China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources(reuters.com)
reuters.com
China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-backtracking-exclusiv/exclusive-china-backtracked-on-nearly-all-aspects-of-u-s-trade-deal-sources-idUSKCN1SE0WJ
120 comments
I suspect Xi wants this dispute to continue for internal Chinese reasons. The tariffs impact different sectors and regions in China differently. It may be continued tariffs are reducing overcapacity in a manner that allows Xi to save face internally. It could be the tarrifs are breaking the back of powerful exporting provinces (eg. Jiagnsu) and helping Xi consolidate power. It may also be the case that things need to get much worse in China economically before Xi has a strong enough argument to persuade the Chinese military (a powerful economic force itself) to embrace a deal. Finally, the success of the Belt&Road strategy requires a shift from US/Western export to vast investment elsewhere; and it may be the case these tariffs provide the Chinese private sector a strong incentive to open new markets and long-haul decrease reliance on the US. Its complicated. I suspect a deal will be reached in 2-4 months.
> continued tariffs are reducing overcapacity
How will that work? I only see them increasing the overcapacity as the market for commodity stuff gets even smaller
> success of the Belt&Road strategy requires a shift from US/Western export to vast investment elsewhere;
China had almost 20 years to do so, but Chinese companies were blindly charging ahead into US market. Only very recently, the business community began to realise that the rest of the world is "not so bad" business-wise." Xiaomi and BBK brands were a hit in India, but their C-levels ignored India up until they were almost buried in money from Indian market.
How will that work? I only see them increasing the overcapacity as the market for commodity stuff gets even smaller
> success of the Belt&Road strategy requires a shift from US/Western export to vast investment elsewhere;
China had almost 20 years to do so, but Chinese companies were blindly charging ahead into US market. Only very recently, the business community began to realise that the rest of the world is "not so bad" business-wise." Xiaomi and BBK brands were a hit in India, but their C-levels ignored India up until they were almost buried in money from Indian market.
That makes more sense to me than this whole "China is waiting for the US elections" stuff.
China pushing back publicly (rather than making a deal and then ... simply not following through) against the US doesn't play well in the US as far as getting someone they want elected. Americans hurting economically are the folks cheering on Trump to some extent (well a vocal portion) and aren't likely to back a deal that isn't perceived to be favorable.
If the administration in China is playing an internal game, that makes a lot more sense than trying a potentially very counterproductive play in the US.
China pushing back publicly (rather than making a deal and then ... simply not following through) against the US doesn't play well in the US as far as getting someone they want elected. Americans hurting economically are the folks cheering on Trump to some extent (well a vocal portion) and aren't likely to back a deal that isn't perceived to be favorable.
If the administration in China is playing an internal game, that makes a lot more sense than trying a potentially very counterproductive play in the US.
I don’t know how by cutting down exports Xi plans to consolidate power? Could you please expand on the mechanism by which this could happen? Tariffs are breaking backs of exporting provinces, may be they could be ill informed and Chinese propaganda can spin this to blame US.
[deleted]
Ruling by fear, anger and hunger. Check out North Korea.
Suffering constituencies (provinces, cities, banks, businesses) may have to make substantial concessions to Xi's leadership team/faction to obtain relief. Those concessions may be up front, or favors owed to be collected in the future. Politics 101.
This is a feature of the US administration's approach to negotiation, driven by various motivations. China is not without leverage, and the US will blink first.
The US is in a vastly stronger negotiating position. Damage to US = slightly higher prices at Walmart. Damage to China = lots of people losing jobs.
Xi is being publicly called out by Trump. He cannot fold because the Chinese people are at least as patriotic and nationalistic as your average American.
Instead of making this a civilised conference resolving trade issues its a pissing match between two superpowers. This is exactly the situation that the EU has tried to avoid with its own dealings with these two alpha male gorillas.
If we were dealing with rational countries here there would indeed be a deal. But this isn't a trade dispute between the Netherlands and Switzerland.
Instead of making this a civilised conference resolving trade issues its a pissing match between two superpowers. This is exactly the situation that the EU has tried to avoid with its own dealings with these two alpha male gorillas.
If we were dealing with rational countries here there would indeed be a deal. But this isn't a trade dispute between the Netherlands and Switzerland.
If being irrationally angry and unpredictable was such a bad strategy, it wouldn't be so widely deployed. Being an unpredictable tyrant can be extremely effective, most especially against people who are unfailingly polite and civilized. The Kim family (of North Korea) has made excellent use of this strategy, for instance.
How does your theory jive with the fact that his news is censored within China? Wouldn't Xi want it to be public?
