by continuing to reciprocate at a rate of 2-3% of our tariffs? I'm sure that's what Trump wants and is expecting.

China has a couple aces in its hand, however. One is the South China Sea. A blockade would BTFO global trade. It would also probably cause a revolution in China, so this isn't likely. The second is rare earth metals. I've known about this issue for years, but ironically Drudge just picked it up. Basically our shitty politicians sold out our rare earth manufacturing to China back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's such that we went from producing more than 90% of the world's rare earths to now China doing exactly that.

The problem is that establishing a rare earth industry takes decades. It's incredibly complex, and the regulations that fucked our market to begin with are still in place (created in congress and lobbied for by China shills). It's the ticking time bomb that fucks us in the ass, because it goes beyond rare earths, it includes Thorium, which will revolutionize global energy production. The public doesn't know jack shit about any of this yet but give this little trade tiff more time and people will learn.

We import roughly 500 billion in goods from China, China imports roughly 150 billion of our shit. It will hurt China more, especially because there is no shortage of countries making cheap shit.

Attached: chartoftheday_8824_chinese_american_trade_balance_n.jpg (960x684, 182K)

China will have to buy shit from Africa and they will eat some fake soy beans made from clay and plastic and then realize USA all the WAY

I love Pres. Trump's China tariffs (production, not consumption yields prosperity!)
A country cannot consume its way to prosperity. It has to produce its way there. There are only four economic activities which actually produce wealth- manufacturing, extracting minerals from the ground (even better if you're processing them), building structures, and agriculture- everything else (without a bedrock of true wealth creation) is just swapping money from one hand to another. The only exception to this rule might be very small nations which have something exotic (such as incredible tourism) which brings in a huge influx of foreign dollars. You could, also, theoretically produce alot of wealth "producing and selling information", but that is pie in the sky when it comes to feeding the masses.

Any nation that cannot "afford" to produce the thing's it consumes has its economic situation so out of whack (usually through policies that encourage and fund non-productive transfer of money- fueled by taking on of debt) that it is living on a credit card. It is only not out-sourcing those things which cannot be out-sourced (those things which , logistically, must be done by locals). A country can either produce wealth (manufacturing, minerals, structures, and agriculture), transfer wealth (services and information), or "borrow wealth" (govt payouts fueled by debt).

Attached: 1522628493511.jpg (1080x1080, 57K)

Trade is good to the extent it is true (balanced) trade allowing countries to each specialize in what they have a technological advantage at doing best, but when it's a sellout of your own nation's wealth-creation capacity in order to "stave off the wolves" and have the illusion of wealth, because you cannot actually afford to produce wealth (you're too busy funding the inefficiencies of bloated beauracracies and welfare non-productiveness) it is a downward spiral. All the while, you're spiralling downward, the structural overhead, technical skills, and knowledge it takes to produce wealth (after a generation or two) dies so that it is harder to re-industrialize and start back up producing true wealth after your system crashes.
We've had a trade war committed against us by foreign countries with inside-refundable VAT's and trade barriers for 30-plus years (we are LOSING!). All of the "free trade at any cost politicians" have been doing nothing to defend the strength of our nation, economically. It is worth noting that George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and our early politicians were protectionist and the federal gov't was funded only by tariffs and excise taxes for over 150 years.

Attached: 1521003029094.jpg (924x530, 78K)

This video goes into it - youtube.com/watch?v=lbJ6k4GRPBU

Literally rule 1 broken

Sage

>Tariffs means that soy prices will go up
Soy futures would like to have a word with you.

Attached: Soy Futures Daily Candle.png (1273x1285, 159K)

Trade wars- just like military wars- can suck (lots OF "NOT FUN UGLINESS"!). But- like military wars- other countries will WALK ALL OVER YOU if they figure out you can't or WON'T fight them. "Peace through strength' and "two-way true wealth-creating trade" through WILLINGNESS to fight, not APPEASEMENT!

