George Will

[Ponca Dan]

Yes, Trump lied as usual and he probably did more harm than good.

However, you didn't really answer what we're supposed to do if our businesses are trying to participate in a market that's being manipulated by a sovereign government. If the free market is out the window, why do you insist that American business still play by free market rules?

I’m sorry that I didn’t give a fuller answer than i did. I did point out that at the time American manufacturing and manufacturing jobs were as high as they have ever been. It was the older less technological manufacturing plants of the 50’s and 60’s that were taking the hit, and those jobs were not coming back, automation was eliminating them as fast as Chinese competition.

What Trump did was employ the age-old, never-fail political technique of creating a crisis in people’s minds and convince them he was the man to solve it, if only people would willingly relinquish a tiny portion of their individual sovereignty. The idea is to point out the enormous benefit government interference will bring at the price of a barely noticeable piece of liberty. It’s a political technique that seemingly works every time.

But forget that; you want to know how on earth a society of free people utilizing the creativity and exuberance of free market practices could possibly keep up with the staid snd stodgy dreariness that defines a command economy.

A command economy requires that most if not all decisions about production and distribution of necessities are made by a handful of bureaucrats instead of the millions of consumers for whom those necessities are intended. Even if the bureaucrats are well intentioned there is no way they can know all that needs to be known to satisfy consumer demand. It is much easier to provide only one or two options and tell the public “take it or leave it.” Inventiveness is simply unthinkable. No bureaucrat is going to stick his neck out to implement changes, it is too dangerous for his continued employment. And so the economy stagnates and brings the society down with it. All we have to do is visit every socialist country in human history to know that truth.

A free market OTOH is dynamic, inventive, creative, a madhouse of products and ways of producing old ones. It offends the sensibilities of command economy types. There’s no one in control, no one directing things. No bureaucrat gumming up the works. Someone with a new idea does not need permission to give it a try. To the command economy types it looks like terrifying utter chaos! Someone do something! Put some reins on that out of control monster!

But the thing is the out of control free market is what is necessary if progress is going to be made. The free market trumps a command economy with ease. Always has snd always will because free people are better than slaves.

The notion that China under the communist regime is a serious long term threat to an America that lives under a free market is pure foolishness. The people that insist on America becoming a command economy, from Donald Trump to AOC, are not putting us in a competitive position with China. They have no confidence in free markets or free people. They are baiting the public with fear, tricking us into thinking we must be like China if we’re going to beat China. As the general in Star Wars said: It’s a trap! Don’t fall for it.

So how do we “bring manufacturing back” even thiugh it never went anywhere? Get the hell out of the way. Step back and watch inventors and entrepreneurs and financiers do their unfettered thing. Expecting the government to implement China-like policies to get the better of China is foolishness deluxe.

 

[Syskatine]

But forget that; you want to know how on earth a society of free people utilizing the creativity and exuberance of free market practices could possibly keep up with the staid snd stodgy dreariness that defines a command economy.

A command economy requires that most if not all decisions about production and distribution of necessities are made by a handful of bureaucrats instead of the millions of consumers for whom those necessities are intended. Even if the bureaucrats are well intentioned there is no way they can know all that needs to be known to satisfy consumer demand. It is much easier to provide only one or two options and tell the public “take it or leave it.” Inventiveness is simply unthinkable. No bureaucrat is going to stick his neck out to implement changes, it is too dangerous for his continued employment. And so the economy stagnates and brings the society down with it. All we have to do is visit every socialist country in human history to know that truth.

China isn't a "command economy" like you're talking about, though.

You can't sell widgets internationally if someone takes your widget, ignores your patents and/or copyrights, reverse-engineers it, has slave labor manufacture it, and puts it on the shelf next to your widget at 1/3 the cost. What's the free market supposed to do? All you did is invent a widget and try to sell it and Chiney stole it.

 

[Ponca Dan]

China isn't a "command economy" like you're talking about, though.

You can't sell widgets internationally if someone takes your widget, ignores your patents and/or copyrights, reverse-engineers it, has slave labor manufacture it, and puts it on the shelf next to your widget at 1/3 the cost. What's the free market supposed to do? All you did is invent a widget and try to sell it and Chiney stole it.

