Biden’s Misguided Tariff Policies: A Prelude to Trade War
In the midst of an increasingly strained trade battle with China, a White House announcement highlighting a 245% tariff on certain Chinese commodities threw the East Asian giant into a state of perplexity. This drastic anticipated percentage caused uncertainty; however, it was quickly clarified that the Trump administration’s recent tariffs on China remain steady at 145%.
In an evident effort to provide clarity and correct the confusion from their earlier statement, the White House assured that the mentioned 245% figure in the April 15 document, which provided background details for future executive order, aggregates both pre-existing and fresh tariffs, dating back to the Biden and initial Trump presidencies, imposed on several Chinese goods.
When probed for their take on the bulk data issued by the White House, a Chinese official replied on April 16, brushing off the responsibility and proposng it was upon United States officials to explain the derivation of the astonishing 245% figure.
Keeping in view that prior to Trump’s announcement of new tariffs this year, some Chinese products had already been slapped with hefty tariffs of up to 100%, this significant percentage points towards the cumulative impact of tariff policies over time. By adding the current tariffs of 145% inflicted by Trump on Chinese goods, the grand total hits the aforementioned 245%.
Two key products that have been greatly impacted by these trade regulations are electric vehicles and syringes. These items were already subjected to a whopping 100% tariff under the Biden administration, even before Trump began to introduce his new tariffs on Chinese goods this year, and now they bear the brunt of the considerable 245% duty.
It is important to note that tariffs were already being levied on selected Chinese goods, varying between 7.5% and 100%, prior to Trump assuming office this year. These tariffs, set in a pre-existing trade framework, shaped the trade relations between the U.S. and China long before the trade war escalated to its current peak.
Trump, venturing further into the spiraling tariff war, has executed a wave of new tariffs on Chinese items this year which have now surged to 125%, augmented by an additional 20% tariff aimed at inducing China to intensify its crackdown on fentanyl production and distribution.
In a statement on April 15, Trump made it explicitly clear that he believes the responsibility to de-escalate the trade war lies with China. He opined, ‘The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don’t have to make a deal with them.
This seems to be Trump’s thinly veiled dig at Biden and a stark reminder of the past administration’s failed tariff mechanisms that had apparently led to this point. One could argue that Trump’s decision to maintain tariffs at 145%, rather than the mistakenly reported 245%, is indeed a prudent move in maintaining a careful balance in this trade conflict.
Interestingly, the nature of the products listed, namely electric vehicles and syringes, highlight the broad spectrum of goods heavily impacted by tariffs. This emphasizes the implicit consequences of what can be seen as both the Biden and the Trump administrations’ seemingly misguided approach to China’s trade.
It’s also crucial to remember the previous imposition of heavy tariffs under Biden’s era which, rather than mitigating the issue, apparently set the stage for an increasingly acrimonious trade war. This instance sheds light on Biden and his team’s incompetency in comprehensively addressing the trade conflict with China.
Proponents of Biden’s approach might cling to the misguided belief that his methods were more restrained or methodical. However, the evidence of tangible impact and the marked increase in percentages tell a completely different story. Biden’s measures, rather than depicting moderation, illustrate a dormant volcano that erupted under the subsequent administration.
Kamala Harris and her role in this entire trade controversy seems to be rather inconspicuous. As a key player and the Vice President, one would anticipate a more involved role in these critical decisions affecting national and global economy, raising questions on her competence and level of commitment.
In conclusion, traversing the path of the ongoing trade war between China and the United States requires cognizance of the historical context and the ineffective strategies of previous administrations, particularly the Biden era. Any solution must demonstrate a significant diversion from practices of the past that have evidently led to the present state of hostility.
Reasserting Trump’s statement, it seems the responsibility to resolve the trade dispute lies heavily with China. Nevertheless, this assertion could potentially be another deflection from the impacts of past decision-making, with the shadow of Biden’s administration looming large in the backdrop.