Trade deficits- in addition to the jobs they directly kill- are an imbalanced outflow of WEALTH from our nation to China (they get richer, we get poorer). (THIS ISN'T FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE!)

Attached: 1520186351016.jpg (1016x916, 64K)

This. If for nothing more than it can't get any worse, this is a good thing. The quality of life in America has been in decline for decades.

Say it with me: Gas the Chinks, Trade War now

>Trump imposes steal tariffs
>China Imposes Soybean Tariffs.
>Soybean farmers go out of business
>No more Soy products
>Soy Boys BTFO
>T-levels rise
>Men become men again
>The left never wins another election

Attached: 5c1.png (1920x1080, 2.8M)

>So what's the bigger picture here?
they're getting their paycheck from trump?

this

>Then why are people saying he will win? What's their logic?
Who are you hearing say that we are going to win? Most experts are not going to definitively tell you that we are going to win or lose, but they seem to be very concerned about our ability to come out on top. I think that the US is going to be damaged by this. China will probably be damaged by this as well. The real concern is if there is some sort of economic crisis in the near future, which there probably will be, possibly by the end of the year. If that happens then yeah, China will win in a relative sense even if they do not actually surpass the US economically. They are poised to come out relatively closer to parity with the United States after such an event, much as they did in 2008. The difference is that in 2008, the Chinese had been saving a lot of their money for a rainy day, and when everything went to shit they started spending all of that money like mad. Now there is a lot of debt in China, although they most certainly do not have the same debt issues that the US does.

trump wrote the book.

only someone as stupid as the media would doubt him, a guy who makes 550,000,000 a year.

Your libretarian, Ayn Rand bullshit about "no reason US needs to be a manufacturing nation" is pie-in-the-sky fucked up theory! There are basically four economic activities which create wealth- manufacturing, construction, extracting/processing minerals from the ground, and agriculture (which is the one of those four that leads to the least jobs per unit produced).

A nation cannot consume its way to prosperity- it must produce its way there. Name me one nation that has produced wealth for its mass of people with a strong industrial base.

Attached: 1520908271644.jpg (550x778, 151K)

Oh no, now there is no reason for the government to subsidize the (((corporate))) soy farmers who get rich through the crony capitalism. What a loss...

> OP says redpill me on X
The Great Faggotini stops reading there
> OP goes on to explain particular areas of inquiry
The Great Faggotini reports and sages cuz The Great Faggotini cant make an argument or comprehend the depth of OP entirely rational question.
you should be horsewhipped through the streets.
youre a fucking shill trying to sage & report any thread that offends your narrative
this isnt Model UN, nor is it your junior class council, and you arent the president of that council.
go fuck yourself sonny, you must be 18 or over to read this shit.

> implying he understands international commodity markets
> cant spell STEEL
> thinks soya production is for US consumption
> thinks there are any real farmers who grow soya outside the niche market for fresh organic small batch artisinal edamame
you dont know shit about agriculture, or commodity markets
the only thing that would put soya growing megacorps out of the soya business is if the subsidy gets cut or receives the same kind of tillage and market restraints as wheat, corn, and every other subsidized agriculture commodity.

China - 1.4 billion consumers
USA - 300 million consumers

yes, it's the US that has leverage in this case

Attached: 6bb32eaebfdd1e90d45f504da78ddaa4.jpg (600x485, 40K)

do you just type every buzzword that you read online?

Our 300 million consumers are, for the most part, well off.

half of theirs are subsistence farmers on the brink of starvation.

Who, tell me, will better tolerate an increase in goods?

Of developed countries, the US has the smallest percent of gdp coming from international trade. As compared to China whose economy is almost entirely dependent on trade with other countries.

Will we get hurt.. maybe. Will china, fuck yes.

