Free Trade

Trump's Trade War Just Killed 1 Million Jobs

The unseen consequences of the trade war matter as much as the more visible.

|

MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS/Newscom

The head of Alibaba, China's largest e-commerce business, says he is canceling plans to bring 1 million jobs to the United States because of the ongoing trade war between the two countries.

In an interview with Chinese state media, Jack Ma said last year's promise to expand Alibaba's reach into the United States was based on "friendly China-U.S. cooperation, and the rational and objective premise of bilateral trade." The expansion plan was announced in January 2017, when Ma visited incoming President Donald Trump at Trump Tower in New York. At the time, Trump said he was looking forward to doing "great things" with Ma.

That 1 million anticipated jobs were expected to come not from building warehouses or distribution centers but from allowing American businesses to tap into Alibaba's massive marketplace to make sales to Chinese consumers. Now Ma says the plan has to be put on hold. "The current situation has already destroyed the original premise," he said Wednesday. "There is no way to deliver the promise."

On Monday, Trump announced 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports, to take effect on September 24. China has already outlined a plan to retaliate with more tariffs against American agricultural products. It's the largest escalation so far of the trade war between the two nations, which began in March with the Trump administration's imposition of tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese industrial goods. The latest round of tariffs will target consumer goods such as electronics, furniture, clothing, and toys.

In comments to investors reported by the Financial Times, Ma said China should prepare for a lengthy struggle with the United States. "It's going to last a long time, maybe 20 years," Ma said. "It's going to be a mess."

The loss of Alibaba's planned investment in the United States won't show up on any reports about job losses triggered by tariffs. That might make the cost less painful—and certainly less politically significant—than the jobs that have been lost at places such as a nail factory in Missouri, a keg manufacturer in Pennsylvania, and tire plants in Arkansas. But the unseen consequences of the trade war matter. Ma's decision means thousands of American small businesses will not have access to Alibaba's massive marketplace, that Chinese consumers using Alibaba will have fewer choices, and that fewer jobs will be created in the United States

Ironically, this sort of opportunity for American businesses to serve Chinese consumers would probably help close the U.S. trade deficit with China—a major goal of Trump's trade policy. The tariffs, meanwhile, have only caused America's trade deficit to widen.

NEXT: Trump Is Mad About the $854 Billion Spending Bill, but Not Because of Its Price Tag

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Winning at trade like you have never seen before.

  2. Wait. Reason scoffed at the 1,000,000 jobs claim as false when Trump made it. Why did it become true after Jack Ma said he wouldn’t do it?

    Jayusus wept.

    1. Well, the first claim made Trump look good, this one not so much. You see, there is a difference!

      1. The truth tables used by Reason’s logicians must be more complicated than those I learned about in high school trigonometry.

  3. Not likely. THe million jobs will still be created, just somewhere else. I thought Reason didn’t care about national borders.

    1. Re: CE,

      THe million jobs will still be created, just somewhere else.

      That’s not what DJT promised the xenophobic and ignorant rubes that voted for him. He promised them many jobs returning to ‘Murica (a lie), a wall that space aliens would pay for (because “Mexico” [a place] ain’t gonna do it), and jet-packs, Kitty! They promised us jet-packs!

      1. Of course identifying as an “Old Mexican” means saying derogatory things about American whites. Thanks for pointing out your identity politics for us.

        1. Re: WhatAboutBob,

          Of course identifying as an “Old Mexican” means saying derogatory things about American whites.

          Who said anything about whites, you nincompoop? I only identify Trumpistas (economically-illiterate, xenophobic rubes who prefer to blame everyone else for their own mediocrity).

          1. …economically-illiterate, xenophobic rubes…

            I’m sure you meant minorities when you said that, right?

          2. The fact you believed the estimates says more about your own economic ignorant than the trumpistas.

      2. No jet-packs because illegal migrants would use them to get over the wall in their irrational desire to live in white, racist, xenophobic America.

        It’s for their own good that there are no jet-packs.

        1. Re: Homple,

          No jet-packs because illegal migrants would use them to get over the wall in their irrational desire to live in white, racist, xenophobic America.

          Interesting that only racist and xenophobic Americans are afraid of immigrants wanting to live in “white” [no one mentioned skin color but YOU, by the way] racist and xenophobic America and not the other way around. Why would that be?