None of the politics above implied involvement with the public; the public are generall a periphery in this discussion and possibly a detriment to inform the public too much about the details of what's going on, which would allow the public to speculate and make their own decisions.
His primary audience is party members, military, provincial leadership and the largest economic players.
Related to this and the censorship story already on the front page:
China is censoring internal news about these trade controversies. From family over there I know that the general public isn't seeing this on TV or anything. And even messages on WeChat are being taken down (my wife has had several private postings removed)
China is censoring internal news about these trade controversies. From family over there I know that the general public isn't seeing this on TV or anything. And even messages on WeChat are being taken down (my wife has had several private postings removed)
I don’t know why and I am not a Chinese citizen but this kind of thing bothers me deeply. I hope Streisand effect takes over China in a self-propelling feedback loop until this whole show comes crashing down. People of China deserve better (once they’re a solid middle class and taken out of poverty).
> People of China deserve better (once they’re a solid middle class and taken out of poverty).
You are implying that the current policies will bring them out of poverty which in a sense contradicts your first statement.
You are implying that the current policies will bring them out of poverty which in a sense contradicts your first statement.
Countries have emerged out of poverty even with strong democracies. I'm not sure why the world thinks that a strongman regime like the CCP is needed for economic growth.
In that sense, China is (IMHO) actually an outlier, an exception where a Communist regime used fully capitalistic economic policies and foreign investment to bring people out of poverty. This could have happened even if there was a different form of government there.
In that sense, China is (IMHO) actually an outlier, an exception where a Communist regime used fully capitalistic economic policies and foreign investment to bring people out of poverty. This could have happened even if there was a different form of government there.
https://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404369575977348865 This is from People' s Daily (the most official state-owned paper) on Sina Weibo (Chinese Twitter) in the early morning of May 8th, the most popular social media in China, and the commentator of this article is believed to be the direct voice from the politburo, the highest leadership of CPC.
Added: I really do not know why so many people are claiming that this piece of news have been censored in China, I saw the coverage at noon on May 7th on many mainstream medias, and every move from the U.S were also reported, along with every response from the press briefing of Chinese diplomat department. The latest coverage of it is also from People' s Daily about China' s retaliation response: https://weibo.com/2803301701/HtiphBxKZ , it was referenced and reported by all major mainstream medias i follow, so what did I miss?
My comment was based on lack of reporting up to the morning of May 7 (i.e., yesterday evening to us), when family were still saying they'd seen nothing. So maybe they decided to lift the embargo at noon as you said.
But even with that, it doesn't change the removal from WeChat private messages that my wife experienced as recently as over last night.
But even with that, it doesn't change the removal from WeChat private messages that my wife experienced as recently as over last night.
CCP is wise enough to know such news cannot be censored and censoring it only creates chaos and panic, my guess is it was struggling how to respond. CPC does censor the debates about it, but from it started in last year till now, every development has been reported by the official press, it has been laid low about the deal and prepared for the worst scenario, the news about the negotiations are always simple description of the events, but it never covered up any development.
So basically China's stance is, we cannot change our laws so our bad trading practices must remain in place?
While we only get news of trade imbalances between US and China to include all their tariffs and restrictions can someone for the EU or elsewhere chime in with how their nations fare?
While we only get news of trade imbalances between US and China to include all their tariffs and restrictions can someone for the EU or elsewhere chime in with how their nations fare?
“So basically China's stance is, we cannot change our laws so our bad trading practices must remain in place?
”
Reminds me of a lot of corporations. “This doesn’t make sense but it’s policy”. Never mind that they wrote the policy themselves.
Reminds me of a lot of corporations. “This doesn’t make sense but it’s policy”. Never mind that they wrote the policy themselves.
"this is not profitable so it should not be law".
Yeah I've heard that plenty over here in the US.
Yeah I've heard that plenty over here in the US.
I think this is a very strange development. I'm a bit surprised they would backtrack at all.
Rather in the past they've agreed to various regulations and laws and ... just not enacted or simply enacted and not followed them. That last part being the real question in all these details, does it matter if a deal gets made anyway?
If anything the traditional route would have allowed the POTUS to declare victory and everyone just move on, but this is far more confrontational and unusual based on my understanding.
Rather in the past they've agreed to various regulations and laws and ... just not enacted or simply enacted and not followed them. That last part being the real question in all these details, does it matter if a deal gets made anyway?
If anything the traditional route would have allowed the POTUS to declare victory and everyone just move on, but this is far more confrontational and unusual based on my understanding.
They're hoping for a democratic administration in 2020 to negotiate with.
Another year and a half is a long time to make your people suffer. And a lot of the supply chains that moved out of China might not come back. Waiting is a hell of a gamble.
