Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (108586)	4/11/2018 10:26:08 AM
From: bjzimmy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116836

"The most-important take-away, in other words, isn't the materiality of the concessions -- rather it's that all those who claimed China would "not blink" and that their "pride" made the use of the tariff card unwise or even counter-productive are and were dead flat wrong." market-ticker.org

To: Rarebird who wrote (108586)	4/11/2018 7:31:58 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116836

I don't think it's a waste of time at all. We don't need to set up trade agreements with EVERY country, only the top 5-10. Those top 5-10 represent 90% of our trade. I think targeted tariffs and worrying about the trade deficit is a silly enterprise and is great for theater, but doesn't address the nuances. I also think one size fits all deals like TPP are overly complex and almost always end up screwing the incumbents like us in favor of redistribution to everyone else. We're far better off by just setting up a simple system of reciprocity, a generic law that allows our regulators to adjust import tariffs and other regulations to mimic whatever the country is we're doing business with. Then from a baseline of reciprocity, we can let our trade negotiators convince each country that lower barriers are better for everyone.