Trump should impose a 100% tarriff on Chinese Goods before he leaves

[Pick Up the Phone]

As for Europe , well the choice would reveal who they are . Do they really care about individual freedom cause if they choose China they will prove they don’t and I think in that case we would have all the right in the world to make sure Europe suffers massive consequences for that decision.

First, most Europeans think that the U.S. conception of ‘individual freedom’ in general and ‘freedom of speech’ in particular is batsh*t crazy. And they have little interest to sacrifice their economy for it.

Second, unilateralism is bad. Always. If you want to succeed, you have to use the existing structures of international diplomacy and present a reasonable and serious argument. “China is an enemy and we need to punish them!” is neither reasonable nor serious. Rather, it exudes arrogance and reality loss. For many countries in Europe and beyond, China is not an enemy but an important partner and investor.

Third, blackmailing is not an adequate strategy to convince the world’s largest single market of your position. It seems that you massively overestimate American influence and power in this regard.

Fourth, I can only reiterate what others have already remarked: international trade is incredibly complex. You cannot just destroy your trade relations with one country and then expect others to make up for it.

Fifth, it is okay to criticize China and Chinese politics. But to get anything done (e.g. in the UNSC), you still need them. Period.

[KaiserDave]

Basic economics yada yada

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

As for Europe , well the choice would reveal who they are . Do they really care about individual freedom cause if they choose China they will prove they don’t and I think in that case we would have all the right in the world to make sure Europe suffers massive consequences for that decision.

First, most Europeans think that the U.S. conception of ‘individual freedom’ in general and ‘freedom of speech’ in particular is batsh*t crazy. And they have little interest to sacrifice their economy for it.

Second, unilateralism is bad. Always. If you want to succeed, you have to use the existing structures of international diplomacy and present a reasonable and serious argument. “China is an enemy and we need to punish them!” is neither reasonable nor serious. Rather, it exudes arrogance and reality loss. For many countries in Europe and beyond, China is not an enemy but an important partner and investor.

Third, blackmailing is not an adequate strategy to convince the world’s largest single market of your position. It seems that you massively overestimate American influence and power in this regard.

Fourth, I can only reiterate what others have already remarked: international trade is incredibly complex. You cannot just destroy your trade relations with one country and then expect others to make up for it.

Fifth, it is okay to criticize China and Chinese politics. But to get anything done (e.g. in the UNSC), you still need them. Period.

These are arguments in favor of Europe's interest.  Not America's. 

The idea that NATO is obsolete is hardly new.  As early as 1956, Dwight Eisenhower discussed the issue of doing a cost-benefit analysis of our alliances with John Foster Dulles.  NATO was never intended to be a permanent organization and it wasn't intended to expand as it has. 

Now I'm not saying to ditch NATO.  NATO is, for the most part, a coalition of democracies, and it is certainly evident that our most reliable allies in the World (in and out of NATO) have been the democracies of the World.  China, however, is not one of those democracies, and they should not be dealt with as if they are.

As for the idea of individual freedoms being nuts, Americans need to be very aware that Europe, even Western European liberal democracies, view this issue very differently than we do, and recognize that in this matter, we should not become more like them.

[Badger]

As for Europe , well the choice would reveal who they are . Do they really care about individual freedom cause if they choose China they will prove they don’t and I think in that case we would have all the right in the world to make sure Europe suffers massive consequences for that decision.

First, most Europeans think that the U.S. conception of ‘individual freedom’ in general and ‘freedom of speech’ in particular is batsh*t crazy. And they have little interest to sacrifice their economy for it.

Second, unilateralism is bad. Always. If you want to succeed, you have to use the existing structures of international diplomacy and present a reasonable and serious argument. “China is an enemy and we need to punish them!” is neither reasonable nor serious. Rather, it exudes arrogance and reality loss. For many countries in Europe and beyond, China is not an enemy but an important partner and investor.

Third, blackmailing is not an adequate strategy to convince the world’s largest single market of your position. It seems that you massively overestimate American influence and power in this regard.

Fourth, I can only reiterate what others have already remarked: international trade is incredibly complex. You cannot just destroy your trade relations with one country and then expect others to make up for it.

Fifth, it is okay to criticize China and Chinese politics. But to get anything done (e.g. in the UNSC), you still need them. Period.

These are arguments in favor of Europe's interest.  Not America's.  

The idea that NATO is obsolete is hardly new.  As early as 1956, Dwight Eisenhower discussed the issue of doing a cost-benefit analysis of our alliances with John Foster Dulles.  NATO was never intended to be a permanent organization and it wasn't intended to expand as it has.  