I'm not sure a year and a half of unfavorable trade means much to a dictator who declares themself dictator for life, imprisons millions of citizens in re-education camps and engages in mass censorship.
Good thing the Chinese people have no history of violently overthrowing their rulers.
Plus, there's a disaster brewing with the Chinese hog epidemic . Going to be lots of starvation in a year or two.
I just learned the source of this epidemic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ9bP6wo8rA&list=WL&index=49...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ9bP6wo8rA&list=WL&index=49...
I'm not convinced that in pushing the issue further.... that they're going to get someone friendly, possibly the opposite.
Trump, if anything, may have shown you can call out China and do things and ... the sky doesn't fall.
I don't doubt that it is possible that China's leadership feels something will change, I'm not so sure they get what they want.
Trump, if anything, may have shown you can call out China and do things and ... the sky doesn't fall.
I don't doubt that it is possible that China's leadership feels something will change, I'm not so sure they get what they want.
Maybe China was just playing time and trying to time the trade conflict.
US elections are next year. If the trade war escalates this summer, the effect on voters and the US economy will be hardest 6 to 12 months from now. After that the US economy will start to adjust for the new normal.
US elections are next year. If the trade war escalates this summer, the effect on voters and the US economy will be hardest 6 to 12 months from now. After that the US economy will start to adjust for the new normal.
Concerns about China though aren't likely to change.... I'm not sure voters will feel like "We need to strike a deal with China" ... and accordingly I'm not sure it is so much a Chinese advantage.
If things are worse, voters could be just as angry and willing to vote for someone who wants to fight ... more with China over trade.
This could be a case where China might want to stoke a problem, and get more blowback than they otherwise would have. The current POTUS (elected dude to a lot of things including economic concerns by some voters) has already proven you can put up a fight and the sky doesn't fall... and a politician might not see making a deal advantageous to China as a good political move, or even likely to produce a lot of economic benefit.
If things are worse, voters could be just as angry and willing to vote for someone who wants to fight ... more with China over trade.
This could be a case where China might want to stoke a problem, and get more blowback than they otherwise would have. The current POTUS (elected dude to a lot of things including economic concerns by some voters) has already proven you can put up a fight and the sky doesn't fall... and a politician might not see making a deal advantageous to China as a good political move, or even likely to produce a lot of economic benefit.
How, exactly, do you envision the US economy being damaged by a trade war with China? As far as I can tell, the effects thus far have been basically nil. Whereas things are looking pretty bad in China at the moment...
>the effects thus far have been basically nil
This is quite factually untrue. [0] [1] [2] [3]
To be clear, this is entirely as a rebuttal to your claim, not as any broader statement about international policy or outcomes.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/u-s-soy-e...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/us/politics/farming-trump...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/02/24/under-...
[3]https://www.minnpost.com/economy/2018/08/trade-war-pulls-por...
This is quite factually untrue. [0] [1] [2] [3]
To be clear, this is entirely as a rebuttal to your claim, not as any broader statement about international policy or outcomes.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/u-s-soy-e...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/us/politics/farming-trump...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/02/24/under-...
[3]https://www.minnpost.com/economy/2018/08/trade-war-pulls-por...
The most recent tweets by Trump regarding this:
"The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come... Guess what, that’s not going to happen! China has just informed us that they (Vice-Premier) are now coming to the U.S. to make a deal. We’ll see, but I am very happy with over $100 Billion a year in Tariffs filling U.S. coffers...great for U.S., not good for China!"
"The reason for the China pullback & attempted renegotiation of the Trade Deal is the sincere HOPE that they will be able to “negotiate” with Joe Biden or one of the very weak Democrats, and thereby continue to ripoff the United States (($500 Billion a year)) for years to come... Guess what, that’s not going to happen! China has just informed us that they (Vice-Premier) are now coming to the U.S. to make a deal. We’ll see, but I am very happy with over $100 Billion a year in Tariffs filling U.S. coffers...great for U.S., not good for China!"
The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation.
A US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers.
The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual property.
Imports are paid for by exports. If you're worried about a trade imbalance, you could always say that the other nation can keep sending more goods if they want, but we'll only pay for them with trade goods and services, not with cash, or ownership of land and capital.
A US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers.
The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual property.
Imports are paid for by exports. If you're worried about a trade imbalance, you could always say that the other nation can keep sending more goods if they want, but we'll only pay for them with trade goods and services, not with cash, or ownership of land and capital.
Taxes on transactions, such as tariffs, are almost never paid only by one side. The side with less flexibility is going to pay most of it, adjusting prices as needed to make this so.
