U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar cells fuel debate about green jobs

[Peter1469]

How is China gaining by paying 35% of the cost for US consumers? If that's what US consumers want, why are you against that? Why do you think you know better what they want? You never respond to these types of questions.

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp316...arts-industry/

China is subsidizing its manufacturing base. And Chinese banks give a lot of loans at the behest of the government and those numbers are in addition to the subsidies.

What do they gain? Social stability. China is an export nation. It is worth more to China to have its large population working to fill export needs than it is to make a profit on that need.

That is why in the other thread on China's advance, I have provided the unpopular view that China is not going to become a superpower. Although all the other commentors seem to be bullish for China.

And I am not substituting my beliefs for what US consumers want. Did US consumers want dry wall tainted with poison? http://chinesedrywallcomplaintcenter...ndications.htm Of course not. They wanted the least expensive dry wall possible, dry wall is dry wall after all. Except when it off-gases toxic fumes....

So that Chinese drywall did not give the US consumer a cheap product for $X.

It gave the US consumer a cheap product for $x + the cost of replacement, + medical costs. I imagine that is a tad bit over the cost of getting dry wall from a trusted source in the first place.

You are not always saving money when you go with the lowest bidder. And it is not unreasonable that the government step in to prevent toxic dry way from entering the country.

Even if there are some citizens who would buy it because it is "cheaper."

[Vilifier of Zombies]

In theory I am not.

In reality, people don't have much of a say about national trade policy. If the US is going to have 100% free trade when several other nations are undercutting prices so that Americans can buy certain products significantly cheaper, America is not better off when its manufacturing base disappears.

I was at the CAPS game last Friday in DC. I wanted to get team Jersey. The one that I was interested in was $86 (the real ones were $210), but it was made in China, so I put it back. Even though it was very over priced for what it was, had it been made in America I would have bought it.

Clothing and textiles maybe, but other industries such as electronics and it might say that it's made in China but the reality is those components came from a whole bunch of countries - think iPhones, there's a bunch of manufacturers that're involved, the hard drives are made in Japan by Toshiba - the Broadcom chips are made in Taiwan and so on, there's over four hundred and fifty plus parts in an iPhone - what's important to consider is where the bulk of the real value is at, turns out the real value doesn't lie in its parts or even in putting those parts together, the bulk of the iPhone's value is the conception and design - that is, out of every iPhone sold the largest share goes to Apple.

Just because it says it's made in China doesn't mean that the product will lack in quality - same goes for other countries, I'll take an English or German manufactured car over most American cars just because they'll hold more of their value. I go through trucks about every two or three years, my wife goes through Volkswagens (which is strange, I never knew Filipinos could be Fahrvergnügen love'n enthusiasts but she's now driving her third VW in twelve years) every four years and I'll go through a Jag or likeminded coup every five or six years. The point is is that the trucks, which up until recently have always been Ford or GMC trucks are the vehicles that've not held their value all that well, I now have a Tundra and it seems to be holding up just fine, that I haven't put that many miles on it may be a factor but also that it's a well made product I'm sure has something to do with it.

Point is, you probably should've bought that Caps jersey, it might've even been a better product, more so given the price difference and the largest piece of the pie would've went to the American company that came up with the idea in the first place.

[Vilifier of Zombies]

Clothing and textiles maybe, but other industries such as electronics and it might say that it's made in China but the reality is those components came from a whole bunch of countries - think iPhones, there's a bunch of manufacturers that're involved, the hard drives are made in Japan by Toshiba - the Broadcom chips are made in Taiwan and so on, there's over four hundred and fifty plus parts in an iPhone - what's important to consider is where the bulk of the real value is at, turns out the real value doesn't lie in its parts or even in putting those parts together, the bulk of the iPhone's value is the conception and design - that is, out of every iPhone sold the largest share goes to Apple.

Just because it says it's made in China doesn't mean that the product will lack in quality - same goes for other countries, I'll take an English or German manufactured car over most American cars just because they'll hold more of their value. I go through trucks about every two or three years, my wife goes through Volkswagens (which is strange, I never knew Filipinos could be Fahrvergnügen love'n enthusiasts but she's now driving her third VW in twelve years) every four years and I'll go through a Jag or likeminded coup every five or six years. The point is is that the trucks, which up until recently have always been Ford or GMC trucks are the vehicles that've not held their value all that well, I now have a Tundra and it seems to be holding up just fine, that I haven't put that many miles on it may be a factor but also that it's a well made product I'm sure has something to do with it.

Point is, you probably should've bought that Caps jersey, it might've even been a better product, more so given the price difference and the largest piece of the pie would've went to the American company that came up with the idea in the first place.

^^^ I posted this Pete because it's how I justified buying the cheaper yet still pricey Rangers made in China jersey last year at the Garden...fast forward a year and I'm still fine with my reasoning - and my Rangers jersey...

[Chris]

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp316...arts-industry/

China is subsidizing its manufacturing base. And Chinese banks give a lot of loans at the behest of the government and those numbers are in addition to the subsidies.

What do they gain? Social stability. China is an export nation. It is worth more to China to have its large population working to fill export needs than it is to make a profit on that need.

That is why in the other thread on China's advance, I have provided the unpopular view that China is not going to become a superpower. Although all the other commentors seem to be bullish for China.

