I keep hearing that China was “taking advantage of us,” but I have found it very difficult to determine what their historical tariffs on US goods were. I’m aware that there is now a 104% tariff.
The World Trade Organisation has this document [link opens to a pdf]
Its not dated but references 2022, 2023, so assuming it represents the world before mid-Feb. Its not specifically for US products but for imports to China generally. The tariffs range from average lows of 5-6% for petroleum, wood and paper to highs of 24.5% for cereals and food preparations, 27.4% - sugar + confectionary, 23.2 - booze and tobacco. Overall, very little exceeded 25% (about 1/10th of all agricultural imports, and 1.5% of manufactured goods).
I think its probably fair to say that China’s tariffs were not crushingly high, but the benefits for producers gaining access to a massive and growing middle class were well worth it. Apart from specialist regional produce, there is probably little that they do not also make internally, so there would be lots of tariffs to protect things like the local kruller industry.
While Trump is using tariffs as a very, very blunt instrument, when the Chinese were upset with Australia they employed a much more sophisticated range of trade actions to disrupt and sometimes effectively kill trade and hurt Australia economically. They are playing a scientific and surgical boxing game, now facing an idiot who seemingly believes if you shut your eyes and flail your arms like a helicopter you will be unassailable.
My understanding is that China has various barriers which are classified as unfair trade practices, and it’s these practices which were the greater source of friction.
Yes; and China is a bit of a special case in all this. It can indeed be argued that some of the barriers and unfair practices are probably worse than high tariffs.
In terms of the OP question, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics (non-profit, non-partisan), prior to 2018 the average Chinese tariff on US goods was 8% and the average of US on Chinese goods was only 3%.
So it is an example of a country that was tariffing more. Note however that China’s tariffs were just by item and did not specifically set a rate for the US.
I think it would be more accurate to say essentially all countries apply non-tariff measures (NTMs) as trade impediments for varying rationales.
The impact and extent of NTMs on international trade exceeds tariffs, at least in the GTT era. If you want to bring trade to a halt, apply a quota, not just an ad valorian charge.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep the political commentary out of FQ, please. Focus on the facts.
Understood.
AIUI, during the first Trump term he applied tariffs on China (not as high as now) and they reciprocated with tariffs targetting mainly American agricultural products. Kind of a no-win-no-win, since apparently much of the revenue from those US tariffs on China ended up going to subsidize midwest farmers who lost their China market.
And don’t forget, the tariffs are just on physical goods. Services are not part of the calculation, which is a huge miss.
This may be related to the fact that the U.S. has a 20 billion dollar surplus on trade in services with China. This is despite some significant non tariff barriers, such as limits on the number of foreign films that can be shown in China.
A surplus on services to most places. It’s why this is completely wrong-headed and is just based on trump’s, and his supporters’, compete misconception of how trade / economics works.