China has less flexibility. Idled factories are a huge problem, and there is no other buyer as large as the US. It is relatively easier for the US to buy elsewhere, both abroad and domestic.
About 83% of the tariff burden is getting paid by China. (analysis by European financial firm)
Even the part we do pay isn't all bad. It reduces the need for other taxes. It supports American workers, reducing income inequality.
China has less flexibility. Idled factories are a huge problem, and there is no other buyer as large as the US. It is relatively easier for the US to buy elsewhere, both abroad and domestic.
About 83% of the tariff burden is getting paid by China. (analysis by European financial firm)
Even the part we do pay isn't all bad. It reduces the need for other taxes. It supports American workers, reducing income inequality.
Seriously, 83%? That's insane!
Seems things are going far better in this little trade war than I was expecting. If the 17% paid by US consumers displaces other taxes, that's a huge net gain.
Seems things are going far better in this little trade war than I was expecting. If the 17% paid by US consumers displaces other taxes, that's a huge net gain.
> The import tariffs are paid by the people inside the importing nation.
While that's technically true, the tariffs have the effect of increasing the price of goods, so the exporter may need to lower their price and drop their profit margin to remain competitive.
> The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual property.
That's an interesting idea, but doesn't the US Constitution ban export taxes?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42780.pdf
While that's technically true, the tariffs have the effect of increasing the price of goods, so the exporter may need to lower their price and drop their profit margin to remain competitive.
> The way to tax China itself would be an export tax on money bound to China, including the transfers of immobile or intangible assets to Chinese nationals or corporations via domestic exchanges or brokerages--and including the cash value of transferred intellectual property.
That's an interesting idea, but doesn't the US Constitution ban export taxes?
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42780.pdf
It bans taxes on "articles exported". Banknotes, shares of stocks, bonds, title to real property--these are arguably not "articles".
You couldn't tax a crate of polypropylene combs going from Chicago to Shenzhen. You might be able to tax the sale of 100 shares of stock in Acme Unbreakable Combs, Inc. to Chan Jingwei of Shenzhen on the Nasdaq exchange. Maybe tax the transfer of technical plans and patent rights for a comb-making machine from AUC Inc. to Acme Shenzhen Manufacturing, a Chinese corporation. And you might be able to tax the sale of a Seattle 4000-sqft 5-bedroom house to Mr. Chan.
In all those cases, you're not moving goods, you're moving ownership.
You couldn't tax a crate of polypropylene combs going from Chicago to Shenzhen. You might be able to tax the sale of 100 shares of stock in Acme Unbreakable Combs, Inc. to Chan Jingwei of Shenzhen on the Nasdaq exchange. Maybe tax the transfer of technical plans and patent rights for a comb-making machine from AUC Inc. to Acme Shenzhen Manufacturing, a Chinese corporation. And you might be able to tax the sale of a Seattle 4000-sqft 5-bedroom house to Mr. Chan.
In all those cases, you're not moving goods, you're moving ownership.
Is there any caselaw that takes that view?
Someone would have to enact a law establishing an export tax first. As far as I am aware, you can't challenge a law as unconstitutional until it has been passed and signed.
> US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers.
And a regressive tax at that, as it will affect poor people more compared to the better off.
And a regressive tax at that, as it will affect poor people more compared to the better off.
A 25% tariff results in low-singe digits % price increase at in the store. The tariffs are on cost of goods, but cost of goods is usually a fairly small fraction of retail price.
Even a 5% increase in the monthly costs of a lower-income family is 5% too much in this era of stagnating real wages. And
Most families don't spend all that much money on stuff manufactured in China. Family budgets are largely comprised of rent/mortgage, food, and transportation. Then you have clothing and household goods, some of which is manufactured in China. So we're looking at a 5% increase in a small fraction of a family's monthly budget. As a point of comparison, families regularly weather much larger fluctuations in their monthly budget due to changes in the price of gasoline.
[deleted]
Another way to wipe out a history of past trade imbalances would be to announce the retirement of the domestic currency, citing counterfeiting or hacking, hyperinflation, or whatever else that may sound plausible.
You then allow only your own nationals to exchange old money for new money. In order to avoid losing all of the value of their old money, foreign holders would have to buy something from a domestic person, who could then exchange the currency.
A smart exchanger would then either keep the new cash, or buy back their sold things at a lower price. In effect, it ends up being a one-time tax on domestic currency being held abroad. Any country that had been building up a reserve of your currency via trade deficits either has to settle up immediately by importing a giant bolus of your trade goods, or it gets screwed.
You then allow only your own nationals to exchange old money for new money. In order to avoid losing all of the value of their old money, foreign holders would have to buy something from a domestic person, who could then exchange the currency.