Now I'm not saying to ditch NATO.  NATO is, for the most part, a coalition of democracies, and it is certainly evident that our most reliable allies in the World (in and out of NATO) have been the democracies of the World.  China, however, is not one of those democracies, and they should not be dealt with as if they are.

As for the idea of individual freedoms being nuts, Americans need to be very aware that Europe, even Western European liberal democracies, view this issue very differently than we do, and recognize that in this matter, we should not become more like them.

This... Is actually a good argument.

That said, we can adopt this rationale while also following and acknowledging the basic common sense of pick up the phones post. Welcome to The Forum BTW! You should post here a lot moreoften.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You get that cutting off 100% of trade with China would hurt us at least as much as it hurts them. Shooting ourselves in the foot while also shooting China's foot doesn't increase our leverage over China, it just makes everyone weaker.

Let me make it clear: the Unites States should support human rights, liberal democracy, and the rule of law for every single person in the world, and our foreign policy decisions should move the world closer to that ideal. But we have to be pragmatic, not irrational and self-defeating. We cannot put millions of Americans out of work, make everybody poorer, and reduce American tax revenues in single-minded pursuit of hurting China. We have to be strategic and play the long game.

And I'd remind you that America isn't able to set the rules of the global economy anymore. Our market isn't too big to ignore anymore. It's far from guaranteed that given a choice between trading with the United States and China, the rest of the world would pick the United States. We could just as easily end up poor, isolated, and have the prosperity of global trade bypass us altogether.

The problem is that we don’t have much time left to deal with the threat of China as they are growing massively more powerful by the day . We really should have dealt with this 10-15 years ago and if we did I don’t think we’d need to take radical actions to deal with the this issue . Heck letting China into the WTO was a huge huge mistake that has cost us dearly . Trading with China makes them even stronger which is why we need to do something fast.

Trading with China makes us stronger too. It's a double edged sword, albeit one which probably reduces the chance of WWIII. The key, of course, is containment. We cannot bend China to our will 1v1 whether it be economically or militarily. We can and should be more active in keeping their influence out of Africa, Southeast Asia, Taiwan, along the one-belt-one-road corridor, and everywhere else. The most effective method, of course, was TPP--but even with TPP, cutting off all trade with China would make millions of our fellow Americans unemployed and destitute. 

I also disagree : India ,  and Latin America would definitely choose to trade with us over China and think doing so would help us replace the Chinese market too (and I’d rapidly get rid of as many trade barriers as possible to facilitate this) .  As for Europe , well the choice would reveal who they are . Do they really care about individual freedom cause if they choose China they will prove they don’t and I think in that case we would have all the right in the world to make sure Europe suffers massive consequences for that decision .

That assumes we have the ability to make Europe suffer, particularly if we're also cut off from China. The power of the United States is not infinite.

The key to dealing with China is 1. Exploit their internal weaknesses (a shrinking working-age population being chief among them) 2. Stop their influence spreading overseas. and 3. Ensure America is more powerful and wealthier than they are so they don't come after us. Anything beyond that is simply unrealistic. There are deals we can probably do with them on Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China sea but if you think the Chinese Communist Party will simply collapse or transform into a liberal democracy if America stops trading with them, I think you'll be sorely disappointed.

Punishment and rage can't be our motivators, tangible results that actually improve the world must be. 

Sure but if we continue to trade with them as much as we currently do they would have no reason to want to make any deal .  The reason is for China , the current status quo seems preferable to any situation where a major deal has to be made.

We have to imo reduce this number to at least 7% or 8% to convince them the current status quo is just not acceptable: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html


To do that I fully agree with you we need to significantly reduce trade barriers in many other places overseas(South America , The Pacific and India were ones I have as examples as I beleive they could potentially have the capacity together to replace a significant amount of our current trade reliance with China ). I also do think we have to create significant disincentives for companies to significantly reduce their business within China as well because I don’t think a significant amount of them would move unless their given both incentives and disincentives to do so


Now the disincentive doesn't have to be major tarrifs but we must create some disincentives . Maybe a president using their bully pulpit to convince American customers to shop at companies who don’t have a significant amount of their business operations done in China (don’t know if this is legal but if it is they should do it  ).

So major tarrifs may not be the solution, but we have to do something to reduce overall trade with China  like Mark Cuban idea of shutting down Chinese IPOs from being traded in the US could be one action we could take .

[OSR stands with Israel]

As for Europe , well the choice would reveal who they are . Do they really care about individual freedom cause if they choose China they will prove they don’t and I think in that case we would have all the right in the world to make sure Europe suffers massive consequences for that decision.