Exactly. The command economy of China was so static it couldn’t even conceive how to make a widget, they had to steal it. The appropriate response would be to bring them to justice via the WTO, and make American companies aware that China will steal from them. The inappropriate response would be to adopt China’s strategy of becoming a command economy.

I have pointed this out before, but allow me one more time. Sunburnt Indian has told us the Asian IQ is significantly higher than America's. There are about 4 times more Chinese than Americans. It would be logical to deduce, therefore, that China has 4 times more “geniuses” than America. And yet with a 4/fold advantage China needed to steal technology from America. Why? I argue it is because of China’s archaic stagnant command economy.

 

[Syskatine]

Exactly. The command economy of China was so static it couldn’t even conceive how to make a widget, they had to steal it. The appropriate response would be to bring them to justice via the WTO, and make American companies aware that China will steal from them. The inappropriate response would be to adopt China’s strategy of becoming a command economy.

I have pointed this out before, but allow me one more time. Sunburnt Indian has told us the Asian IQ is significantly higher than America's. There are about 4 times more Chinese than Americans. It would be logical to deduce, therefore, that China has 4 times more “geniuses” than America. And yet with a 4/fold advantage China needed to steal technology from America. Why? I argue it is because of China’s archaic stagnant command economy.

Because they're homogenous and value conformity, and we value creativity and individuality. The world's best and brightest wanna come here. You never see the world's brightest say, "I wanna go live the Chinese dream."

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but it's still an uneven deck. They have achieved pretty remarkable economic status in some part by simply stealing technology and economy from us.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Dan you wrote a lot of things again I which I would agree and disagree.

I think where we are different on this is that you are lumping tariffs into a all encompassing has to be a command economy. I don't think that is realistic. History tells us that we can have a wide open economy and still have tariffs. The US's most prosperous and innovative time frame ever was over 100 years ago and had very little regulation but what they did have were tariffs. In fact the US government used to fund a large majority of its government off those tariffs. This left most Americans with little taxes that had to be paid. While the tariff costs are past on to the consumer it did have the intended effect of keeping American products as the first to be bought off the shelf. The US limited competition by foreign powers while leaving competition alone inside the US. I don't draw a straight line to command economy through tariffs.

If you want a free trade zone then allow participants to all be free trade or don't bother. The countries who are not free trade can take advantage of the free trade economy by artificially changing wages, prices, and supply. It is like having to compete with a monopoly which is the other end of that scale. (I would argue that monopolies are not capitalistic, no competition). If you want free trade then having 80% of your home being made in China would not be working in that direction as China is your command economy you fear.

If we are manufacturing more today than ever before then where are the products? Where are the factories? Where are the jobs? Even if there are more robotic factories the robots need to be maintained. That would equate to human workers and robots can't do all the work. So I find the idea that we are manufacturing more than ever to be disingenuous at best. Even if I conceded that point relativity would have to come into play. For example what percent of the economy is manufacturing? You can make statistics say whatever you like. I will follow my eyes and what I see on every product is made in China.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Dan you wrote a lot of things again I which I would agree and disagree.

I think where we are different on this is that you are lumping tariffs into a all encompassing has to be a command economy. I don't think that is realistic. History tells us that we can have a wide open economy and still have tariffs. The US's most prosperous and innovative time frame ever was over 100 years ago and had very little regulation but what they did have were tariffs. In fact the US government used to fund a large majority of its government off those tariffs. This left most Americans with little taxes that had to be paid. While the tariff costs are past on to the consumer it did have the intended effect of keeping American products as the first to be bought off the shelf. The US limited competition by foreign powers while leaving competition alone inside the US. I don't draw a straight line to command economy through tariffs.

If you want a free trade zone then allow participants to all be free trade or don't bother. The countries who are not free trade can take advantage of the free trade economy by artificially changing wages, prices, and supply. It is like having to compete with a monopoly which is the other end of that scale. (I would argue that monopolies are not capitalistic, no competition). If you want free trade then having 80% of your home being made in China would not be working in that direction as China is your command economy you fear.