          1. Assuming that there is such a thing as a country which has borders it may control is not the same as being afraid of anybody. But accusing someone of “fear” or “anger” is true believer shorthand for “shut up”. I choose not to shut up.

            Why do Mexicans not open their country to Guatemalans? Mexico turns them back at the Mexico/Guatemala border, detains them and deports them or expedites their transit to the USA. Why can your beloved Mexico have a border while the the USA may not?

          2. Like those racist and xenophonic Mexicans?

            “Rather than amassing troops on its border with Guatemala, Mexico stations migration agents, local and federal police, soldiers and marines to create a kind of containment zone in Chiapas state. With roving checkpoints and raids, Mexican migration agents have formed a formidable deportation force. Since the Southern Border Plan launched, Mexico has deported more than half a million Central Americans, including almost 82,000 last year, according to data from Mexico’s Interior Department. Since 2015, Mexico has deported more Central Americans annually than U.S. authorities have, in some years more than twice as many.

            “Beti rests against a tree with her 4-year-old son. The two left Honduras in March and are requesting asylum in Mexico. They don’t feel particularly welcome. “We [migrants and refugees] have become a target for everyone here,” she says. “We feel like we have no rights and all security forces are after us.”

          3. Those darned racist Mexicans…

            “Priest C?sar Ca?averal, who heads migrant outreach for the Catholic Church’s local diocese, is blunt about the way Mexico is treating migrants.

            “Today the Mexican government is hunting migrants without sympathy, even though the exact same thing is happening to Mexicans at the U.S. border,” he says. “The border security measures here in Chiapas are even harsher than on the U.S.-Mexico border.”

            “Mexico’s speedy deportations have raised concerns of advocacy groups like the Washington Office on Latin America that potential refugees are being sent home before they have chances to claim asylum or report crimes committed against them in Mexico.

            “Far from being at odds, Ca?averal, the priest, sees parallels between Mexican and U.S. migration strategies.

            “We’re putting up something worse than a wall; it’s an invisible wall but it exists,” he says. “The policies are made as if migrants are invading us, that they bring violence and crime. Instead of being welcoming, we’re being discriminatory.”

      3. Old Mexican, you really are a delusional piece of work! I also hope you really are actually old… That way you have higher chances of kicking the bucket soon and sparing us all having to see your posts!

    2. Who believed jacks estimates? It was along the same lines as ACA will create 400k jobs. Or green jobs forever.

      Next up at reason… Trump kills all unicorns.

      1. “Trump kills all unicorns.”

        We have actual testimony of someone who saw Trump do it! They don’t remember what year it happened. Or exactly where they were when it happened. And it was 35 years ago. And they has been drinking alcohol. But they are absolutely certain it was Trump!

      2. Well, have you even *SEEN* a unicorn since Trump was elected?

    3. Re: “The million jobs will still be created, just somewhere else”

      Not quite a million jobs. All countries will be a bit poorer if global trade is hindered and reduced. The synergy of specialization and division of labor will be less.

      So, open-borders or not, we should care about this.

  4. Can’t lose what we didn’t have.

    1. +1

    2. The offer was only on the table because of Trump in the first place.

  5. Totally believable claim in the first place.

    1. My dreams of Tiananmen Square t-shirts being as big in China as Che t-shirts are here have been thoroughly dashed!


  6. In an interview with Chinese state media, Jack Ma said last year’s promise to expand Alibaba’s reach into the United States was based on “friendly China-U.S. cooperation, and the rational and objective premise of bilateral trade.”

    Yeah, uh huh. I mean, he might be telling the truth. That’s always possible. It’s also possible if he didn’t say that he’d get a bullet or sent out to the rice fields.

    This whole ‘trade war’ is really revealing a lot of interesting views about how journalists view China. China is a trade partner (a bad one, specifically), but they are not our friend for sure.

    1. Re: BYODB,

      This whole ‘trade war’ is really revealing a lot of interesting views about how journalists view China. China is a trade partner (a bad one, specifically), but they are not our [sic] friend for sure.

      Speak for yourself, Trumpista. The rest of us normal people didn’t have a problem with Chinese producers and sellers.

      1. Is BYODB a big Trump supporter, or do you just label everyone that who gives an opinion different than your own?

        1. Re:DesigNate,

          Is BYODB a big Trump supporter, or do you just label everyone that who gives an opinion different than your own?

          No, I only put that label on Trumpistas. You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to be labeled one, just share his brand of economic incompetence and foolishness.

