Trade War with China


Status
Not open for further replies.

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Oh, copy the “best” parts of the “efficient” market like Asset-backed Securities, CDOs, credit default swaps, NINJA loans, rate-reset loans, etc? You know, the shits that brought us the Great Recession? I suggest you educate yourself on modern finance before making a fool of yourself in front of the world
Getting there, I think you start the see the serious limitations of the copy/paste model.

However your list is not full.

Say Otto motor, Asset-backed Securities,, wankel motor, bank loan , CDOs,,high temperature superconductor motor, semiconductor manufacturing, tube electronics, credit default swaps, Bessemer steel making, ,NINJA loans,ATM, rate-reset loans, GSM, ekranoplan, analogue mobile phone , supersonic passenger jet.

How can you see which one is the future ?
In central resource distribution economy, like the CCCP, Japanese or Chinese (and maybe the USA recently) they put money forever into projects that has no survival chance in long term.
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
While Midterms maybe an opportunity to inflict pain on the current POTUS, it isn't China's strength to win on the short term. With China Hawks becoming more and more vocal on both sides of the aisle, I wouldn't be so sure a Democrat majority in Congress or even a new POTUS would necessarily be any more friendly to China than Trump is (i.e. lifting the purchase ban on ZTE).

China has to assume the worse and see this trade war as the new reality. I agree with Franklin that China needs to learn to focus on fixing its own house rather than focusing on influencing US politics and playing all its trump cards (being held for deterrence) as a risky gamble.

That's not to say that China shouldn't retailate whenever Trump imposes more sanctions but it should look at the big picture. I have always seen Trump as more of a wild fire rather than anything else as he's not something who is rational who can be either reasoned with logic nor can he be necessarily subdued with threats or attacks. As the Democrats learned too late, he thrives on attention and it can often provide even more fuel to his chaotic policies, especially when there's bipartisan fears of China. Treat him as a force of nature that should be contained but also an instrument of change that can be potentially expolited in the aftermath (i.e. creative destruction). However, while its burning out of control it something you try to steer clear of while trying to limit the damage.
I mostly agree with this. For Trump, the ZTE thing was a sort of a stunt to threaten China, but the political establishment took a more hardline stance. Similarly, most of the established politicians oppose trade wars, and yet Chuck Schumer was all for tariffs against China and has been so for more than a decade. So the difference between Trump and the traditional politicians (both Dems and R's) is not that he is more friendly or less friendly to China. The difference is that Trump is a loose cannon, or a "wildfire" as you say, and this is amplified by the fact that the people around him have no experience in government.

This distinction is important, because while China may be hit by *some* of these random shots, the American position will be damaged by *most* of the wildfire. Since this is happening at a time when the US is becoming increasingly hostile towards China, it may be better to look for opportunities to exploit, rather than to help push him out. The lack of strategic thinking in the US does not hurt China.

Meanwhile, China has to deal with the trade war. In my view, the current approach seems to be "firmly" but not loudly, and I think this is right. The first aim for China has to be to preserve its economic momentum (China 2025), its economic relationships with other countries both near and far, and it's relationships with foreign corporations, even American ones. Damaging the US economy should be secondary, (i.e., not loud) but the damage, though not large, should be real and permanent, so that the Chuck Schumers learn a lesson.

Sure, China has a lot of cards it can play. Navarro claims China's trade surplus is its weakness in the trade war, and he says China has already run out of bullets because it only added 60 billion in tariffs. But the balance in the service trade is in the opposite direction. China can cut tourism to the US as well as reduce the number of students studying there, for example, and some of this will happen spontaneously anyway. The overall balance (goods + services) is still in China's favor, but when you add in products produced and sold in China by American corporations (GM, Ford), the total now goes in favor of the US. So it is China that has more bullets, this without counting anything like dollar reserves, or the $26 billion in IPR royalties it pays yearly to the US. But China hurts itself also with some of these measures, and probably it is better to exploit American weaknesses asymmetrically.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Western societies (and some like Japan's) were warmongering barbarians who coincidentally stumbled and warred their way to wealth when their target societies happened to experience internal discord and some had fallen behind at the technology of war when these conflicts erupted.