If we are manufacturing more today than ever before then where are the products? Where are the factories? Where are the jobs? Even if there are more robotic factories the robots need to be maintained. That would equate to human workers and robots can't do all the work. So I find the idea that we are manufacturing more than ever to be disingenuous at best. Even if I conceded that point relativity would have to come into play. For example what percent of the economy is manufacturing? You can make statistics say whatever you like. I will follow my eyes and what I see on every product is made in China.

I’ll try to get to a reply later. But in the meantime there’s this:

Straightforward Facts About the American Economy

The American economy will continue to improve only if markets are left sufficiently free to overwhelm the innumerable obstructions, diktats, and other burdens that governments, at all levels, inflict on us as we attempt to peacefully pursue our commercial and household affairs.

www.aier.org

 

[Syskatine]

I would argue that monopolies are not capitalistic, no competition).

A monopoly is quintessential capitalism in its purest form.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

A monopoly is quintessential capitalism in its purest form.

Yeah. That’s what marxists like to say.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Because they're homogenous and value conformity, and we value creativity and individuality. The world's best and brightest wanna come here. You never see the world's brightest say, "I wanna go live the Chinese dream."

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but it's still an uneven deck. They have achieved pretty remarkable economic status in some part by simply stealing technology and economy from us.

What you are failing to understand is it’s an uneven deck stacked in our favor. China has to steal to gain a foothold. The correct reaction is to take steps to make them stop stealing. It is a gigantic mistake to try to become like them. The economic system that makes them have to steal is part and parcel of the same system that destroys liberty, the primary ingredient in human progress. What’s the saying? You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater..

 

[Syskatine]

What you are failing to understand is it’s an uneven deck stacked in our favor. China has to steal to gain a foothold. The correct reaction is to take steps to make them stop stealing. It is a gigantic mistake to try to become like them. The economic system that makes them have to steal is part and parcel of the same system that destroys liberty, the primary ingredient in human progress. What’s the saying? You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater..

Oh, I agree with all that. I think we disagree on the "steps to make them stop stealing." It appears they're such extreme, authoritarian, sociopathic, control freak country that I think stealing will probably be the least of it before it's over. They're a hot mess. I don't think that it's fair to expect american businesses to operate as a free market participant against an entire nation that rigs the business. I don't know the solution, they're impossible to deal with from everything I've heard. They steal every bit of technology they can get their hands on. The american business community is so damned greedy they keep giving it to them. I have a buddy and client that was bitching about his company's dies disappearing over there, and then knock offs showed up 6 months later. I asked why they would take them over there and he said the labor's so cheap you don't have a choice. I asked what would happen if they didn't and he said their competitors would price them out in an instant.

The only practical, obvious solution I see is not allow american businesses to trade with them. Thats a non-starter. I don't know what you do.

 

[Ponca Dan]

A monopoly is quintessential capitalism in its purest form.

There are only two ways anyone can create a monopoly, and one of them is virtually impossible.

The first way, the old fashioned way, is to have enough connection with government authorities that they will create roadblocks to prevent anyone else from going into competition with you. That’s the “State Capitalist” way, the fascist way.

The second way, the nearly impossible way, is to create a product with such efficiency and quality that you can sell it at a price where there can be no competition. There are two factors in play that make it nearly impossible to achieve. First, price is the means by which the consumer knows how much of the product is available. The higher the price the less of the product there is. There are very few products in which there are no alternatives. If a free market monopolist tries to gouge the consumer those alternatived become more attractive. Which is closely related to the second factor, something known as “potential competition.” If the free market monopolist wants to maintain his monopoly he has to be very aware that if he prices his product too high there will be plenty of aspiring entrepreneurs more than willing to try their hand at it.

The first type of monopoly, the government mandated and enforced monopoly is every bit as evil as you suppose. The second type is not evil, and in fact is the hoped-for enticement that drives innovation and progress.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Oh, I agree with all that. I think we disagree on the "steps to make them stop stealing." It appears they're such extreme, authoritarian, sociopathic, control freak country that I think stealing will probably be the least of it before it's over. They're a hot mess. I don't think that it's fair to expect american businesses to operate as a free market participant against an entire nation that rigs the business. I don't know the solution, they're impossible to deal with from everything I've heard. They steal every bit of technology they can get their hands on. The american business community is so damned greedy they keep giving it to them. I have a buddy and client that was bitching about his company's dies disappearing over there, and then knock offs showed up 6 months later. I asked why they would take them over there and he said the labor's so cheap you don't have a choice. I asked what would happen if they didn't and he said their competitors would price them out in an instant.