A smart exchanger would then either keep the new cash, or buy back their sold things at a lower price. In effect, it ends up being a one-time tax on domestic currency being held abroad. Any country that had been building up a reserve of your currency via trade deficits either has to settle up immediately by importing a giant bolus of your trade goods, or it gets screwed.
That sounds like a great way to lose reserve currency status immediately.
If your currency is a reserve currency, this measure is unnecessary--you can just print more of it.
That has the unfortunate disadvantage of devaluing the currency your own citizens hold.
Only the rich ones. The citizens who have their debts devalued, and whose assets are mostly in residential real estate, would see it as a fortunate advantage.
What's the benefit of having reserve currency status?
US States have right and left been legalizing precious metals for currency this last year, perhaps in preparation for a return to the gold standard and dumping federal reserve notes after an audit of the federal reserve...
US States have right and left been legalizing precious metals for currency this last year, perhaps in preparation for a return to the gold standard and dumping federal reserve notes after an audit of the federal reserve...
> What's the benefit of having reserve currency status?
You get to print absurd amounts of money without significant inflation because every other nation in the world hoards your currency because it’s the de facto standard for trade. US dollar stability owes a lot to the fact that everyone else holds a ton of dollars.
> US States have right and left been legalizing precious metals for currency this last year...
It’s never been illegal to trade precious metals for goods or services. Precious metals may not be legal tender but no one has been prevented from using them as currency.
To the extent that some states may make gold or silver coins legal tender, it’s just pandering to conspiracy theories and paranoia. In the event that the dollar collapses, having gold as an alternative legal tender does nothing. Anyone saying otherwise is either lying or ignorant.
If someone owes you $1300 dollars, having gold as an alternative legal tender doesn’t help you if the dollar collapses. The person owing you is absolutely not going to go find a Troy ounce of gold coins to pay you. They’re going to happily pay you the $1300 they owe you in devalued US dollars. And you’ll accept, because that’s what legal tender means.
You get to print absurd amounts of money without significant inflation because every other nation in the world hoards your currency because it’s the de facto standard for trade. US dollar stability owes a lot to the fact that everyone else holds a ton of dollars.
> US States have right and left been legalizing precious metals for currency this last year...
It’s never been illegal to trade precious metals for goods or services. Precious metals may not be legal tender but no one has been prevented from using them as currency.
To the extent that some states may make gold or silver coins legal tender, it’s just pandering to conspiracy theories and paranoia. In the event that the dollar collapses, having gold as an alternative legal tender does nothing. Anyone saying otherwise is either lying or ignorant.
If someone owes you $1300 dollars, having gold as an alternative legal tender doesn’t help you if the dollar collapses. The person owing you is absolutely not going to go find a Troy ounce of gold coins to pay you. They’re going to happily pay you the $1300 they owe you in devalued US dollars. And you’ll accept, because that’s what legal tender means.
There are very real problems with how China treats foreign companies (intellectual theft, requirements to partner with Chinese companies and many more). I'm happy they get addressed. However, Trump completely misrepresents the problem and the impact of tariffs. The negotiations clearly are tackling the right issues, yet here he is talking about trade deficits as some kind of theft and tariffs as a straight up win like some moron who doesn't get econ 101. He is doing his (for once) good effort such a disservice. Is he trying to divide the country by even representing his good work in a way that will only appeal to his hardcore supporters or does he truly not get it? Is there a more charitable explanation?
Edit: I also have very sour memories of Obama complaining about the trade deficit with Germany. In that case none of the real issues like we have doing business with China existed. In essence Obama was complaining about German companies being too successful and Germans saving too much money. Maybe I'm particular sensitive to trade deficit rhetoric because of that. If the passing field is level, then maybe the deficit is the fault of the country that has the deficit. In this case the playing field is very skewed and that's the problem.
Edit: I also have very sour memories of Obama complaining about the trade deficit with Germany. In that case none of the real issues like we have doing business with China existed. In essence Obama was complaining about German companies being too successful and Germans saving too much money. Maybe I'm particular sensitive to trade deficit rhetoric because of that. If the passing field is level, then maybe the deficit is the fault of the country that has the deficit. In this case the playing field is very skewed and that's the problem.
His style of talking is to use simple terms even to the extent of sounding stupid to let the messages go across clearly. Trade deficits being neutral or slight bad is a niche view by a some economists. Most people view trade deficits as bad, rightly or wrongly. The word deficit, loss, and inbalance all have bad connotation. And the loss is huge, adding to a dramatic effect. He's trying to justify his action to his voters. Why won't he use trade deficit reduction as a goal?
Also balanced trade would be better than trade deficit, so it's a worth goal to achieve.
