The Biden Economy

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Two years ago, President Donald Trump signed what he called a "historical trade deal" with China that committed China to purchase $200 billion of additional US exports before December 31, 2021. Today the only undisputed "historical" aspect of that agreement is its failure. One lesson is not to make deals that cannot be fulfilled when unforeseen events inevitably occur—in this case, a pandemic and a recession. Another is not to forget the complementary policies needed to give an agreement a chance to succeed.

In the end, China bought only 58 percent of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war. Put differently, China bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump's deal had promised.
[/I]
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-...s-trumps-trade

Of course that was the outcome, and its explained right within the article you posted:

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic undermined any chance of success. Public health–related lockdowns and a short economic recession were accompanied by a temporary collapse in goods trade globally, even if China's imports were mostly spared. Restrictions on mobility also decimated US services exports like tourism and business travel.

Almost 2 years after Trump left office, Biden is still blaming the troubles of the world's economy on the pandemic and "Putin's War".

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Of course that was the outcome, and its explained right within the article you posted:

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic undermined any chance of success. Public health–related lockdowns and a short economic recession were accompanied by a temporary collapse in goods trade globally, even if China's imports were mostly spared. Restrictions on mobility also decimated US services exports like tourism and business travel.

Almost 2 years after Trump left office, Biden is still blaming the troubles of the world's economy on the pandemic and "Putin's War".

The Peterson Institute is not Biden. Secondly, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have definitely had severe economic consequences. Thirdly, the bottom line is that Trump's protectionism vis-a-vis China was a failure.

Pro tip: Your alternative facts aren't really facts at all.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The Peterson Institute is not Biden. Secondly, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have definitely had severe economic consequences. Thirdly, the bottom line is that Trump's protectionism vis-a-vis China was a failure.

I'm not sure how an agreement to get China to increase US imports is "protectionism".

Pro tip: You're right. Biden is President, the leader of the Dem party, and is currently responsible for China policy. And the tariffs imposed by Trump on China are still in place under the Biden admin.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not sure how an agreement to get China to increase US imports is "protectionism".

Pro tip: You're right. Biden is President, the leader of the Dem party, and is currently responsible for China policy. And the tariffs imposed by Trump on China are still in place under the Biden admin.

Trump's "trade deal" was the result of two years of failure of Trump's protectionist tariff policies. Unfortunately, one cannot unwind Trump's stupid policies with the snap of the fingers. The Biden administration is trying to get China to follow through with its commitments under the agreement, but it's admittedly difficult to get anyone to follow through on a flawed agreement.

The bottom line - Your assertion that Trump's China trade policy was successful and included "getting China to agree to increase US imports" is bullshit. They may have "agreed," but its actions were demonstrably the opposite. IOW, Trump promised something and again didn't deliver - the story of his life. I guess this is what happens when Trump chose Peter Navarro as his trade advisor based upon Jared Kushner browsing book titles on Amazon.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...tually-deliver

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Trump's "trade deal" was the result of two years of failure of Trump's protectionist tariff policies. Unfortunately, one cannot unwind Trump's stupid policies with the snap of the fingers. The Biden administration is trying to get China to follow through with its commitments under the agreement, but it's admittedly difficult to get anyone to follow through on a flawed agreement.

The bottom line - Your assertion that Trump's China trade policy was successful and included "getting China to agree to increase US imports" is bullshit. They may have "agreed," but its actions were demonstrably the opposite. IOW, Trump promised something and again didn't deliver - the story of his life. I guess this is what happens when Trump chose Peter Navarro as his trade advisor based upon Jared Kushner browsing book titles on Amazon.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...tually-deliver

You can call bullshit on whatever you want. Two major facts:

- Trump was successful in getting China an agreement to increase imports.
- The long-term impact of this agreement cannot be determined due to COVID.

In terms of your "snap of the fingers" comment, in point of fact, that's what the Biden admin did back in May 2022 when they reinstated tariffs on over 350 of the items, and made the reinstatements retro to Oct 2021.

Further, there's a bipartisan sentiment that the Biden admin didn't go far enough when they reinstated only some tariffs and not others.

October’s announcement to restart an exclusion process for a limited number of expired tariff exclusions is an important first step to help workers in industries that have limited, if any, alternative sourcing options as they continue to struggle through the pandemic and supply chain disruptions. That process, however, is too narrow, opening only 1 percent of the original exclusion applications for reconsideration. Expanding this process to more products is especially important given the significant challenges with
transparency and procedure in the original exclusion process, as the Government Accountability Office found in its July 2021 report to Congress.