          1. This is a lie, since I’ve seen you label literally anyone that way if they disagree with you on literally any subject. You must cry racism and ad hominem, because you’re simply not smart enough to understand any nuanced argument.

            1. Considering in his reply to Homple above he’s basically whining that Trump isn’t living up to his promise to provide jobs to xenophobic rubes he’s getting beyond parody of himself. Not informative or productive or even inquisitive just Alan Vanneman/Rev. Kirkland (or whatever)-level dumb contrarian.

              1. Yeah, I don’t usually bother replying after I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt he didn’t understand even microeconomics so his insane notions on macroeconomics boil down to his completely uninformed opinion.

                Not that I have the best grasp of macroeconomics myself since it’s been more than a few years since then, but I at least took the class in college and try to keep abreast of the news in that realm. I know I have my own outrageous opinions, but I know enough to know when my opinion is outrageous.

                1. Considering macroeconomics isn’t real, I don’t think you’ve much of a loss.


                  1. Considering macroeconomics isn’t real, I don’t think you’ve much of a loss.

                    I actually specifically recall making this very point to my macroeconomics professor after class. It’s a social science, after all. Either way, macroeconomics doesn’t make value judgments and doesn’t make distinctions individually but rather in aggregate so the idea ‘everyone wins’ is at best a half-truth.

            2. MexiFry is a huge piece of shit. He just pukes up leftist pablum about ‘Trumpistas’. He has nothing of value to add to a discussion.

      2. The fact you only started thinking about this after Trump was elected says a lot about you OMMH. Tariffs aren’t necessarily the answer, but Communist China isn’t a good faith trading partner and never has been.

        1. Have you seen the citizen scoring plan China plans to have in place by 2020? It almost brings Black Mirror’s Nosedive episode to life.

          All countries that believe in human rights should boycott China just for that.

          1. Ah, yes, I did read about this. It’s a way to exclude anyone from society that doesn’t toe the party line. But hey, maybe they can still get ‘jobs’ as rice farmers! Or, you know, just starve to death in the desert I guess.

            1. Although FYI, your link is broken lol

              1. Damn it!

                I had to find it by searching for the headline and when I try to copy and paste the URL, I get the 404 page. It’s worth the read,

                https://www.news.com.au/

                “Big Brother: China’s chilling dictatorship moves to introduce scorecards to control everyone”

                “”The benefits of being ranked on the higher end of the scale include waived deposits on hotels and rental cars, VIP treatment at airports, discounted loans, priority job applications and fast-tracking to the most prestigious universities.””

                1. “”But it doesn’t take much to end up on the wrong side of the scale with an estimated 10 million people are already paying the price of a low rating.

                  Jaywalking, late payments on bills or taxes, buying too much alcohol or speaking out against the government, each cost citizens points.

                  Other mooted punishable offences include spending too long playing video games, wasting money on frivolous purchases and posting on social media, according to Business Insider.

                  Penalties range from losing the right to travel by plane or train, social media account suspensions and being barred from government jobs.
                  “”

    2. Exactly BYODB, Chinese Communist propaganda is saying a lot of things to weaken American’s position.

      Reason takes it as fact.

      1. I won’t go so far out onto the limb that I claim that it is definitely the Communist Party putting words in people’s mouths, but the very fact that the media source that this was said on was quite literally owned by the Communist Party means that it doesn’t really matter if it was or wasn’t. It was allowed to be said, therefore the Communist Party approves the message.

        That’s how it works in China. It’s best not to forget it.

      2. Reason hates Trump more than Emperor For Life Xi.

    3. Ya know, one can make arguments that it is better to trade with despots etc because it’ll magically make them become free countries or some nonsense… I don’t think it’s true, but whatevs.

      But it is a 110% fact that China would still be a poor backwater country if the west hadn’t intentionally given them favored economic status, and bent over backwards to build them up. If we’d merely demanded reasonable terms, instead of signing off on shit terms I could almost let it slide…

      But the fact that we created slanted deals that worked against our favor, and in their favor, while NOT even doing this for democratic countries that are ostensibly our allies, like India etc… It’s madness. We literally just created our ONLY real geopolitcal enemy with our own money! It’s nuts.

      Some things go beyond economics. It’s one thing to say “Fuck it, people like Cuban cigars, so drop the embargo, it’s dumb.” It’s another to build up a tyrannical dictatorship that ACTUALLY has the power to one day supplant you as the world super power, and potentially take your ass out. It’s just stupid.