The only practical, obvious solution I see is not allow american businesses to trade with them. Thats a non-starter. I don't know what you do.

I’ve brought this up on this board before. China made economic progress only when it relaxed and reformed its economy snd started allowing private property. Once it did that it virtually prostrated itself before the WTO begging to be allowed to join. The only leverage the world has over China is via the WTO. What China has done to America it has done to the other WTO members. But the lust for access to 1.3 billion potential buyers has so clouded corporations’ judgement they have overlooked the transgressions out of fear of losing that access. The Trump administration looked upon the WTO with utter disdain, preferring the tariff/trade war method, which has failed miserably. The rare times the WTO clamped down and told China to stop or lose their membership China began to toe the line. IMO the best thing America could do is put in the very difficult diplomatic legwork to convince enough other members to tell the WTO to either start enforcing the bylaws or they will leave and form a new organization that will. Maybe corporations don’t want to lose access to all those Chinese consumers, but neither does China want to lose its “favored nation” status or access to the 2-3 billion consumers that are not Chinese.

America does not have to turn its back on freedom and free markets on account of China. The free market has many more arrows in its quiver than does a command economy.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

A monopoly is quintessential capitalism in its purest form.

Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.

While you do have some elements of capitalism (the pursuit of wealth, which can be done under any system), Monopolies leave leave the market with no ability to negotiate wages, and rarely recognized property rights outside the monopoly. Additionally the lack of competition makes it more dictatorial, and than anything else. I know you want people to believe this, but monopolies are anything but capitalistic in nature.

 

[Syskatine]

Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.

While you do have some elements of capitalism (the pursuit of wealth, which can be done under any system), Monopolies leave leave the market with no ability to negotiate wages, and rarely recognized property rights outside the monopoly. Additionally the lack of competition makes it more dictatorial, and than anything else. I know you want people to believe this, but monopolies are anything but capitalistic in nature.

Monopoly = someone won the competition. That's the ultimate goal of capitalistic competition, isn't it? To win? Defeat your competition?

I agree with a lot of that, and we're arguing semantics, but monopolies happen in unregulated capitalism. It's as natural to capitalism as fleas to a dog. Dominant competitors dominate. It's the same dynamic from ants to sports to tech companies. I think people want to reflexively defend capitalism, which is fine, but when something bad comes out of capitalism (cancer-causing M&M's, or exploding Ford Pintos, or Bernie Madoff) people say, "OH, that's not capitalism!" Yeah, it's capitalism, it's just bad or "too much" capitalism.

This sounds like a pretty good definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Nothing in that definition excludes dominant market participants exerting pricing pressure or demanding strict terms. Saying "lack of true competition" is not capitalism throws a lot of successful capitalistic enterprises out of capitalism.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Monopoly = someone won the competition. That's the ultimate goal of capitalistic competition, isn't it? To win? Defeat your competition?

I agree with a lot of that, and we're arguing semantics, but monopolies happen in unregulated capitalism. It's as natural to capitalism as fleas to a dog. Dominant competitors dominate. It's the same dynamic from ants to sports to tech companies. I think people want to reflexively defend capitalism, which is fine, but when something bad comes out of capitalism (cancer-causing M&M's, or exploding Ford Pintos, or Bernie Madoff) people say, "OH, that's not capitalism!" Yeah, it's capitalism, it's just bad or "too much" capitalism.

This sounds like a pretty good definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Nothing in that definition excludes dominant market participants exerting pricing pressure or demanding strict terms. Saying "lack of true competition" is not capitalism throws a lot of successful capitalistic enterprises out of capitalism.

I think you are not understanding the importance of price or its value in determining the degree of competition it plays in a free market. Price is the mechanism by which the customer and the potential competitor can determine the scarcity of a product. The influence of competition or potential competition in a non-government induced monopoly is what keeps a free market monopoly from gouging the public.