This is because the geopolitical challenges presented by China have not changed.

So if the tariffs on China were a failure, why did Biden reinstate some, and why are members of Congress on both sides of the aisle requesting the reinstatement of many more?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You can call bullshit on whatever you want. Two major facts:

- Trump was successful in getting China an agreement to increase imports.
- The long-term impact of this agreement cannot be determined due to COVID.

So, COVID impacted the China trade agreement and continues to do so.

Almost 2 years after Trump left office, Biden is still blaming the troubles of the world's economy on the pandemic and "Putin's War".

And simultaneously, you cast doubt on whether COVID has been responsible for the current state of Biden's economy.

Which is it? It only negatively impacts the effects of Trump's economic policies while not impacting those of Biden's? More disingenuous claptrap from our reflexive defender of all things Trump.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, COVID impacted the China trade agreement and continues to do so.

Originally Posted by finnbow

And simultaneously, you cast doubt on whether COVID has been responsible for the current state of Biden's economy.

Which is it? It only negatively impacts the effects of Trump's economic policies while not impacting those of Biden's? More disingenuous claptrap from our reflexive defender of all things Trump.

It's only disingenuous if you're only capable of only looking at one thing at a time, or are incapable of navigating around your own preconceptions.

I've posted about this before.

1) Shutting down 1/2 of the economy for months - without a doubt - creates inflationary pressures because fewer goods and services were produced during that time. Demand lessened for some of those goods and services as well, but not enough to overcome the lack of supply. Many health experts - example here - now believe that the lockdowns were not effective. Were lockdowns a scientific response ("follow the science") or a political response? I think some of both. Quarantining is a "go-to" method for controlling the spread of disease, but the evidence was mounting pretty early on that lockdowns were not very effective in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Yet, few elected officials were willing to abandon them. Those that did were pillared in the media. What started out as a "follow the science" response morphed into politics as usual. Thus, lockdown impacts on supply - particularly in places where they were extended due to political considerations - were ultimately political decisions and not a "result of COVID".

2) Supply chain bottleneck also produced inflationary pressures, but...

3) Once the effects of the pandemic lessened, though, demand rebounded in a BIG way. According to the NY Times/NY Fed, it is THE biggest driver of inflation.

Supply shocks — which include shortages of workers, raw materials and shipping containers needed to produce and move goods globally — accounted for the remaining 40 percent of inflation in the model, with 58 of 66 industrial sectors that the research identified experiencing supply constraints.

The researchers concluded that, without supply bottlenecks, inflation in the United States would have been 6 percent at the end of 2021, instead of 9 percent. The research finds that demand shocks played a larger role in explaining inflation in the United States, whereas supply chain bottlenecks have done more to fuel inflation in Europe.

3) Included in and underlying the inflationary numbers is the cost of energy. Gotta say it: the Biden administration set about immediately put downward pressure on supply in January 2021, including pulling the plug on the Keystone pipeline, halting any new oil and gas leases on public lands, begining a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development(a.k.a. bury them under additional red tape), restricting additional public lands accessible for exploration, etc.). Oil prices have been all over the place in the last 50 years (with price volatility correlating with the first Arab Oil Embargo in '67). Historic inflation for energy has been around 4.6%. Starting in 2017 there was a lowering of the energy price inflation trend, but that was immediately and significantly reversed starting in 2021.

4) Shortage of workers. Both Trump and Biden share this one. Paying individuals not to work during the pandemic decreases the supply of workers, increased the cost of production, and curbed supply. All of these impacted the overall inflation picture.

So, yes, if you want to inflate the cost of everything, reduce energy supply and make the cost of producing goods and services higher. Then impose lockdowns during a pandemic, and then extend them due to political expediency when evidence of their ineffectiveness would suggest another course of action. And, in the process of locking folks down and shutting down a huge chunk of the economy, pay people to not work and keep paying them even when unemployment numbers are relatively high (as late as Sept 2021, and the Biden admin suggested that states could use Federal COVID relief funds to extend enhanced unemployment benefits beyond that).

Some COVID-19 is involved, sure. But the outsized impact of questionable political decisions plays a much larger role.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I guess this is what happens when Trump chose Peter Navarro as his trade advisor based upon Jared Kushner browsing book titles on Amazon.

Do you actually read what you post? Kushner is mentioned nowhere in the article you linked to.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Do you actually read what you post? Kushner is mentioned nowhere in the article you linked to.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/75955...ming-trade-war