Also balanced trade would be better than trade deficit, so it's a worth goal to achieve.
If the market was fair, then it's the US's fault to not make more attractive products and buy tons of stuff from China. It wouldn't be China's fault that they are successful and we are not. It would be like Obama bitching about Germany that I mentioned above. But that's not what's going on here. China is playing unfairly.
The market in regarding to China is not fair, so all is moot. Germany isn't play so fair as well [1].
[1] https://www.export.gov/article?id=Germany-Trade-Barriers
[1] https://www.export.gov/article?id=Germany-Trade-Barriers
If the trade with China is discriminatory, he should call that out and not whine about a trade deficit, which can have many reasons (like US products might be bad or US consumers consume too much)
The link you provide only mentions high testing standards and even specifically calls out that they don't get applied in a discriminatory way. Can you elaborate more?
The link you provide only mentions high testing standards and even specifically calls out that they don't get applied in a discriminatory way. Can you elaborate more?
He doesn’t get it. It’s obvious at this point that he’s just not very intelligent and makes it worse by putting in zero effort to understand.
Does his understanding matter? If Mnuchin and Lighthizer are hitting all the right notes in the negotiation, does it matter if Trump understands any of it? Let him bluster and take credit for Mnuchin and Lighthizer's good work.
The problem is that his communication is what's most visible and it's misrepresenting his administration's good work. It would be good for the country to at least be unified on some issues. Yet this gets presented in a way where we again can't even agree on the problem.
dilyevsky(1)
I don't understand the hate Trump gets for doing what needs to be done. All these issues esp. theft of intellectual property, IP transfer, currency manipulation are much more important in the long term than some tarrifs.
One shitpost tweet crashed SZSC by 7%, most of China couldn't even read it. Trump is in a position of power at least with this negotiation.
China deserves the pain train for backpedalling.
One shitpost tweet crashed SZSC by 7%, most of China couldn't even read it. Trump is in a position of power at least with this negotiation.
China deserves the pain train for backpedalling.
[deleted]
The trade war isn't helping anyone. It's costing US consumers, companies, farmers and the stock market.
Just a quick search, I couldn't find any mainstream, usually Republican leaning economists, magazines, or newspapers that said it was a good idea.
Just a quick search, I couldn't find any mainstream, usually Republican leaning economists, magazines, or newspapers that said it was a good idea.
> I couldn't find any mainstream, usually Republican leaning economists, magazines, or newspapers that said it was a good idea.
That's because tariffs aren't a traditionally right wing, "free market" position. This is actually an economic view that Trump shares with Bernie Sanders.
That's because tariffs aren't a traditionally right wing, "free market" position. This is actually an economic view that Trump shares with Bernie Sanders.
yep. that's what I see too. In addition, Sanders harshly criticized the TPP:
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world."
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-tr...
And Trump seems to have agreed with that as well.
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world."
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-tr...
And Trump seems to have agreed with that as well.
there are some narrow interests that favor Trump tariffs.
e.g. the United Steelworkers Union:
"China ... dumps its excess aluminum and steel on the world market at super-discounted prices. The United States, in conjunction with European allies and others, has repeatedly over the past decade negotiated with China to stop defying the rules it agreed to abide by when it gained entrance to the World Trade Organization in 2001. China repeatedly has said it would. And then it doesn’t."
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21027/union_steel_tari...
"China ... dumps its excess aluminum and steel on the world market at super-discounted prices. The United States, in conjunction with European allies and others, has repeatedly over the past decade negotiated with China to stop defying the rules it agreed to abide by when it gained entrance to the World Trade Organization in 2001. China repeatedly has said it would. And then it doesn’t."
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21027/union_steel_tari...
“Trump’s steel tariffs cost U.S. consumers $900,000 for every job created, experts say“
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/07/trumps-st...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/07/trumps-st...
I didn't say it was good for everyone. You said "The trade war isn't helping anyone." I only pointed out that some narrow interest groups favor it because it's helping them.
There are other inefficiencies in the US economy, jobs that are preserved or are high paying solely because existing laws limit competition, limit participation by potential additional workers, etc
The real issue here is not "Have these tariffs caused our economy to deviate from pure efficiency?" It's "Which special groups are allowed to have their own interests protected and extended by law and by government action?" This stuff is happening all over the economy.
There are other inefficiencies in the US economy, jobs that are preserved or are high paying solely because existing laws limit competition, limit participation by potential additional workers, etc
The real issue here is not "Have these tariffs caused our economy to deviate from pure efficiency?" It's "Which special groups are allowed to have their own interests protected and extended by law and by government action?" This stuff is happening all over the economy.