First, most Europeans think that the U.S. conception of ‘individual freedom’ in general and ‘freedom of speech’ in particular is batsh*t crazy. And they have little interest to sacrifice their economy for it.

Second, unilateralism is bad. Always. If you want to succeed, you have to use the existing structures of international diplomacy and present a reasonable and serious argument. “China is an enemy and we need to punish them!” is neither reasonable nor serious. Rather, it exudes arrogance and reality loss. For many countries in Europe and beyond, China is not an enemy but an important partner and investor.

Third, blackmailing is not an adequate strategy to convince the world’s largest single market of your position. It seems that you massively overestimate American influence and power in this regard.

Fourth, I can only reiterate what others have already remarked: international trade is incredibly complex. You cannot just destroy your trade relations with one country and then expect others to make up for it.

Fifth, it is okay to criticize China and Chinese politics. But to get anything done (e.g. in the UNSC), you still need them. Period.

That’s exactly why the UN is becoming useless now and one of the major reason why I support the US staying in their is to utilize the veto power . We instead should bypass the UN and work directly with other nations to make deals or else China or Russia will block everything and there is no reason why we should have to make compromises with them to get anything done.


Seeing the complete ineffectiveness of all these international organizations is turning me more and more into a George W Bush style unilateralist as it’s clear George W Bush was right in that if the US is gonna be able to do any good in the world , they will have to bypass the organizations more and more and work directly with other nations to get the job done



If  Europe still views China as an important partner  it would show that George W Bush was right about Europe when he said many there think “Money Trumps Peace”

[MATTROSE94]

As for Europe , well the choice would reveal who they are . Do they really care about individual freedom cause if they choose China they will prove they don’t and I think in that case we would have all the right in the world to make sure Europe suffers massive consequences for that decision.

First, most Europeans think that the U.S. conception of ‘individual freedom’ in general and ‘freedom of speech’ in particular is batsh*t crazy. And they have little interest to sacrifice their economy for it.

Second, unilateralism is bad. Always. If you want to succeed, you have to use the existing structures of international diplomacy and present a reasonable and serious argument. “China is an enemy and we need to punish them!” is neither reasonable nor serious. Rather, it exudes arrogance and reality loss. For many countries in Europe and beyond, China is not an enemy but an important partner and investor.

Third, blackmailing is not an adequate strategy to convince the world’s largest single market of your position. It seems that you massively overestimate American influence and power in this regard.

Fourth, I can only reiterate what others have already remarked: international trade is incredibly complex. You cannot just destroy your trade relations with one country and then expect others to make up for it.

Fifth, it is okay to criticize China and Chinese politics. But to get anything done (e.g. in the UNSC), you still need them. Period.

These are arguments in favor of Europe's interest.  Not America's. 

The idea that NATO is obsolete is hardly new.  As early as 1956, Dwight Eisenhower discussed the issue of doing a cost-benefit analysis of our alliances with John Foster Dulles.  NATO was never intended to be a permanent organization and it wasn't intended to expand as it has. 

Now I'm not saying to ditch NATO.  NATO is, for the most part, a coalition of democracies, and it is certainly evident that our most reliable allies in the World (in and out of NATO) have been the democracies of the World.  China, however, is not one of those democracies, and they should not be dealt with as if they are.

As for the idea of individual freedoms being nuts, Americans need to be very aware that Europe, even Western European liberal democracies, view this issue very differently than we do, and recognize that in this matter, we should not become more like them.

The US is ingrained with China in terms of its supply chain. Unless you want to move towards import substitution industrialization in the US (which would not work and result in consumer good prices doubling at least), China must remain on a level playing field with the US in terms of economics. People like you would also support launching nuclear strikes against China at the first opportunity and replace Xi Jinping with Tsai Ing-wen, so you logic is faulty and misguided as usual.

[Former President tack50]

100% tariffs on Chinese imports would have the effect of increasing the price of Chinese inputs which would then make U.S manufacturers less competitive against foreign competitors in international markets.  If the Chinese inputs weren't taxed on foreign competitors in the U.S, these tariffs would also have the impact of making American made goods less competitive in U.S markets.

We should force Europe to do this as well honestly . They have relied on us for decades and we have supplied them their defense so it’s time to force them to do this or we should stop supplying them out defense .

And how do we "force" them to do so, genius? The traditional way has been to lead as the approved moral and economic leader, but your party's presidents have effed that over taice in a row now.

Incidentally, if you think Europe is EVER going to join in shooting their economy in the foot like that oved some xecense spending, good luck beep boop.