      Some purist libertarians can get real retarded about foreign policy stuff sometimes. Almost every war we’ve been in for several decades was dumb, and there are plenty of other issues with our FP too… But that doesn’t mean there aren’t REAL concerns that come up sometimes. I mean the USSR was real deal shit. They WERE NOT our friends. Neither is China. That people can be so naive is mind boggling.

  7. But the unseen consequences of the trade war matter.

    Not to all those window-breakers that Bastiat was referring to, they don’t. And I mean Trumpistas. The level of economic sophistication of Trumpistas puts them on par with planaria, which explains their incredible gullibility, which also explains why they won’t care about the ‘unforeseen’ consequences of their stupidity.

    1. You really are just a one note pablum puking idiot, aren’t you?

  8. That 1 million anticipated jobs were expected to come not from building warehouses or distribution centers but from allowing American businesses to tap into Alibaba’s massive marketplace to make sales to Chinese consumers.

    And they were going to be 1 million free market jobs too! So, if you had a small gun shop or just did custom engraving work you’d be able to sell in China on Alibaba like you can on Amazon.com.

    1. I know the answer is no, but this in particular was funny to me because I was just recently looking for rifling buttons on Alibaba…

    2. And of course there is literally ZERO reason he couldn’t just do this still. The only reason not to is because of POLITICS. Which means either he has decided to do this out of nationalistic feeling for his country of China… Or the government forced him to do it behind the scenes.

      China already had tariffs on most of our stuff, if they raise them it’s just more money to collect. No biggie. Plenty of people would still buy stuff, if they were ever going to buy stuff. It’s all political. Not that 1 million was legit anyway.

  9. No alt text?

    “No thanks. I only shake hands with fellow billionaires. You know, real ones.”

    or

    “Look, Ma. No handshake.” Maybe?

    1. “Sure you can grab them. Like this!”
      “Slow down big fella.”

  10. And another article that fails to mention the decades long practice of the Chinese stealing intellectual property from the United States. Trump is finally trying to stop it but of course Reason only thinks of the short term effects. The Chinese economy is crashing right now and there’s not much they can do to win the trade war long term.

    1. Re: WhatAboutBob,

      And another article that fails to mention the decades long practice of the Chinese stealing intellectual property from the United States.

      Jesus, you Trumpistas don’t know another one? No one steals Intellectual Property. IP is a myth. You can’t steal non-rivalrous and non-exclusive goods.

      Trump is finally trying to stop it

      Stop what? He’s doing nothing of the kind! He’s a gawddamned protectionist, that’s all.

      1. You can’t steal non-rivalrous and non-exclusive goods.

        A) It’s not a good.
        B) It being intrinsically non-rivalrous and non-exclusive doesn’t mean people can’t strive to make it rivalrous or exclusive. FFS aren’t you an open borders zealot?

        1. Re: mad.casual,

          A) It’s not a good.

          It IS a good. Like AIR is a good. Just not a good subject to scarcity. Ideas can spawn on people’s minds ad infinitum. You CAN’T put a fence around an idea. That’s why copyright ad IP require government aggression to enforce them. REAL property doesn’t need the State.

          B) It being intrinsically non-rivalrous and non-exclusive doesn’t mean people can’t strive to make it rivalrous or exclusive.

          People can strive pushing on a string forever. That doesn’t mean SHIT. Stop making a fool of yourself, you’re going to make me pee in laughter.

          1. People can strive pushing on a string forever. That doesn’t mean SHIT.

            So Trump can try and throw up his border wall forever and it doesn’t mean shit? That’s the stance *you’re* taking?

            Or are you going to backpedal and tell me that there are differences between intellectual property, ‘REAL’ property, and goods? That you can’t have a market for something that can’t possibly be scarce?

            I have trouble believing you didn’t piss yourself or that you don’t.

            1. The best part is that information and knowledge are far, far more scarce than his ‘rivalrous’ goods.

          2. So you admit to not understanding corporate espionage. It isn’t just public information we complain about from patents and copyright but also closely held trade and tech secrets that are actively stolen by china. You’re an ignorant rube.

          3. OK, share with us your SSN then. After all that isn’t stealing anything from you.

            And same with your bank account. What, do you think that all money is denoted in hard specie? The vast majority is just information, which you say is supposedly infinite, so no one will be taking anything from you, right?

