"“53%” isn’t the universal US tariff on Chinese goods, "

Oh well its a good thing I didn't say it was the universal tariff then, eh?

But as usual JD forensically goes through the posts look for something he can deliberately misinterpret and then carries on like a pork chop. Either that or the written word is just a mystery to him.

"
A one-month drop in the US-China deficit isn’t proof tariffs “nudged” Beijing into fair play. "

Oh well, its a good thing I didn't say it did then, eh?

"Every serious study shows US firms and households paid nearly the full cost of Trump’s tariffs"
Another one of those things JD just blurts out hoping he won't be bounced on it.

"employment is strong, but not because of tariffs. "

Well its a good thing I did say it was due to tariffs then, eh?

Of coarse, I can't help but notice you haven't the slightest evidence for your claim. But that's JD for you.

mhaze,

You can’t wave examples around and then retreat into “good thing I didn’t say that, eh?” when pressed. Let’s take them one at a time.

On the 53% line:
You presented it as though China is comprehensively “nudged” under massive tariffs. If you meant it as a blanket rate, that’s misleading - many imports aren’t touched, so the effective tariff is far lower. If you didn’t mean it as blanket, then it adds nothing to your argument, because you can’t claim “China’s being nudged more” without implying coverage is broad. Again, either way, it doesn’t hold.

On the deficit drop:
You wrote that the US–China deficit fell 60% in June and followed it with “China either plays nice or doesn’t play at all.” That only makes sense if you’re holding up that deficit drop as proof tariffs were “nudging” Beijing. If that wasn’t your point, then the stat was irrelevant filler. Either way, it doesn’t rescue your claim - cherry-picking one month isn’t evidence of strategy working.

So your fallback - “I never said that, eh?” - isn’t a rescue, it's a squirm.

//Of coarse [sic], I can't help but notice you haven't the slightest evidence for your claim.//

I provided just as much evidence as you did.

Trumpster,

If tariffs are designed to "nudge" countries in a certain direction, what direction is that? Why did Trump place tariffs on Australian imports, when America has a trade surplus with us? ALSO, what "international rules" are China and Australia breaking, seems to me if in Australia's case we should be imposing tariffs on American imports, as they have a surplus with us, they need "nudging"! China is breaking the rule of being a more efferent producer than their American counterparts.

"So your fallback - “I never said that, eh?” - isn’t a rescue, it's a squirm."

No its me pointing out that you are, yet again, deliberately misinterpreting my words and then criticising the misinterpretation. Pretty much the only play you've got these days.

You see, if you can't deal with my actual views and feel the need to make up fake views in order to achieve what you consider a victory, you've got nowt.

mhaze,

I dealt directly with your words - “tariffs on China are at around 53%” and “China either plays nice or doesn’t play at all” after citing a 60% deficit drop.

Those are your lines, not fabrications.

And the point still stands: if the 53% was meant as blanket coverage, it was misleading. If it wasn’t, it doesn’t back your “nudging” claim.

Same with the deficit drop - either it’s your evidence, in which case it’s cherry-picked, or it was irrelevant filler.

Either way, it collapses.

Crying “misrepresentation” every time you’re pressed doesn’t change that. It’s just the new label on the same dodge.

If your own words don’t support your point, that’s not my misrepresentation - that’s your problem.

“tariffs on China are at around 53%” ,

Yep my words. Which you then misinterpreted. As you always do. I still can't work out if its through malice or ignorance.

The figure is the rough average which you acknowledged. And then denied.

BTW, part of the US tariffs are the so-called fentanyl penalty which is used to (shock, horror!!) nudge China in the right direction.