Seriously, you come off as a piqued teenager here rather than presenting a feasible grown-up argument.

We basically fund  their defense for them , so the fact is we have lots of leverage and we can use it by threatening to cut of protecting them . We should also give a really generous trade deal to the UK to give the UK total leverage in EU negotiations as well .

So your pitch to European countries is: "Do what we say or we leave NATO"? Seems like a good way to further weaken the US rather than strengthening its influence but ok

[Meclazine for Israel]

Here comes China.

They are stirring. Next 4 years, we could see:

1. China takes Hong Kong 100%
2. China takes Taiwan
3. China takes Tibet
4. China takes those Japanese Islands lost in WW2

If they go further than that, then they might attract military attention.

[Benjamin Frank]

Why should we trade more with China than we do currently with Russia . China is far far worse than the Russians and almost bad as when they were the Soviets and we barely traded with the Soviets . This would be my policies towards China

- implement a 100% tarriff over a 3 year period (45% in year 1 , 75% in year 2 , 100% by year 3)

- ban Chinese IPOs from being traded on our stock market

- keep Huawei banned and expand the ban to more Chinese tech companies

- use the bully pulpit of the presidency to shame companies who stifle free speech and give up American values to please the Chinese . Instead of Trump tweets , the president should use Twitter to do this

- do LAFTA and TPP

- implement massive human rights sanctions

- use the CIA and other intelligence agencies to undermine Chinese interests abroad

I actually agree with most of this, by the way, with the exception of all the tariffs.  I think these things need to be much more targeted.  As I've pointed out, it doesn't make sense for the United States to place tariffs on Chinese inputs into U.S manufactured goods.  China does have, after all, a number of rare earth minerals needed for high tech products.

I think Covid provides an opportunity to reset some of the supply chains the United States has otherwise with China.  This would be an acceleration of already existing trends as I've mentioned of low cost assembly jobs moving away from China to even lower cost nations like Vietnam.  Of course, in some to many cases, those assembly plants are owned by Chinese corporations though.

Other things I would do as an anti China strategy:

1.Deport Chinese foreign nationals, students and others, especially managers of Chinese owned plants in the United States who are spying on American companies, and even worse, on Chinese Americans who still have family members in China.  These Chinese foreign nationals intimidate these Chinese Americans into silence.

2.As during the Cold War, engage with African and South/Central American nations to compete with China's 'Belt and Road' Initiative.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Here comes China.

They are stirring. Next 4 years, we could see:

1. China takes Hong Kong 100%
2. China takes Taiwan
3. China takes Tibet
4. China takes those Japanese Islands lost in WW2

If they go further than that, then they might attract military attention.

How is China going to "take Tibet" which has been under its control for 70 years?

[2952-0-0]

First, most Europeans think that the U.S. conception of ‘individual freedom’ in general and ‘freedom of speech’ in particular is batsh*t crazy. And they have little interest to sacrifice their economy for it.

Second, unilateralism is bad. Always. If you want to succeed, you have to use the existing structures of international diplomacy and present a reasonable and serious argument. “China is an enemy and we need to punish them!” is neither reasonable nor serious. Rather, it exudes arrogance and reality loss. For many countries in Europe and beyond, China is not an enemy but an important partner and investor.

Third, blackmailing is not an adequate strategy to convince the world’s largest single market of your position. It seems that you massively overestimate American influence and power in this regard.

Fourth, I can only reiterate what others have already remarked: international trade is incredibly complex. You cannot just destroy your trade relations with one country and then expect others to make up for it.

Fifth, it is okay to criticize China and Chinese politics. But to get anything done (e.g. in the UNSC), you still need them. Period.

Most of Europe now share the US view that China has become a threat to its way of life, and have begun to push back both at the national level and the European level. It's not as bombastic as Washington wants, but Eurospeak is more effective than tweets at getting things done. In the past year we've seen:

• The Netherlands refusing orders for ASML lithographic machines from China, which will deny China's capacity to build industry-leading chips.
• The EU and individual nations granting themselves more power to deny M&As of European companies from non-market economies.
• France approving weapons sales to Taiwan and responding to Chinese anger with a Gallic retort.
• Country after country barring Huawei from participating in their 5G networks, often creatively using bureaucratic hurdles for plausible deniability.
• The UK is allowing unlimited immigration for up to 3 million Hong Kongers, which China strangely lashed out against.
• Finally: The EU-China investment treaty, which had been under negotiation for seven years, and was supposed to have been ready by now, has been quietly killed. Even business leaders are saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".

Brussels has made it clear they expect China to be high on their agenda when they work with the Biden Administration. All for the better, of course.