      2. Did you know, for example, that the American economy relies on intellectual property rights? We’re an innovation and research economy, without IP we’re fucked.

      3. Spoken like the good little Marxist you are. It isn’t property if I want it. You really should be nicer to Tony since you two think so alike.

        1. The way we go about IP is totally fucked though.

          It is totally possible for two people to have the same idea at the same time. It’s pretty fucked up that the person that wins is the one that gets the government permission slip first. And building on someone’s idea isn’t robbing them of the use of that idea. As long as you aren’t holding yourself out to be the person who created the original work (fraud), I think there could be a lot more latitude in our copyright and patent laws.

          1. It’s totally possible for two people to try to homestead the same property at the same time. The one who gets to the county assayer wins. This is really no different.

            And building on someone’s idea isn’t robbing them of the use of that idea.

            You’re right, it isn’t, nor is it prohibited at all by our current system. Really, our patent/copyright laws are just property laws with automatic eminent domain applied after 20 and, what is it, 70 years? 100? IP already has far less protection than physical property.

            One argument that always causes me to laugh is that patents prevent or at least discourage someone from inventing anything new in that space. This is an idea generated by someone who doesn’t work in a competitive IP industry. Patents do the exact opposite: they encourage new approaches to get around existing IP thus generating more and not less.

            The only two legitimate complaints about our IP system are the large quantity of junk patents (cf. Intellectual Ventures by Myrvhold), and the excessive duration of copyright. The former is solved by going back to a working model standard, i.e. you need to show something real to the patent office and not just the lawyereese gibberish. The second is solved by cutting copyright down to during the lifetime of the author, perhaps with some modest minimum like the 20 years for patents.


            1. Patents do the exact opposite: they encourage new approaches to get around existing IP thus generating more and not less.

              This, but not entirely.

              Also, If you assume humans aren’t inherently angels and will pursue their own individual interests this literally incentivizes innovation with exclusive rights for a limited period of time, thus allowing the individual to profit off their ingenuity for a period of time without competition. If you believe in a free market, than you’ll know that they can only price that thing at a price point people will buy, which is basic economics, psychology, and political science all in one.

              I honestly don’t think people understand what a patent is or how they work, and if you don’t why opine so vehemently about it?

              The really pathetic thing is this is literally how our government is set up as well, so maybe it’s not a coincidence that certain people don’t like it.

              1. Patents do the exact opposite: they encourage new approaches to get around existing IP thus generating more and not less.

                This, but not entirely.

                As someone who has suffered through depositions as both a nominal expert and a 30(b)6, it’s definitely true. An awful lot of patents are issued for defensive purposes, i.e. freedom to operate. Your patent may have a novel improvement which allows you to operate, or you build up a sufficient portfolio to threaten a competitor with infringement in other areas and so you both end up cross licensing and benefiting. In both cases more art is generated that others can use in the future–free of charge after only 20 years.

                Also, If you assume humans aren’t inherently angels and will pursue their own individual interests this literally incentivizes innovation with exclusive rights for a limited period of time, thus allowing the individual to profit off their ingenuity for a period of time without competition.

                Well, yes, but I never claimed that I was making an exhaustive list of the pros of IP protection.

                1. Thanks for the discussion. Very informative. Never understood how it works and probably never will.

                  Only thing I know is I met a patent lawyer at a beach bar in a resort in Jamaica once. We had a few drinks. We got to talking. There were many happy people there. He was the happiest I met.

  11. …created or saved…

  12. I am deeply skeptical of this trade war as a strategic gambit, and think there is more than enough evidence to suspect that Trump either does not understand the economics behind trade or does not prefer them to the usual cronyist economic manipulation.

    But this comment isn’t about him; it’s about Reason‘s low-quality, hack, garbage reporting.

    Here we have a megacorporation CEO announcing that, because a decision of government policy has disappointed him, he will no longer be creating the one MILLION new jobs he was going to create for the economy. Not by hiring that many people, mind you (though of course even hiring n people does not “create n jobs for the economy”), but…somehow. Furthermore this is a Communist Chinese CEO, who has announced to the state newspaper that because of Trump policies that are no longer exhibiting “friendly relations between the American and Chinese peoples” he will not be doing these things for the people of the US all because of the policies of their leader…

    1. …Now if this were a story about some fat cat megadeveloper throwing around jobs numbers to razzle-dazzle the local councilcritters, Reason would spend three pages shoveling the contempt on so think you could smell it in Silver Spring. But let it be some Chinese oligarch–or some wino off the street for that matter–accusing Trump of killing jobs, and suddenly it is reported breathlessly as fact and splashed across the headline.