> implying american working people are "consumers"
go back to your intro to marketing class faggot.
the only "consumers" in america are welfare queens, lobbyists and the politicians who support them both.
> china has billions of impoverished peasants who cant read, dont have running water much less electricity and still llive in the 1400s so they will win!
youre clinically retarded.
does your special needs minder know youre using her phone?

P R O P A G A N D A
to win back the rural retard boomer's votes. They won't apply them ever.

please tell me you are under 20, otherwise this idiocy is unacceptable

youre an idiot if you think rural america gives a wet shit about soya.
we dont eat soya
soya is grown exclusively for the subsidy thanks to it's nonexistant market and tillage restrictions
you can plant as much as you want, and rack up millions per annum in free money from the government, while still retaining the crops for sale to overseas markets who actually pay a little for this shit.
if the overseas market dries up the soya will be sold as animal feed, and the corps will STILL get paid since they turn a tidy profit just from the subsidy, the already pathetic market price is pure gravy.

the trade war is a smoke screen for the tax breaks . trump is going to play it up to cover his own ass as tax breaks cause more problems as time passes. market volume has been higher and while its not a great metric for the health of the economy its all most obama and trump supporters could point to and say everything is fine under the previous and current administration

This is the Chinese attitude

Attached: EF905C64-3E48-4DF3-AC1F-C565A1EE05A2.jpg (1125x1763, 477K)

Fascinating stuff, thanks user

you must be some kind of stupid chink

Oh look Chinese 5 cents gang using a proxy the thread.

"This board is for the discussion of news, world events, political issues, and other related topics.

Off-topic and /b/-tier threads will be deleted (and possibly earn you a ban, if you persist). Unless they are quality, well thought out, well written posts, the following are some examples of off-topic and/or /b/-tier threads:

>Red pill me on X. (with no extra content or input of your own) "

Ahhhem, Can't you read?

If you ask us for redpills, you have to add something to the conversation more than 'Drumf 2 scoops reee'

>(haASCwY/) 15 posts by this ID.
Okay. Since you're engaging, I'll tell you.

The Chinese economy is given unfair advantages, they are a massive industrial-economic state that is on paper (((WTO))) etc as being a 3rd world developing state.

The USA incurs massive losses propping up the Chinese, the current state of affairs benefits the Rich corporations of the USA and the Chinese.

The USA itself is being bled by these unfair practices.

Trump isn't starting a Trade war, all Trade is a form of warfare, it is the only kind of Warfare both sides can win.

The tariffs Trump is imposing would reshape the relationship harming ((((Monsanto))), The Affluent Chinese and other nefarious or non-American entities and interests.

Look how hard the WTO, MSM etc are REEEEEing.

Basically the USA has high tier, more skilled and specialized products that will sell in other markets, the Chinese have low tier mass produced goods that will sell in Affluent markets but are easily replaced, the need a massive consumerist economy to but their products and what is the biggest, most affluent consumerist state? USA.

The USA can cut the Chinese off and replace the goods the lost with ones made in Thailand,Mexico,Vietnam, Guatemala, Malaysia etc.

The Chinese can cut off the USA products but because they already tax and tariff American goods... The USA won't take as big of a hit because they can end up selling to others who don't tax and tariff.

Attached: 1523009627887.jpg (424x644, 67K)

Traitorous Dems making a mountain out of a molehill as usual. The US grows 3+X the amount in corn and is pretty much the sole supplier to many countries other than China. It's true that China buys up the bulk of US soybeans and other exports, but think about it: why is that? Could it be that they NEED to import more food than they can produce? Why don't they use all that land to grow more of their own food? That question can be answered by asking "What's wrong with most of their locally-grown foods?". And then you'd realize that they can't. At least, not without poisoning themselves and dying of cancer and organ failure before 40. They don't have enough unpolluted land to grow enough safe and edible foods. If they want to slap tariffs on US goods, they'll still need to buy them from somewhere else, which is pretty much just leaves South America and Europe. Most of SE Asia hates China and will try screw them over. Europe is just expensive to everyone. And South America? All are heavily invested and developed by US food companies (Del Monte, Chiquita, etc) and more dependent on US trade than China (closer=cheaper shipping). They will not get anywhere close to a good deal anywhere else.