Warmongering barbaric traits and PTSD ingrained in Western European societies translated socio-economically into institutionalized egoism and egotism such as systematic racism and rationalization of extreme economic exploitation ranging from slavery and colonization to more modern disguised and nuanced forms.

Only after accumulating massive amounts of wealth, experiencing corresponding internal discord due to their own internal deficiencies though exporting much of it through more wars and colonization, enjoying relative regional peace then getting a taste of their own medicine via the two "World" Wars did some of these Western societies evolve a bit to become more civilized.

Internal systemic problems continue to mount for the international and national "order" Western societies built and true to form some of their current inheritors instinctively fall back on warmongering barbaric exploitative ways that are the root cause of these problems to begin with while believing too much in their own tall tales such as the likes of you.
Hard to tell what is your point beyond European/US bashing and racism, but I did a quick research about the highest toll wars, and based on that it is hard to argue about that Chinese was less warmongering as any other nation on the world.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Hard to tell what is your point beyond European/US bashing and racism, but I did a quick research about the highest toll wars, and based on that it is hard to argue about that Chinese was less warmongering as any other nation on the world.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
By today's current events and latest history, one can say that the China is far less regime changing than the Westerners.
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
I mostly agree with this. For Trump, the ZTE thing was a sort of a stunt to threaten China, but the political establishment took a more hardline stance. Similarly, most of the established politicians oppose trade wars, and yet Chuck Schumer was all for tariffs against China and has been so for more than a decade. So the difference between Trump and the traditional politicians (both Dems and R's) is not that he is more friendly or less friendly to China. The difference is that Trump is a loose cannon, or a "wildfire" as you say, and this is amplified by the fact that the people around him have no experience in government.

This distinction is important, because while China may be hit by *some* of these random shots, the American position will be damaged by *most* of the wildfire. Since this is happening at a time when the US is becoming increasingly hostile towards China, it may be better to look for opportunities to exploit, rather than to help push him out. The lack of strategic thinking in the US does not hurt China.

Meanwhile, China has to deal with the trade war. In my view, the current approach seems to be "firmly" but not loudly, and I think this is right. The first aim for China has to be to preserve its economic momentum (China 2025), its economic relationships with other countries both near and far, and it's relationships with foreign corporations, even American ones. Damaging the US economy should be secondary, (i.e., not loud) but the damage, though not large, should be real and permanent, so that the Chuck Schumers learn a lesson.

Sure, China has a lot of cards it can play. Navarro claims China's trade surplus is its weakness in the trade war, and he says China has already run out of bullets because it only added 60 billion in tariffs. But the balance in the service trade is in the opposite direction. China can cut tourism to the US as well as reduce the number of students studying there, for example, and some of this will happen spontaneously anyway. The overall balance (goods + services) is still in China's favor, but when you add in products produced and sold in China by American corporations (GM, Ford), the total now goes in favor of the US. So it is China that has more bullets, this without counting anything like dollar reserves, or the $26 billion in IPR royalties it pays yearly to the US. But China hurts itself also with some of these measures, and probably it is better to exploit American weaknesses asymmetrically.
I doubt that China would do anything on the two:

Treasury Bonds. Keeping this actually makes the US dollar strong, and which doesn't help the US cause, and the US still pays many billions of interest to China each year. China may not make any new Treasury purchases though and could simply let treasuries mature.

American companies in China. China considers them more as allies and partners. China may increase incentives instead for American companies to further invest in China by relaxing ownership restrictions but at the same time, tariff components these companies source from the US, so what they build in China they would be forced to require a more local Chinese or non US chain of components.

The best thing China could do is nothing --- and not negotiate with the US either. It will just stand on its ground, and as the US economy peaks and cools down, even edges towards a recession, this economic slowdown is going to be blamed on China, and some may just call China the victor of the trade war, even though the wounds the US suffers are more self inflicted than anything.

