The Biden Economy

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Can't deny I like, and still do, reversing the trend of outsourcing manufacturing outside the US. I can't deny that there were some early successes with it under Trump, including getting China to agree to increase US imports. If, in your narrow view, it means that I was "enthralled" - using the most expansive definition of that word ever conceived - I guess I was.

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.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-...s-trumps-trade

Donald Trump’s tariffs and the trade war his administration launched against China turned out to be far more damaging than many believed. That is the conclusion of research finding companies, consumers and the U.S. economy paid a heavy price for the Trump administration’s protectionist trade policies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuarta...h=54fcdc0565bd

It seems Trump's efforts were about as successful as Trump University and his charitable foundation.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Mark B

If pressure is felt by business it's self-imposed. Have you read the Chips Act?

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/serv...1-493822686BCB

Mark -

My question refers to two different threads: this one and the one linked in another post above. That thread was about the prior administrations' success or failure in enticing businesses to keep/return manufacturing in the US. The effort was not linked to a specific bill and did not target a specific industry like the CHIPS Act.

I'm not being specifically critical of the CHIPs ACT. I'm wondering why Democrats, who are typically not in favor of "corporate welfare" are now in favor of it.

It's not just the CHIPs act either. The infrastructure bill that was passed earlier (i.e., government funds flowing to broadband service providers), and the recent so-called Inflation Reduction Act (i.e, $1.5 B to the oil and gas industry), all contain what used to be called "corporate welfare".

Just curious about what has brought about this significant course change for Dems on government funds flowing to private businesses?

[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

I'm not being specifically critical of the CHIPs ACT. I'm wondering why Democrats, who are typically not in favor of "corporate welfare" are now in favor of it.

Both parties do it, but the recipients of government largess often differ depending upon which political party bestows it and Democrats are generally more skeptical about the estimated economic benefits claimed by proponents of such largess. Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), backed by Donald Trump, clearly demonstrated that he wasn't skeptical enough in giving away the farm with his Foxconn deal.

[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?

[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