[shantly]

Drops demand for same items, hurting the producers and the countries they're based in, while maybe also diverting consumer money to domestic alternatives (or at least other countries that aren't quite so tariff'd). Right?

Not siding with the tariffs, but that's the idea, no?

[lettergram]

That’s actually what happens when tariffs are imposed yes.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

The only thing we can be certain of, when tariffs are imposed, is that the price of those goods / services go up.

[corodra]

I'm no expert, but I'd assume it's to make good on other trade negotiations the public isn't privy to. In regards to the like of the extra $9b free up for US exporters to Japan, mostly ag. Complete and utter hidden... on the front page of the ustr.gov site. Takes a real investigative journalist expert to find. I mean, who would ever look on the same site on China trade deals to find negotiations opening up with other countries...

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-s...

Hurting Scotch means a better chance for the Japanese whiskey market in the USA. Total random speculation on that. There are lots of other products without Japanese replacement. Especially since scotch is really one of the smallest mattering products in that list. Parmesan, I argue, is a far bigger deal and we'll see that effect more. At least for me.

But, to be fair, after looking into trade relations for a while, Trump isn't as insane as CNN and BBC makes him out to be. I don't understand why everyone makes it seem like he's throwing dice and making decisions in a bubble. I'm starting to think he's making short term pains for long term gains. Which, to be honest, is the thing we should always be doing. Losing in the short term for mid to long term gains is not insane, stupid or crazy. Just... you know, sucks for a while.

On top of that, everyone seems to be a trade-deal expert suddenly because they've obviously negotiated with foreign govs all the time. I'm not and don't claim to be like others on HN and reddit. I just see there's more going on than just China and things don't look as one sided as it's being made out to be. But then again, BBC and CNN, and social media agreed, thought China would dump $1+ trillion in US bonds for pennies on the dollar and lose out on the loan leveraging they get to "punish the US"...by bankrupting themselves? Which never happened anyways. Such great "economic experts" who can't figure out supply/demand market dynamics taught in macro econ 101 textbooks. Same folks are commenting on the trade war. So whatever...

[wahern]

> But then again, BBC and CNN, and social media agreed, thought China would dump $1+ trillion in US bonds for pennies on the dollar and lose out on the loan leveraging they get to "punish the US"...by bankrupting themselves? Which never happened anyways.

There's plenty of hyperbole out there, but hyperbole doesn't negate reality. China is buying fewer treasury bonds, and this is one reason why the bottom fell out of the market for purchasing U.S. treasury bonds, requiring Federal Reserve intervention. It's one, small reason, but it will become increasingly more important as Chinese purchases drop while U.S. deficits continue their upward climb.

The reason you know Trump isn't crazy like a fox is because his policies are inconsistent and erratic. Demanding your investment managers to buy high, sell low doesn't make you Warren Buffett. Starting a trade war with the expectation that the other guy will flinch before you doesn't make you a cunning strategist; it just makes you dangerous.

[corodra]

I dont know, maybe the baby bird needs to be pushed out of the nest too. It's a good way to quit relying on one large source for the bond market. That's inherently unsustainable. Every service provider knows your biggest customer is your riskiest one. If they leave, it hurts. Thus, speed that up in a controllable manner. A few broken eggs sure, but you still keep the hens and the hen house.

[wahern]

"Starve the beast" has been the Republican strategy for decades to kill entitlements. The thinking was that by refusing to raise enough revenue to cover spending, Congress would be politically forced to reduce spending. Of course, what happened and continues to happen is that revenues drop, spending stays the same or grows, and the gap is covered using increasing amounts of debt.

If you're suggesting that the pain of losing Chinese money will force the U.S. to reduce its deficits, that has manifestly not been the case for decades. For treasuries, instead what will happen is exactly what we've seen happen the past few weeks--something or someone will fill the gap before the whole house of cards collapses, which will sustain the status quo but ultimately put us on a more perilous path.

You can't bluff and cajole your way to smarter fiscal and industrial policy. Republicans have tried that and failed because it turns out you can't avoid making hard, considered decisions; nor avoid compromise. There's no avoiding the fundamental dynamics at play, which are complex and merciless. Entitlements exist for a reason. Trade with China exists for a reason. You can't address those things without addressing the underlying reasons they exist. Doubling and tripling down on a failed strategy with the world's worst bluffer isn't going to work any better.

[corodra]

First of, all politicians are greedy, lazy self interested assholes incapable of actually accomplishing anything of real substance of their own two hands. They just have different flavors of bullshit. So you pretending that just blame Republicans and the world is a better place, yea, ok. Its worked out so well for govs in history to blame another party and declare all politics should be based on ours. It's already a waste of an argument.

That and you put the cart before the horse. It's always been to cut spending first so rev wouldn't need to increase.

[phs318u]

In theory yes, however you have now possibly hurt foreign consumers of your products such that even in the absence of formal retaliatory tariffs, you may have harmed your export market.