And I am not substituting my beliefs for what US consumers want. Did US consumers want dry wall tainted with poison? http://chinesedrywallcomplaintcenter...ndications.htm Of course not. They wanted the least expensive dry wall possible, dry wall is dry wall after all. Except when it off-gases toxic fumes....

So that Chinese drywall did not give the US consumer a cheap product for $X.

It gave the US consumer a cheap product for $x + the cost of replacement, + medical costs. I imagine that is a tad bit over the cost of getting dry wall from a trusted source in the first place.

You are not always saving money when you go with the lowest bidder. And it is not unreasonable that the government step in to prevent toxic dry way from entering the country.

Even if there are some citizens who would buy it because it is "cheaper."

China is subsidizing its manufacturing base.

Again, you return to repeat your argument. No one's debating China is subsidizing.

What do they gain? Social stability.

Again you ignore the cost. Its people pay for the subsidies. Seems to me to be a wash.

And I am not substituting my beliefs for what US consumers want

But you are, you're arguing we should use tariffs to control people's choices, to buy what you personal consider quality goods.

Did US consumers want dry wall tainted with poison?

You're changing the topic, you don't use tariffs to protect people, you use information and other regulations and lawsuits. Once consumers found out, they re-evaluated their purchases.

You are not always saving money when you go with the lowest bidder.

Why are you back to that straw man. I never argued for the cheapest goods. I have consistently argued leave the people free to make their own subjective valuations and choices. I did argue against your dictating quality, not because of prices, but again, leave the people free to make their own subjective valuations and choices.

[Conley]

^^^ I posted this Pete because it's how I justified buying the cheaper yet still pricey Rangers made in China jersey last year at the Garden...fast forward a year and I'm still fine with my reasoning - and my Rangers jersey...

And you'll be able to wear it for G7 tomorrow...

[Peter1469]

Chris you are arguing with yourself.

[Chris]

Clothing and textiles maybe, but other industries such as electronics and it might say that it's made in China but the reality is those components came from a whole bunch of countries - think iPhones, there's a bunch of manufacturers that're involved, the hard drives are made in Japan by Toshiba - the Broadcom chips are made in Taiwan and so on, there's over four hundred and fifty plus parts in an iPhone - what's important to consider is where the bulk of the real value is at, turns out the real value doesn't lie in its parts or even in putting those parts together, the bulk of the iPhone's value is the conception and design - that is, out of every iPhone sold the largest share goes to Apple.

Just because it says it's made in China doesn't mean that the product will lack in quality - same goes for other countries, I'll take an English or German manufactured car over most American cars just because they'll hold more of their value. I go through trucks about every two or three years, my wife goes through Volkswagens (which is strange, I never knew Filipinos could be Fahrvergnügen love'n enthusiasts but she's now driving her third VW in twelve years) every four years and I'll go through a Jag or likeminded coup every five or six years. The point is is that the trucks, which up until recently have always been Ford or GMC trucks are the vehicles that've not held their value all that well, I now have a Tundra and it seems to be holding up just fine, that I haven't put that many miles on it may be a factor but also that it's a well made product I'm sure has something to do with it.

Point is, you probably should've bought that Caps jersey, it might've even been a better product, more so given the price difference and the largest piece of the pie would've went to the American company that came up with the idea in the first place.

Great explanation. Similar to Leonard Read's I, Pencil. You can't design an economy.

I posted this Pete because it's how I justified buying the cheaper yet still pricey Rangers made in China jersey last year at the Garden...fast forward a year and I'm still fine with my reasoning - and my Rangers jersey...

Exactly what I mean about consumers making their own subjective valuations.

[Chris]

Chris you are arguing with yourself.

Leaving already?

[Chris]

From Adam Smith And "The Wealth Of Nations"

Smith, a Scottish philosopher by trade, wrote the book to upend the mercantilist system. Mercantilism held that wealth was fixed and finite, and that the only way to prosper was to hoard gold and tariff products from abroad. This meant that nations should sell their goods to other countries while buying nothing in return. Predictably, nations fell into rounds of retaliatory tariffs that choked off international trade.

The invisible hand would be brought about by Enlightened Self-Interest, Limited Government, and Solid Currency and Free-Market Economy:

Smith wanted the government to follow free-market principles by keeping taxes low and allowing free trade across borders by eliminating tariffs. He pointed out that tariffs and other taxes only succeeded in making life more expensive for the people while also stifling industry and trade abroad.

Smith's famous example,

To drive home the damaging nature of tariffs, Smith used the example of making wine in Scotland. He pointed out that good grapes could be grown in Scotland in hothouses, but the extra costs of heating would make Scottish wine 30 times more expensive than French wines. Far better, he reasoned, would be to trade something Scotland had an abundance of, such as wool, in return for the wine. In other words, because France has a competitive advantage in producing wine, tariffs aimed to create and protect a domestic wine industry would just waste resources and cost the public money.

Ironically

Adam Smith, the champion of the free market, spent the last years of his life as the Commissioner of Customs, meaning he was responsible for enforcing all the tariffs. He took the work to heart, and burned many of his clothes when he discovered they had been smuggled into shops from abroad.

[Chris]

Friedman, 1978, on steel tariffs. He mentions Adam Smith, says virtually no economist has argued for tariffs since. He mentions Bastiat, as I did, on the seen and unseen. He addresses jobs.