PikeCowboy
Junior Member
the put agents to supervise government branches thing is literally post-war unconditional surrender terms.. like wtf, they really liked the 东京地检特搜部 and 首尔中央地检特搜部 so they want to set up a 北京人民地检特搜部 lol...
Last edited:
Trade War with China
- Thread starter Ultra
- Start date
- Status
PikeCowboy
Junior Member
. del
Brumby
Major
The head scratcher for me is how do you achieve deflation through inflation?
There is no doubt in my mind China will use all instruments available to achieve its monetary policy and so will the US. The question is not whether they are being used but what are the intended effects of usage and ultimately the policy goal in this trade war. China is between a rock and a hard place. Mitigation of the effects of US tariffs is via devaluation but the resulting blowback is that imports become more expensive and the consequent inflationary pressure especially on the middle income. This will affect the momentum of shifting the Chinese economy to consumer base. Currently the market is calling a 7 rate of yuan to US. I don't trade yuan so I don't follow the discussions that closely.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Hold on, where does it say that the US wants to insert agents into China's government to audit finances? Can I see a source? Cus I would say that's insulting enough to just stop talks at that point and that's including that I think it's only worth talking to stall for time rather than hope for any real understanding.
Right now there's just no incentive for China to make a deal. With a deal, what happens? China commits to buy a trillion dollars of American farm crap to massively reduce trade gap, implements rules to protect US IPs and what else, puts on a show to pretend to stop subsidies to state enterprises? Without a deal, what happens? China doesn't need do any of that and continues to enjoy a huge trade deficit against the US... and Americans pay tariffs. Whether the surplus shrinks or grows by a little month on month is a very small issue compared to what would have to happen to make a "deal." If the US is somehow implementing policies that are reversing China's trade surplus into a deficit, then there would be pressure for China to talk but as things are, there's just not. Right now it's like an angry person threatening Walmart asking for reformed staff, price reductions, and free gift cards otherwise he says he'll spend $900 every year at Walmart instead of $1000. What's Walmart gonna say? OK, you buy as much or as little as you need but whatever happens, we make money off of you; you don't make money off of us. Stalling and playing is the best thing for China to do. Dragging a deal along for 6 months and then saying we need to redo all the stuff before right before the final signing sounds just like that.
Trump talks about being a great negotiator but he doesn't even understand that you need incentive to get someone to really want to negotiate rather than stall.
Right now there's just no incentive for China to make a deal. With a deal, what happens? China commits to buy a trillion dollars of American farm crap to massively reduce trade gap, implements rules to protect US IPs and what else, puts on a show to pretend to stop subsidies to state enterprises? Without a deal, what happens? China doesn't need do any of that and continues to enjoy a huge trade deficit against the US... and Americans pay tariffs. Whether the surplus shrinks or grows by a little month on month is a very small issue compared to what would have to happen to make a "deal." If the US is somehow implementing policies that are reversing China's trade surplus into a deficit, then there would be pressure for China to talk but as things are, there's just not. Right now it's like an angry person threatening Walmart asking for reformed staff, price reductions, and free gift cards otherwise he says he'll spend $900 every year at Walmart instead of $1000. What's Walmart gonna say? OK, you buy as much or as little as you need but whatever happens, we make money off of you; you don't make money off of us. Stalling and playing is the best thing for China to do. Dragging a deal along for 6 months and then saying we need to redo all the stuff before right before the final signing sounds just like that.
Trump talks about being a great negotiator but he doesn't even understand that you need incentive to get someone to really want to negotiate rather than stall.
Last edited:
As the US increases tariffs the trade "deficit" will decrease more quickly.
But the actual bilateral trade deficit is much smaller than the numbers typically bandied about.
Many products made in China for sale to the US are actually OEM manufactured for US companies who get most of the profit.
They use feedstocks from all over the world, not just China, the labor cost fraction is low. The iPhone is a particularly well talked about example but there are more.
US tariffs on China just replace dependency with China with a dependency on someone else. Most of those businesses which move will likely go somewhere else in Southeast Asia like Vietnam rather than go to the USA. So on the long term enacting tariffs just on China will IMHO provide little overall benefit.
Other than reducing the US's dependency on trade with China.
But to a degree I think the tariffs would have been more or less accepted in China.
The US's dirty behavior with ZTE & Huawei cutting their supply chains is something totally different.
It generated a lot of animosity and will increase the movement of supply chains outside the US's purview.
But the actual bilateral trade deficit is much smaller than the numbers typically bandied about.
Many products made in China for sale to the US are actually OEM manufactured for US companies who get most of the profit.
They use feedstocks from all over the world, not just China, the labor cost fraction is low. The iPhone is a particularly well talked about example but there are more.
US tariffs on China just replace dependency with China with a dependency on someone else. Most of those businesses which move will likely go somewhere else in Southeast Asia like Vietnam rather than go to the USA. So on the long term enacting tariffs just on China will IMHO provide little overall benefit.
Other than reducing the US's dependency on trade with China.
But to a degree I think the tariffs would have been more or less accepted in China.
The US's dirty behavior with ZTE & Huawei cutting their supply chains is something totally different.
It generated a lot of animosity and will increase the movement of supply chains outside the US's purview.
Last edited:
想要搞美国版的“巡视组”，由他们的人派驻中国，监督中国的各级政府直至县政府层级，盯着政府支出里有没有补助国有企业
Uncle Sam wants to send enforcement groups to each level of Chinese government to ensure no subsidies are provided to SOE
双方原则上谈妥努力减少2000亿美元的贸易差，但这次美国提出的数字却是3300亿。
Both sides agreed to reduce the trade deficits by 200 billion, but Uncle Sam now demands 330 billion
欧盟对中国发出了警告：如果中国运用行政计划的办法购买美国的产品、而排斥欧盟的产品，欧盟将会在WTO起诉中国
European threaten to sue China in the WTO if China manipulate the market to buy from US only
I hope it's clear to everyone here that all the whining about trade deficits is theater, there can be no doubt that the real aim is to limit China's development. The idea that "free" trade between nations should result in trade balance is based on a flawed understanding of how international trade works. This is a perfect example how mainstream economists are modern day clergy who's only job is to justify the status quo as being natural and eternal. See Anwar Shaikh's 30 part economics lecture for how things work in the real world.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Alright, if this is all true then it sounds like nobody wants to make a deal but everybody wants to keep talking because it makes them look to the world like the reasonable one.
All I can say is no American tariffs can reduce the deficit by 330 billion (or even 200 billion) much less any of the other stuff so the US should know that the answer is no and China has no incentive to truly negotiate.
Jura The idiot
General
linked inside:
述评：美国发动对华贸易战的五大世界性危害 2019-05-25 21:33:07
contains (in the beginning of the last paragraph) 恣意侵犯别国经济主权 在谈判桌上，美国政府向中国提出了多项蛮横要求，其中包括限制国企经营发展等。显然，这超出了贸易谈判的领域和范畴，触及了中国的基本经济制度。 这表明，美国发动对华贸易战的背后，是试图侵犯中国经济主权，逼迫中国损害自身核心利益。
述评：美国发动对华贸易战的五大世界性危害 2019-05-25 21:33:07
contains (in the beginning of the last paragraph) 恣意侵犯别国经济主权 在谈判桌上，美国政府向中国提出了多项蛮横要求，其中包括限制国企经营发展等。显然，这超出了贸易谈判的领域和范畴，触及了中国的基本经济制度。 这表明，美国发动对华贸易战的背后，是试图侵犯中国经济主权，逼迫中国损害自身核心利益。
Jura The idiot
General
- Status