Very similar story with the Obama tire tariff. $926,000 cost to consumers per job saved, plus the loss of 3 retail jobs due to consumers spending more on tires and less on other stuff.
http://www.aei.org/publication/2009-tire-tariffs-cost-us-con...
http://www.aei.org/publication/2009-tire-tariffs-cost-us-con...
As usual, when the government gets involved in the market and the economy, with a combination of incompetence and cow towing to special interest, it makes the situation worse.
This is the one thing where I find myself supporting the policies of the Trump administration.
I have to agree. And, while I will hate myself for this, but after Biden's statement that China is not a competition, who I will end up voting for in the next election is no longer given.
Yep, one of the hardest and most important things in life is the ability to agree/compromise with people you have fundamental issues with.
This is one of those cases and his tweet is correct, they can just wait this out until the next election after someone new gets in and we do a 180.
This is one of those cases and his tweet is correct, they can just wait this out until the next election after someone new gets in and we do a 180.
They might be waiting until 2025. That's a long time to wait.
> This is one of those cases and his tweet is correct, they can just wait this out until the next election after someone new gets in and we do a 180.
No. Chuck Schumer, one of Trump's major political rivals tweeted this in response his tweet on tariffs:
> Hang tough on China, President @realDonaldTrump. Don’t back down.
> Strength is the only way to win with China.
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1125143336837206016
The US isn't going to do a 180 until a pro-business Republican or a Libertarian sits in the Oval Office, and its unlikely that will happen next cycle unless Trump dies or is impeached.
No. Chuck Schumer, one of Trump's major political rivals tweeted this in response his tweet on tariffs:
> Hang tough on China, President @realDonaldTrump. Don’t back down.
> Strength is the only way to win with China.
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1125143336837206016
The US isn't going to do a 180 until a pro-business Republican or a Libertarian sits in the Oval Office, and its unlikely that will happen next cycle unless Trump dies or is impeached.
I am with him on this issue but I have strong doubts about him being able to find a resolution. When I look at the North Korea situation, his health care “plan” and other issues he seems to like going in and talk tough but in the end he gets nothing done. I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point China would flatter Trump with some nice words and then Trump would declare “I love China” and forget about the whole thing.
> Trump gets for doing what needs to be done.
Reducing new borrowings and doing dramatic gestures to reduce debt? No, he is not doing that. US deficit shot up dramatically as giant loads of new t-bills went into circulation, and financial players got strong signal on US interest rates.
To reduce the trade deficit, the first thing to do is to reduce the fiscal deficit — a thing that has little to do with trade.
Reducing new borrowings and doing dramatic gestures to reduce debt? No, he is not doing that. US deficit shot up dramatically as giant loads of new t-bills went into circulation, and financial players got strong signal on US interest rates.
To reduce the trade deficit, the first thing to do is to reduce the fiscal deficit — a thing that has little to do with trade.
What would you do if you were going to perform an audit of the Federal Reserve?
Lets say that the Fed has not been exactly lawful with the way they sling money. And you know it because you've put someone in charge that could take a look. So you have the justification for shutting it down. Wouldn't you max your "credit card" out if you knew you were going to be able to cut it up?
Trump knows debt better than anyone on this planet. Don't let him fool you.
Lets say that the Fed has not been exactly lawful with the way they sling money. And you know it because you've put someone in charge that could take a look. So you have the justification for shutting it down. Wouldn't you max your "credit card" out if you knew you were going to be able to cut it up?
Trump knows debt better than anyone on this planet. Don't let him fool you.
theres a lot of reasons for someone to look at both what and how trump is approaching this, and rationally come away less-than-enthused:
1. Poor execution & personnel at odds with each other leaking play-by-play details has led to a lot of market fluctuation and difficulty for the market to price in the "real world". Anyone exposed to this gets a first hand look at the monetary cost of this. 2. Real impacts of the tariffs felt by american manufacturing & farmers as well as american consumers. If trump wanted an extended trade war he should have been much more upfront with people & prepared to cushion it. You say it's "some tariffs" but this minimizes real household struggles. 3. General impacts of "losing the people". He's a highly polarizing leader; anywhere from beat street to wall street to pennsylvania ave, people who don't get along with others will find it very difficult to be trusted on any given issue even when they're right. This is a near-constant in life, some people manage to be a net-benefit with that attitude but it's usually by leaning on other crutches like being highly gifted. Trump isn't that person.
