The weasels who secretly love China and the communists or those with a vested interest in trade with them want tariffs lifted so the American balance of trade can become even more lopsided and America can become weaker and weaker.

CNN)President Joe Biden has offered multiple responses to spiking inflation: investigating gas prices, smoothing supply chains, touting benefit programs. None offers Americans much immediate relief.
At the same time, Biden has resisted one step that would: Lifting tariffs on Chinese imports would save the average household hundreds of dollars a year. Just as tempting, it would reverse the failed trade war policy of his discredited predecessor, Donald Trump.
But strategic and political considerations outweigh the allure. Whatever the benefit to rattled consumers, the implications at home and abroad for America's diciest international relationship raise the stakes higher than that..

"The reason to do this or not to do this should not be inflation," said Richard Haass, a top State Department aide under President George W. Bush who now heads the Council on Foreign Relations. "The impact on US-China relations, and the domestic politics of US-China relations, would be larger than any impact on inflation."

On 11/21/2021 5:32 PM, RichA wrote:
>
> The weasels who secretly love China ...
Good grief, are we now down to "chink-lovers"? The more things change...

In article <r1AmJ.7085$aF1.4955@fx98.iad>, moviePig
<pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 11/21/2021 5:32 PM, RichA wrote:
> >
> > The weasels who secretly love China ...
> Good grief, are we now down to "chink-lovers"? The more things change...

Yep. The fact is that what we do now will determine whether we and
China go to war during the next ten or fifteen years. Either we agree
now, or there'll be literal hell to pay.

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 17:48:59 UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/21/2021 5:32 PM, RichA wrote:
> >
> > The weasels who secretly love China ...
> Good grief, are we now down to "chink-lovers"? The more things change...

Some politicians love the idea of China's control from the top down at all costs communism.
But most of the pro-Chinese opposition to tariffs comes out of self-interest generated by
$800 billion in lopsided trade relations. From politician Jim whose uncle owns a toy-store
to "unbiased" news writers who have 401K's with investments in trade with China.
None of them give a s--- about technical theft, job losses or production loses from the U.S. to China.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:09:43 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <r1AmJ.7085$aF1.4955@fx98.iad>, moviePig
><pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2021 5:32 PM, RichA wrote:
>> >
>> > The weasels who secretly love China ...
>> Good grief, are we now down to "chink-lovers"? The more things change...
>
>
>Yep. The fact is that what we do now will determine whether we and
>China go to war during the next ten or fifteen years. Either we agree
>now, or there'll be literal hell to pay.

You make it sound like unless we kowtow to Beijing there would be
certainly be war.

Given Beijing's record that would mean a complete collapse of moral
fiber on our parts.

In article <oitlpgdfo5ilbo760m2k26hag4o39jlftf@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:09:43 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <r1AmJ.7085$aF1.4955@fx98.iad>, moviePig
> ><pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/21/2021 5:32 PM, RichA wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The weasels who secretly love China ...
> >> Good grief, are we now down to "chink-lovers"? The more things change...
> >
> >
> >Yep. The fact is that what we do now will determine whether we and
> >China go to war during the next ten or fifteen years. Either we agree
> >now, or there'll be literal hell to pay.
>
> You make it sound like unless we kowtow to Beijing there would be
> certainly be war.

The only possible way you could have so massively misinterpreted what I
said is if you're determined there be a war in order to determine
political control of the Pacific region.

> Given Beijing's record that would mean a complete collapse of moral
> fiber on our parts.

"Moral fiber." Don't make me laugh. China is going to do nothing but
grow and prosper for the next decade or two. We would do well to
realize that and get ready to face it and compete with it. WW3 should
not be the answer.

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 22:18:50 UTC-5, A Friend wrote:
> In article <oitlpgdfo5ilbo760...@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
> <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:09:43 -0500, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <r1AmJ.7085$aF1....@fx98.iad>, moviePig
> > ><pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 11/21/2021 5:32 PM, RichA wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > The weasels who secretly love China ...
> > >> Good grief, are we now down to "chink-lovers"? The more things change...
> > >
> > >
> > >Yep. The fact is that what we do now will determine whether we and
> > >China go to war during the next ten or fifteen years. Either we agree
> > >now, or there'll be literal hell to pay.
> >
> > You make it sound like unless we kowtow to Beijing there would be
> > certainly be war.
> The only possible way you could have so massively misinterpreted what I
> said is if you're determined there be a war in order to determine
> political control of the Pacific region.
> > Given Beijing's record that would mean a complete collapse of moral
> > fiber on our parts.
> "Moral fiber." Don't make me laugh. China is going to do nothing but
> grow and prosper for the next decade or two. We would do well to
> realize that and get ready to face it and compete with it. WW3 should
> not be the answer.