From Peter Schiff's own YouTube channel.


Peter Schiff nails it on the US employment figures, that when you add the discouraged and the part timers, multjob holders that are barely making ends meet, the figure becomes much higher.


Basically a trade war is to have two partners go into a drinking contest, the winner is the one who doesn't pass out in the end. The trick to winning this is to pretend to drink, and let the other keep on drinking till he falls over.

As for ZTE I would say they got of pretty fair. Maybe they can't sell to US gov employees but they can still keep their smartphone business, although from a purely business perspective I wonder why they, and Lenovo-Motorola as well, still keep building smartphones when Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo and Vivo are already crushing them.
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
Sort of trade war news since I heard part of the demands from Trump to China was regarding the US garbage problem. Where I live the regional garbage disposal company is warning people that inspectors will be checking everyone's garbage cans to see if there's proper separation of recyclable materials and fines will be imposed if they're not.
Yes, and they didn't give a shit before!

"Recycling" in the US has been a scam for a very long time.
 

vincent

Senior Member
Getting there, I think you start the see the serious limitations of the copy/paste model.

However your list is not full.

Say Otto motor, Asset-backed Securities,, wankel motor, bank loan , CDOs,,high temperature superconductor motor, semiconductor manufacturing, tube electronics, credit default swaps, Bessemer steel making, ,NINJA loans,ATM, rate-reset loans, GSM, ekranoplan, analogue mobile phone , supersonic passenger jet.
Don't move the goalpost. You were talking about the financial market

Getting there, I think you start the see the serious limitations of the copy/paste model.How can you see which one is the future ?
In central resource distribution economy, like the CCCP, Japanese or Chinese (and maybe the USA recently) they put money forever into projects that has no survival chance in long term.
Christ, Chinese government put money forever into projects that has no long term prospect? You have no freaking idea how the world works. Japan Inc. may be not as big and strong as before, but it is still a very formidable machine. Same with Korean Choebols
 
Hard to tell what is your point beyond European/US bashing and racism, but I did a quick research about the highest toll wars, and based on that it is hard to argue about that Chinese was less warmongering as any other nation on the world.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I'm just compensating for the truth deficit in your Western worship, China bashing, and racism. Your inability or unwillingness to see the point further proves it. As to your quick research, if you actually read it, it also further proves my point of Western preponderance for warmongering.
 

LesAdieux

Junior Member
America's External Debt


Gross External Debt Position: as of March 31, 2018
U.S. Dollars in Millions

General Government 6,546,130
Short-term 716,203
Long-term 5,829,927

Central Bank 730,845

Deposit-Taking Corporations 2,983,039
Short-term 2,165,362
Long-term 817,677

Other Sectors 7,108,374
Short-term 1,949,736
Long-term 5,158,638

Direct Investment: 1,812,466

Gross External Debt Position 19,180,854
 

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
I doubt that China would do anything on the two:


American companies in China. China considers them more as allies and partners. China may increase incentives instead for American companies to further invest in China by relaxing ownership restrictions but at the same time, tariff components these companies source from the US, so what they build in China they would be forced to require a more local Chinese or non US chain of components.

The best thing China could do is nothing --- and not negotiate with the US either. It will just stand on its ground, and as the US economy peaks and cools down, even edges towards a recession, this economic slowdown is going to be blamed on China, and some may just call China the victor of the trade war, even though the wounds the US suffers are more self inflicted than anything.

.
Just wait.
China will hit on US companies once Trump hits remaining $300 billion worth of goods.

For tariff on $50 billion of goods, China retaliation is mainly on farmers.

For tariff on $200 billion of goods, China plans to slap tariffs on $60billion worth of goods mainly gas and oil and recycled material.

For remaining $300 billion of goods, if Trump hits on it, China will target US companies

Guaranteed!

Something like 50% tax on US companies profits earned in China.

For example, Apple earned over $23 billions on revenue in China last yr Even at 50% tax, it still stay in China.

Last thing China does is do nothing
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top