Housing and healthcare are the two things that have little to do with trade. Housing affordability is almost entirely policy driven. In a "free" market (quoted because the definition typically doesn't take into account the necessity of a functional society to maintain property rights and values, just ask Detroit), housing affordability is entirely dependent on one's relative income and propensity to spend, i.e. you can have high absolute income (say in NYC) and still find you desired housing unaffordable. I think people intuitively understand this. Healthcare costs are more complicated but is also almost entirely a domestic issue.
Exempting chips alone doesn't make sense. Does Intel have to pay 20% on ASML lithography machines or more on Japanese ones? Meanwhile TSMC can fab chips in Taiwan and export to the US without tariffs.
That runs against basic financial reality. The treasuries are the basis of all U.S. liquidity. Owning commercial papers or stocks doesn't help as companies own treasuries. Putting deposits in banks won't help either because banks hold treasuries.
You've read up on the purported "Mar a lago" accord model? The idea is to threaten a repudiated debt, or agree to convert to long term non interest earning debt alternatives which can't be traded.
That's supposedly done with the agreement of the creditors. There's never paying down of national debt over an extended period of time. That's not how modern finances work. Why they feel the need of cramming down friendly creditors is beyond me.
Why is it a bad thing if they now like each other better (not sure if there is real evidence for it but assume it is true for argument's sake)? If American policy is what keeps them apart, which I strongly doubt, then it is a good thing that we butt out and let them integrate as much as they want.
Just because they turn against the US on trade does not mean they are becoming friends. American policy is not what keeps them in part.
In short term they cooperate on tariffs, because America has gone crazy.
On the long term. South Korea and Japan will seek their to ensure their security against China without the US. South Korea is already discussing domestic nuclear weapons. Japan could go nuclear at any time when it wants.
It is not in the abstract a bad thing, and things like this are fairly inevitable under the circumstances. It's probably not a great thing for the US's foreign policy, and particularly trade policy (if you can call the current random flailing a policy) if the cause of it is treating the US as a common adversary, however.
How do you keep it stationary? How do you keep it out of the Earth's shadow a.k.a. night? How do you keep the transmission loss low and receiving station footprint small? How do you avoid harming things that could come into your beams? How do you achieve all the above simultaneously?
It shows up so naturally that one may think it is not whataboutism at work, even though the reasoning is often not well argued. We could choose to see it not as a moral judgement, but as questioning the justification of efforts pushing for conflicts with China.
It may start sooner than you think. Now we will see how Missouri attempts to collect their $24 billon default judgement against China from a federal court for treble damage of "$8.04 billion in direct lost tax revenue" due to China's hoarding of PPEs. https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-andrew-bailey-secures-hi...
100% tax on EV imports and 25% metal tax imposed on China by Canada about half an year ago. Canada is in a tough spot. It needs to sync up its tade policy with the US in order to maintain its free trade with the US.
> It needs to sync up its tade policy with the US in order to maintain its free trade with the US
Ship has sailed. Ottawa should offer to drop trade restrictions with China in exchange for Beijing doing the same. It not only provides a needed jolt to the Canadian economy, it also sends a message to the White House that Canada shouldn’t be taken for granted. (I’d also start making motions about green lighting energy-export terminals to Europe and Asia.)
Unlikely as Canada ultimately depends on the US as a security provider, but yes, like Vietnam, it makes sense to trade with both sides. It's also why the US doesn't like it.
China's tax on rapeseed oil is like Canadian tax on EV, as China imports very little from from Canada due to prior trade frictions. But its rapeseed imports almost exclusively depend on Canada.
Matrix absorption is unnecessary. What is needed is the order of multiplication associates towards the direction of the absorption. This and the modified Rope are needed to make the caching work.
reply