You won't compete by selling most of your production to them and enriching them at a cost to yourselves. STOP buying Chinese crap.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 22:18:44 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <oitlpgdfo5ilbo760m2k26hag4o39jlftf@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:09:43 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <r1AmJ.7085$aF1.4955@fx98.iad>, moviePig
>> ><pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 11/21/2021 5:32 PM, RichA wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The weasels who secretly love China ...
>> >> Good grief, are we now down to "chink-lovers"? The more things change...
>> >
>> >
>> >Yep. The fact is that what we do now will determine whether we and
>> >China go to war during the next ten or fifteen years. Either we agree
>> >now, or there'll be literal hell to pay.
>>
>> You make it sound like unless we kowtow to Beijing there would be
>> certainly be war.
>
>
>The only possible way you could have so massively misinterpreted what I
>said is if you're determined there be a war in order to determine
>political control of the Pacific region.
>
>
>> Given Beijing's record that would mean a complete collapse of moral
>> fiber on our parts.
>
>
>"Moral fiber." Don't make me laugh. China is going to do nothing but
>grow and prosper for the next decade or two. We would do well to
>realize that and get ready to face it and compete with it. WW3 should
>not be the answer.

Maybe, or they may collapse as they are facing many of the challenges
that we in the West already faced such as a housing crisis.
Potentially on a scale much worse than here with one report showed a
set of condos dropping from $900K to around $300k in just a day after
China implemented their three red lines of financial conduct on real
estate companies.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 22:18:44 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <oitlpgdfo5ilbo760m2k26hag4o39jlftf@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:09:43 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <r1AmJ.7085$aF1.4955@fx98.iad>, moviePig
>> ><pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 11/21/2021 5:32 PM, RichA wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The weasels who secretly love China ...
>> >> Good grief, are we now down to "chink-lovers"? The more things change...
>> >
>> >
>> >Yep. The fact is that what we do now will determine whether we and
>> >China go to war during the next ten or fifteen years. Either we agree
>> >now, or there'll be literal hell to pay.
>>
>> You make it sound like unless we kowtow to Beijing there would be
>> certainly be war.
>
>
>The only possible way you could have so massively misinterpreted what I
>said is if you're determined there be a war in order to determine
>political control of the Pacific region.
>
Hardly - I've said publicly on multiple occasions that I consider the
Peoples Republic of China the greatest threat to world peace in the
world today. I'm picking on things like their fake islands in the
South China Sea they are claiming territorial rights based on, their
oppression of the Uighurs and people of Hong Kong and their violation
of Taiwan based on unilateral claims of sovereignity. Not to mention
the fact that they have a multi-decade track record of state sponsored
(mostly through military backed organizations) that independent
reporters in the West have written have directly caused the bankruptcy
of their victims (for instance Nortel) not to mention a record of
misleading the West on the Covid file.

That last item ALONE would justify crippling trade sanctions and if
that means the Walton family loses a few billion from these sanctions
I don't have a problem with that.

None of any of this involves military action in any way.

>> Given Beijing's record that would mean a complete collapse of moral
>> fiber on our parts.
>
>"Moral fiber." Don't make me laugh. China is going to do nothing but
>grow and prosper for the next decade or two. We would do well to
>realize that and get ready to face it and compete with it. WW3 should
>not be the answer.

Nobody's advocating war - but given China has a well proven track
record of outrageous behaviour well outside the area of legitimate
trade practices they thoroughly deserve Western sanctions.

DECENT countries don't take hostages when something happens they
dislike and keep them in inhuman conditions for years. That's a
barbaric action that places them outside the rule of law as understood
by the rest of the international community.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 22:18:44 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>> In article <oitlpgdfo5ilbo760m2k26hag4o39jlftf@4ax.com>, The Horny
>> Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:09:43 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>>>> The fact is that what we do now will determine whether we and China
>>>> go to war during the next ten or fifteen years. Either we agree
>>>> now, or there'll be literal hell to pay.
>>>
>>> You make it sound like unless we kowtow to Beijing there would be
>>> certainly be war.
>>
>> The only possible way you could have so massively misinterpreted what
>> I said is if you're determined there be a war in order to determine
>> political control of the Pacific region.
>
> Hardly - I've said publicly on multiple occasions that I consider the
> Peoples Republic of China the greatest threat to world peace in the
> world today. I'm picking on things like their fake islands in the
> South China Sea they are claiming territorial rights based on, their
> oppression of the Uighurs and people of Hong Kong and their violation
> of Taiwan based on unilateral claims of sovereignity. Not to mention
> the fact that they have a multi-decade track record of state sponsored
> (mostly through military backed organizations) that independent
> reporters in the West have written have directly caused the bankruptcy
> of their victims (for instance Nortel) not to mention a record of
> misleading the West on the Covid file.
>
> That last item ALONE would justify crippling trade sanctions and if
> that means the Walton family loses a few billion from these sanctions
> I don't have a problem with that.

That sounds great on paper, but not only does it mean going up against a
lot of the Fortune Global 500 (with Walmart at the top), it will also
piss off a lot of the electorate in the U.S. and elsewhere if their
source of cheap manufactured products either gets expensive or dries up.
They're already blaming supply-chain shortages on President Biden even
though those are worldwide and aren't the result of any policies he's
enacted.

China has seduced much of the West with cheap products and easy profits.
A lot of the powerful people who used to be the most fanatical opponents
of the communists are now content to get fat dividend checks because of
them. Why? Because the communists have made it clear they don't really
believe in communism. Gone are the collective farms and such. It's all
about private profits for the few now. As the ruling pigs eventually
said in _Animal Farm_, "Four legs good, two legs better."

If you have ideas about how to sell massive economic sanctions against
China that won't result in political blowback that unseats the
politicians levying them, I'm all ears. Just complaining to my
congresspeople has gotten me sympathy, but not 60 votes in the
Senate.

-Micky