On our side, this will hurt US farmers for the short term, but there are plenty of countries waiting to pick up the surplus with comparable discounts. US manufacturers might also run into supply issues, but it'll hurt China more if we stop buying from them (we are their top importer). The US still has a robust domestic manufacturing and natural resource industry to keep it going. We also have Mexico (for now) and most of SE Asia available and a low-cost mfg options. China is entirely dependent on exporting its mfg capabilities. Other countries like India and Bangladesh are already eating into the profits of their business model with their own sweatshops. Most notably, India hates China and will gladly pick up our orders for comparable cost. China will not win this one

OP is a 50 cent army gook looking for explanations because of mongoloid retardation

China has to pay more for soybeans, which they rely on US for during the Northern Hemisphere summer months. So they can convert their own farms to soybeans, which frees up US farms to produce food that is currently imported from other countries. Or, they try to buy up all soybeans from other countries, which frees up US farms to produce food that is imported from other countries. Or, they pay the increased prices, which brings money back to US, which will be used to pay off debt. Or, they starve their farm animals, resulting in a meat shortage, resulting in increased imports of meat from the rest of the world, including the US.

fpwp

China- 1.4 Billion people. Only some are consumers. The Average Chinese person, as of 2010 earns 3,000 per year.

America- 335 Million people Nearly ALL Consumers. Average American earns 50,000 per year.

50,000 X 335 Million 1.675e^13
3,000 X 1.5 Billion 4.52^12

Easy math, the average and collective American buying power exceeds the average and collective Chinese buying power by lightyears.

Attached: 1521525061650.png (680x638, 250K)

>There is no reason that the US needs to be a manufacturing nation
>Goods can be produced more cheaply in China than they can almost anywhere else
Jesus Christ, you are a commie. Do you understand what you are advocating?

If we are to survive we must restart our manufacturing base . The kick starter is cutting imports and creating US manufacturing .Trumps right We have to start now.

Attached: china 2.jpg (267x170, 15K)

this, being a service economy is a slow death

OP's post included the phrase "redpill me on..."
this is true, but the second codicil was met by OP asking SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, so your peevish whimpering is pointless and unwarranted.
> the rest of your post
not bad.
youre on point with this

Lift up anything in your home and check where it was made. I think the US has leverage here. Do you think the opposite is true of China? Do you think they have "made in USA" on everything? No.

>OP's post included the phrase "redpill me on..."
this is true, but the second codicil was met by OP asking SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, so your peevish whimpering is pointless and unwarranted.
I will not apologize, we have rules and traditions for a reason desu.

Newfags come here and don't read the rules or pic related...maybe instead of berating me, you should help keep our Namibian Ice Hockey Forum great...ish.

>not bad. youre on point with this
Thanks, I know. I read and think critically.

Attached: 1493993226750.jpg (1600x1131, 733K)

idiot

>idiot
As if his flag didn't tell us what we need to know.

chinas has the largest middle class on earth. yes, that's middle class by western standards

it's not the 1950s anymore retard?

the death isnt that slow.
"service economies" are doomed to fail.
that doom comes pretty quick in the modern marketplace.
look how fast the boom of the 50s and 60s became the malaise of the 70s, then the boom of the 80s became the stagflation of the 90s followed by the utter collapse of the 2000s.
15 years of moronic leftist inspired "service economy": bullshit put the nation on the fast track to the poor house, and less than 2 years of Trumpification, and we are ready to go toe-to-toe with the chicoms in a trade war
The God Emperor is guiding us into the glorious future.
will you march under his banner or get BLAMMed by the inquisitors for being a shameless cowardly heretic?

Attached: I_Smell_Heresy.jpg (1920x1080, 189K)