      Again, the fact that free international trade is indeeda good policy, and corporate cronyism a bad one, is beside the point. You are not supposed to scrutinize the facts differently when they tell you what you want to hear. Be professionals, for Christ’s sake.

          1. Is she flashing a white power hand signal, or just indicating that her as is two, er too big?


      1. I am deeply skeptical of this trade war as a strategic gambit, and think there is more than enough evidence to suspect that Trump either does not understand the economics behind trade or does not prefer them to the usual cronyist economic manipulation.

        I gotta agree with you. He’s sounded exactly like Sanders on trade since he was in the primaries. I think his tariffs might accidentally have strategic value, but if that’s being considered by him at all it’s a tertiary concern at best.

        I wasn’t sure about this at first, and I still don’t think that renegotiating NAFTA is necessarily a bad idea, but it’s becoming more and more clear that Trump is almost certainly not the guy to do the renegotiation.

        I’m not, however, going to cry rivers over Communist China having tariffs placed on them for their blatant cheating in international trade since essentially Nixon. Free trade is a good thing, but it’s not an unmitigated good thing in every circumstance.

        1. ON many issues he’s a Democrat from 1992. The fact that that is considered “conservative” or even “far right” today shows you just how radical the Left has become.

          1. We’ve both been making that same observation for about two years now I think. Few others have caught on to why Republicans might start sounding like Democrats from 1992 yet, either.

            That’s what happens when you only really have two parties and one of them is becoming so extreme that they basically consist of balkanized interest groups that have very few common interests.

      2. God. Don’t tell reason editors about job projections tied to new stadiums. They’d lose their shit.

    2. ” it’s about Reason’s low-quality, hack, garbage reporting.”

      When you get woke, your journalistic standards get woke too

      Another Woketarian Moment

    3. You think that Jack Ma is not a leader? The government of China needs him at least as much as he needs them.

      The art of the deal. Heh.

      Sure politics is involved. That is a given. In those lofty heights of the really big deals it always is.

      The guy is pure profit driven. One of the most successful multinationals ever and it actually does something, many things actually. It dwarfs Amazon. Old Cold War is not useful. Nor has it been for China for decades.

      No he never said anything about jobs or hiring people. He talked about an initiative to increase trade opportunities. Seriously if you were him would you launch that at this time? In business stable relationships and balance of competing interests are everything. Trump is interested in neither.

      1. He literally has to do almost nothing, except allow people from the US to sign up. The infrastructure for everything is already there! He’s literally ONLY doing this for political reasons. If increases tariffs decreased trade volume by 20% or whatever, there’s still PLENTY of money to be made there. It’s all politics. Either his own, as a nationalistic Chinese man, OR the Chi-Com government TELLING him he needs to do this.

        Don’t be daft.

  13. The head of Alibaba, China’s largest e-commerce business, says he is canceling plans to bring 1 million jobs to the United States because of the ongoing trade war between the two countries.

    I was going to bring 1 million jobs to China but not now.

    Oh, China’s Commies and their trade war just killed 1 million Chinese jobs.

    1. TDS really has turned Reason into a collection of counter tribalists, hasn’t it?

  14. The article glossed over the fact that Jack Ma had his pinky finger at the corner of his lip when he made the announcement.

    1. One million billion gagillion.

  15. Our executive sales team is meeting daily about Trump Tariffs, so I know they’re having some kind of effect in my industry.

    1. Yes, it’s an excuse for more meetings instead of out selling stuff.

  16. Good God, what is this, the Drudge Report?

    “”Trump’s Trade War Just Killed 1 Million Jobs””

    Fake headline.

    It would be accurate if you said promised, potential, or something like that before the word job.

    1. The slant of it screams of yellow journalism.

      1. Alright, I did laugh.

  17. The largest retailer in the world just announced it was pulling out of a deal to open its market to American sellers.

    How many jobs is just a number.

    Sick of winning.

    1. Announced that it’s not going to do what it has never done.

    2. Why weren’t US companies allowed to sell on Alibaba in the first place?
      Why did it take until 2018 for US companies to even be considered?