 

[Syskatine]

The influence of competition or potential competition in a non-government induced monopoly is what keeps a free market monopoly from gouging the public.

I sure don't understand that. Monopolies gouge. It's one of the main reasons we don't like monopolies.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Monopoly = someone won the competition. That's the ultimate goal of capitalistic competition, isn't it? To win? Defeat your competition?

I agree with a lot of that, and we're arguing semantics, but monopolies happen in unregulated capitalism. It's as natural to capitalism as fleas to a dog. Dominant competitors dominate. It's the same dynamic from ants to sports to tech companies. I think people want to reflexively defend capitalism, which is fine, but when something bad comes out of capitalism (cancer-causing M&M's, or exploding Ford Pintos, or Bernie Madoff) people say, "OH, that's not capitalism!" Yeah, it's capitalism, it's just bad or "too much" capitalism.

This sounds like a pretty good definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Nothing in that definition excludes dominant market participants exerting pricing pressure or demanding strict terms. Saying "lack of true competition" is not capitalism throws a lot of successful capitalistic enterprises out of capitalism.

No the ultimate goal is not to defeat your competition but to win the fights. Capitalism would recognize that without the other guy to compete against it would destroy competition. Think of a monopoly as the NFL. The Dallas cowboys destroy all of their competition. Who would they then get to play? It's the competition that makes the engines of capitalism work, and when you don't have it nothing happens.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I sure don't understand that. Monopolies gouge. It's one of the main reasons we don't like monopolies.

Yes, you clearly do not understand. The only monopoly that can gouge is one in which no competitor is allowed. That is only possible if government intervenes and bans all competition. A free market monopoly, to the extent that it can exist, enjoys no such luxury. It can only remain a monopoly so long as it keeps its price in line with market value. As soon as it attempts to gouge competition springs into action because it sees an opening. A monopoly in a free market cannot gouge for long because competition is not forbidden.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Here is GeorgeWillkatine’s original anti Trump article. It is well-written, but completely devoid of substance. I can see why Dan likes it. The only evidence he gives of Trump not being a conservative is as follows:

“Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states — condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life.”

Translation: REEEE!! I DON’T LIKE HIS MEAN TWEETS!!!!!

Fcuk your “manners and grace”. Fcuk your “civil discourse” with your “liberal friends” on the DC cocktail circuit. And fcuk you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-trump-is-nominated-the-gop-must-keep-him-out-of-the-white-house/2016/04/29/293f7f94-0d9d-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

PS. If the GOP had followed Willkatwat’s advice, the Supreme Court would be 7-2 liberal.

 

[Syskatine]

No the ultimate goal is not to defeat your competition but to win the fights. Capitalism would recognize that without the other guy to compete against it would destroy competition. Think of a monopoly as the NFL. The Dallas cowboys destroy all of their competition. Who would they then get to play? It's the competition that makes the engines of capitalism work, and when you don't have it nothing happens.

Well, the NFL kind of is a monoploy of orodessional football. It destroyed their competitors, the AFL, WFL, and USFL. The monopoly analysis kind of breaks the other way, imo. Dallas is only a monopoly in regard to professional football franchises in Dallas I would think. Good luck starting a pro football team in dallas.

 

[Syskatine]

Yes, you clearly do not understand. The only monopoly that can gouge is one in which no competitor is allowed. That is only possible if government intervenes and bans all competition. A free market monopoly, to the extent that it can exist, enjoys no such luxury. It can only remain a monopoly so long as it keeps its price in line with market value. As soon as it attempts to gouge competition springs into action because it sees an opening. A monopoly in a free market cannot gouge for long because competition is not forbidden.

That's fantasy. The whole point of monopolizing an industry is to make more money because you've cornered the market. Come on, Dan.

 

[Ponca Dan]

That's fantasy. The whole point of monopolizing an industry is to make more money because you've cornered the market. Come on, Dan.

I've tried several times to explain the role competition plays in a free market and that it makes it almost impossible to gain a monopoly and even harder to maintain one because of the threat of competition. If you still don’t get it there’s nothing more I can say about it.