1. Poor execution & personnel at odds with each other leaking play-by-play details has led to a lot of market fluctuation and difficulty for the market to price in the "real world". Anyone exposed to this gets a first hand look at the monetary cost of this. 2. Real impacts of the tariffs felt by american manufacturing & farmers as well as american consumers. If trump wanted an extended trade war he should have been much more upfront with people & prepared to cushion it. You say it's "some tariffs" but this minimizes real household struggles. 3. General impacts of "losing the people". He's a highly polarizing leader; anywhere from beat street to wall street to pennsylvania ave, people who don't get along with others will find it very difficult to be trusted on any given issue even when they're right. This is a near-constant in life, some people manage to be a net-benefit with that attitude but it's usually by leaning on other crutches like being highly gifted. Trump isn't that person.
The facts say differently:
GDP growing around 3%.
US net exports up about $55b.
Unemployment 50 year low.
Minority unemployment record low.
Non-farm payrolls up by about 3%.
Business confidence (Fed Ind Businesses) highest in 45 years.
(sources)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishme...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-g...
GDP growing around 3%.
US net exports up about $55b.
Unemployment 50 year low.
Minority unemployment record low.
Non-farm payrolls up by about 3%.
Business confidence (Fed Ind Businesses) highest in 45 years.
(sources)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishme...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-g...
Presidents (of both parties) like to take credit for those kinds of economic results. In reality the federal reserve and what they are doing with interest rates and the money supply is mostly responsible for economic cycling, not the president.
This is not correct. My profession put(s) me in a position to work directly with CEO's nationwide. Trump's election and his policies moved these folks to invest in people, plants and equipment. Fed policy had nothing to do with it. Believe what you will, but I'm relaying to you the ground truth.
Continuing the trends of the last decade.
Don't forget that yield curve inversion
Indeed, good work by the Trump admin. here.
I'll bite instead of just downvoting.
> China deserves the pain train for backpedalling.
Fine, I'll accept your premise here. Now, on the flip side:
Why do I deserve "the pain train" for what's happening with China? Why should I and others I know suffer for this?
> I don't understand the hate Trump gets for doing what needs to be done.
Because things for me were good before, and now they are less good as a direct result of things he's doing. Trump isn't doing anything to alleviate that, and if he is, I'm not seeing the results.
Finally, he serves me, so I have every right to demand results. He made lots of promises, and he's failed many of them already.
So answer my questions. Especially with the context of him not saying we'd have to suffer for his failures.
> China deserves the pain train for backpedalling.
Fine, I'll accept your premise here. Now, on the flip side:
Why do I deserve "the pain train" for what's happening with China? Why should I and others I know suffer for this?
> I don't understand the hate Trump gets for doing what needs to be done.
Because things for me were good before, and now they are less good as a direct result of things he's doing. Trump isn't doing anything to alleviate that, and if he is, I'm not seeing the results.
Finally, he serves me, so I have every right to demand results. He made lots of promises, and he's failed many of them already.
So answer my questions. Especially with the context of him not saying we'd have to suffer for his failures.
China is playing the old game, negotiation and negotiation and negotiation, never intend to make any change. They can even make promise to make changes after long long long negotiations and never do anything. And then when someone finally decide to do something about it, they will ask for a new round of negotiation and negotiation and negotiation.
Xi will stay in power may be in next 20 years, and he knows US will have general election in every 4 years. Trump gets the idea: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11261065400150712...
Xi will stay in power may be in next 20 years, and he knows US will have general election in every 4 years. Trump gets the idea: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11261065400150712...
Incorrect. The tariffs are costing Chinese businesses and the government greatly. There is some other benefit to this that isn't explained by negotiation tactics. Although I cannot rule out a total misread of Trump by China, due to poor analysis, intelligence or misinformation.
Yeah, I guess the same tactic didn't work for North Korea, right? Oh, wait..
North Korea doesn't have an economy dependent on exports to the US consumer market. Not a good comparison.
> Trump said on Wednesday that China is mistaken if it hopes to negotiate trade later with a Democratic presidential administration.
What is that supposed to mean? That there won’t be another administration in the future is how it sounds.
What is that supposed to mean? That there won’t be another administration in the future is how it sounds.
Oh quit the fear mongering. He clearly states in the tweet they're referencing that the hope is the next administration will be a democrat, and they are trying to hold out for that.
In the long perspective the Chinese market is the larger one with more people. Currently it makes sense for the US to be protectionist, in the long run the US market is smaller and Chinese companies will benefit from the larger Chinese market.
This played out over 50y with the fragmented European market vs. the larger homogeneous US market. Starting in the US was (is) much more beneficial than starting in Europe (the language and culture issue here will never go away even when policy is more and more unified).
This played out over 50y with the fragmented European market vs. the larger homogeneous US market. Starting in the US was (is) much more beneficial than starting in Europe (the language and culture issue here will never go away even when policy is more and more unified).