      1. +1

      2. They are allowed. The article I found says that there around 8000 customers in the US.

        I posted more below having at least checked out Wiki and some business articles before I made an opinion.

      3. Sooooo there is literally NOTHING in this whole announcement then? For some reason I was thinking US sellers couldn’t be on there, only buyers… But if they can… Then this means literally zero. Which makes it even more ridiculous.

  18. If we just let them continue to have free reign when stealing US technology, then we can be friends again. What a great offer!

    1. If the secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken or Coca Cola gets out we are all screwed.

  19. Jobs that don’t exist now confirmed to not exist.

    Santa was totally going to get you that pony.

  20. Actually it wasn’t jobs Ma talked about. He said that he was projecting to reach out to a million US businesses, mostly small business to connect them to Alibaba and customers. Trump said jobs. But one syllable words are so much easier to comprehend and tweet.

    But heck who wants to sell to the second largest market in the world. Commie bastards.

  21. “That 1 million anticipated jobs were expected to come not from building warehouses or distribution centers but from allowing American businesses to tap into Alibaba’s massive marketplace to make sales to Chinese consumers.”

    So the Chinese were *not* allowing the US to tap into the Alibaba marketplace before Trump, only made the offer because of Trump, but have rescinded that offer now, keeping that trade barrier in place.

    “It’s all Trump’s fault”

    1. +1

    2. What could we sell them anyway? They make everything, we make nothing.
      Or so I’ve heard.

    3. They are allowed. There is no barrier.

      They have customers here and you can find out how to sign up online.

      It hasn’t caught on much because small businesses do not have the know how to parter with buyers and sellers in China. It is more complicated than Amazon or eBay. It is not a retail transaction. There is also a language barrier.

      the part of the company he was talking about was business to business.

      What he was talking about was making it easier for someone here to hook up with business there. How exactly I don’t know.

      Of course alibaba makes money but so does the guy who has a company making crafted cowboy boots who wants to expand.

      One thing is that not just in China but everywhere there is big demand for certain American products and a lot of what gets sold over there are fakes. If genuine products were available then this would help with that.

      1. Even more of a dodgy bullshit number than I was thinking! Depending on your business, if Alibaba isn’t an obvious thing to look into that pops into your head… Well you’re probably not the kind of business owner that could figure it all out even if they got ahold of you.

  22. In other news, I am cancelling my plans to bring 10,000,000 jobs to China. Take that!

  23. Tell me, Old Beaner, why you don’t express outrage at Mexican polices that will facilitate mestizos travel north to skip cross the US border, but will intern and deport them if they stay in Messico? And could I help you financially in securing a ticket back to sombrero land to publicly express such outrage until a cadre of federales massage your scalp and throw YOUR ass out?

  24. Their will always be damage in a Trade War however, this is a war worth fighting and winning.

  25. What a retarded ass article. A total BS number, based off a BS nothing burger plan, that is clearly being cancelled ONLY for political reasons… If he ever planned to do anything in the first place.

    It really is funny to just see how the TDS seeps into peoples brains, and they literally have to filter EVERYTHING in the world in such a way as to pretend Trump is somehow the worst person ever. Anything good that he does doesn’t exist, or is downplayed… And every evil in the world is somehow directly his fault, even when it is really somebody elses fault… Like Ma cancelling his supposed plan for political reasons. He either did it because he’s a Chinese nationalist, or because the PRC guvmint ordered him to… But HE isn’t the bad guy for making business decisions based off of his politics/national interests… LOL

    1. Also, regarding his tariffs on China… The only way we won’t make them cave first is if we back down. 10% is probably too low. He should have nailed them harder right off the bat. Their industry will feel the pain long before we do, and once the layoffs start at Chinese factories they’re going to have a mob on their hands… They know this. Which is why they’ll cave. They’re trying to play Chicken with us, hoping that our retarded political system will make us back down first, because they know they can’t win if we don’t throw in the towel.

      Perpetual trade wars are certainly dumb… But ones where one nation has so much of an upper hand they can’t help but win? Not so much. Unfortunately short sighted morons like most of the mainstream media, and even Reason, can’t see that sometimes short term pain IS worth it for the long term gains. I hope Trump does stay the course on this once since he’s already started. This isn’t the kind of thing you want to back down on.