 

[2012Bearcat]

The mistake people made when they bought into Trump’s lie (well, really it was Peter Navarro’s lie) that American manufacturing was being devastated by Chinese encroachment was manufacturing in America was at or near an all-time high. Trump listened to Navarro because Navarro told him what he wanted to hear. Economies and markets, at least free markets, are incredibly fluid like shifting sands at the beach. The manufacturing jobs that were taking a hit from Chinese competition were old-time 50’s and 60’s jobs best suited for emerging markets, things like steel manufacturing, for instance. Trump latched onto Navarro’s thoroughly debunked theories because it let him look like a white knight to disgruntled rust belt union workers, men who helped push him to victory. He promised his tariffs would bring those jobs back. But in reality those jobs were doomed because of automation and the economic fact that China held a comparative advantage over America because it has a billion workers willing to do rote backbreaking work for considerably less pay. As is the case every time with command economies (the tariffs are a perfect example of a command economy) the initial results looked great but eventually turned into crap. Free market economists like Donald Boudreaux told Trump exactly what would happen, and when things turned south on him in typical narcissistic belligerent fashion Trump doubled down on his mistake. The. pandemic came at the perfect time for Navarro to deflect blame to it.

But far more important than that - far more important - is we’re supposed to be a free society that honors private ownership of the means of production. The owners of that which gets manufactured are the ones who get to decide where it get manufactured. The attempt to unilaterally impose tariffs is a “big government” tactic that flies in the face of private ownership to the same degree as Bernie Sanders’ socialism. So IMO Trump’s trade war is just as despicable as AOC’s Green New Deal.

What has always confused me about your position on tariffs is you are perfectly fine with China placing tariffs on US goods but are firmly against the US doing the same to Chinese goods. Something tells me you have personal interest that is driving your position.

 

[Ponca Dan]

What has always confused me about your position on tariffs is you are perfectly fine with China placing tariffs on US goods but are firmly against the US doing the same to Chinese goods. Something tells me you have personal interest that is driving your position.

Where on earth did you get the idea I’m fine with China (or anybody else) putting tariffs on American goods? Tariffs are an abomination regardless of who imposes them.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Where on earth did you get the idea I’m fine with China (or anybody else) putting tariffs on American goods? Tariffs are an abomination regardless of who imposes them.

Just my perception as you never condemn China or the tariffs they have placed on US goods.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Just my perception as you never condemn China or the tariffs they have placed on US goods.

It may have seemed that way because China imposed tariffs on American agricultural goods in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs, and I repeatedly pointed out that Trump’s tariffs led to great harm to American farmers because of the retaliation. So forgive me for giving a false impression.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Well, the NFL kind of is a monoploy of orodessional football. It destroyed their competitors, the AFL, WFL, and USFL. The monopoly analysis kind of breaks the other way, imo. Dallas is only a monopoly in regard to professional football franchises in Dallas I would think. Good luck starting a pro football team in dallas.

I don't think you understood the analogy I was using. I'll try this one more time and then I'm done. The Dallas cowboys are the only football franchise left. No other franchise exists as the cowboys haves destroyed them not on the field, but as organizations. Who do they have left to play? Answer there is no one left to play, and they have worked their way out of business. Especially for them, competition is needed just to exist.

 

[2012Bearcat]

It may have seemed that way because China imposed tariffs on American agricultural goods in retaliation for Trump’s tariffs, and I repeatedly pointed out that Trump’s tariffs led to great harm to American farmers because of the retaliation. So forgive me for giving a false impression.

China has imposed tariffs on American goods for decades. They didn't just start when Trump placed tariffs on theirs.

 

[Ponca Dan]

China has imposed tariffs on American goods for decades. They didn't just start when Trump placed tariffs on theirs.

What goods were the tariffs on? How much were the they for? I’m not arguing with you, I just thought you might know.

 

[2012Bearcat]

What goods were the tariffs on? How much were the they for? I’m not arguing with you, I just thought you might know.

I've been trying to find an article for you but it seems Google doesn't want that information known. I for sure know that the Chinese placed a 25% tariff on US natural gas imports.