  26. It’s funny that journalism fact checking has now come down to whether the assertion is damaging to Trump or not.

  27. One meeeeellion jerbs! Gone. Oh, bummer. Dey tuk yer jerbs!

  28. Oh yeah, and how many millions of jobs did Obama kill by not creating a Space Force? We could have colonized multiple planets and started numerous industries on them. Sure, no one had thought of a Space Force then but this seems about as equally justifiably a complaint as the above article is making.

    1. The Space Force would be gov’t jobs. In other words, all the money to pay the Space Force would’ve been taken from private businesses and citizens, and these private parties would not be able to create jobs by virtue of them allocating their own private funds.

      In other words, if the Space Force “created” 10,000 jobs, it would destroy the same or more private jobs.

      But Alibaba is a private company (well, insofar as you can have a private company in China, but from the USA’s perspective, it is a private company). It can truly create jobs that didn’t exist before.

  29. I remember being told at the time, by Reason and many others, that the million jobs would never materialize and that the claim was just propaganda. Which may very well have been true. But Reason cannot now claim that these ‘jobs’ are being killed when they never existed and never were going to exist in the first place.

  30. Poppycock! These allegations are just Trump Derangement Syndrome!

    Fuck “Reason” and its fair weather stands for liberty and against Trump. Too little, too late.

    1. The headline is misleading, and the article is sloppy reporting. But tariffs are definitively anti-liberty . You know, they literally mean you are not allowed to import XYZ from China unless you pay Uncle Sam extra $$$. That is is not freedom. That is a tax.

  31. “The head of Alibaba, China’s largest e-commerce business, says he is canceling plans to bring 1 million jobs to the United States because of the ongoing trade war between the two countries.”

    And he also said he was in the room when Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford. I’d give both statements about the same credibility.

  32. This is what reasonable peoplewould define as fake news.

  33. Free and open markets are ideal but the game has been played against the US. Foreign markets heavily regulate and tariff against the US already. How many jobs did it cost when China, subsidizing its own solar panel businesses to create a cheap glut on the market, drove US businesses out of the business? And they do that across many industries.

    One tenet of libertarianism is that we need some government if not just to create a level playing field. If we are heavily tariffed and disadvantaged outside of our control, we of course must level the field. We’re the only player clinging to these perfect ideals while allowing ourselves to be pillaged.

  34. I care about Chinese people in the Chinese economy as much as the next guy, which means less than I do about myself and my own economy.

    If you want to persuade people in the United States to oppose trade barriers, make the case for free trade in terms of what’s best for people in the United States.

    For some people, that’s an incredibly difficult thing to do.

    I’ve made fun of Objectivists and Ayn Rand fanatics for years, but maybe we need to graduate from that before we dismiss it all out of hand. Some people have a hard time imagining arguments about pursing their own best interests–because they think it comes across as selfish, I guess? I don’t know.

    Regardless, no one who isn’t already on board with free trade is about to jump on bandwagon because Trump’s trade policies make things worse for the Chinese–especially when Trump is telling us that his trade restrictions are good for the U.S. Tell them that Trump’s policies are bad for American consumers, and you might get their attention.

    Anybody who wants American policy to take the best interests of the Chinese into account, should maybe go run for office in China.

    Moschino Logo Shoes Black
    moschino shoes

  35. Here’s the problem with the way you think about things I’m Not Sure:

    The argument was we sub out these garbage jobs, and then people move up to better jobs! That’s free trade theory… Unfortunately reality has shown that this hasn’t happened.

    We traded middlin’ jobs making say $15 an hour manufacturing commodity items, for minimum wage jobs making coffee. MILLIONS of people know this, and have seen this first hand. It shows in the statistics too.

    By the time shipping and logistics costs comes into play, many imported goods are only 10-20% cheaper than making them here at higher wages. So if we move somebody from being unemployed, since we have the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, to making even suppressed wages of $12-15 an hour making widgets, or a barista has that same option even… We’re on net better, potentially only paying nothing to a few percent more for the products.

    Free trade theory leaves out too many real world factors that contradict the way it works on paper. Unemployment, lower paying jobs NOT higher paying jobs replacing jobs lost from trade, accumulation of capitol to foreigners vs locals, etc. Trade is OFTEN good, but not in 100% of cases. Marginal instances where goods are only 25% or less cheaper are exactly the areas where we’d be better off producing here. If they can undercut us by 75% we should import.

    marcelo burlon iphone x

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.