Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

US: China of backtracking on trade deal

35 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Captain Risky

US accuses China of backtracking on trade deal

US trade representative Robert Lighthizer has accused China of backtracking on commitments in trade talks, but insisted a deal on tariffs is still possible. 

He said President Trump's threat to impose new taxes on Chinese exports came after China reneged on promises.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48173020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

Gotta hand it to Trump, when it comes to playing hard ball with Trade his strategy of picking a fight and then pushing for compromise is working.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Gotta hand it to Trump, when it comes to playing hard ball with Trade his strategy of picking a fight and then pushing for compromise is working.

 

 

He may not be skilled in politics but he knows how to negotiate.  Getting up and walking out on Kim was a brilliant move.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Gotta hand it to Trump, when it comes to playing hard ball with Trade his strategy of picking a fight and then pushing for compromise is working.

 

 

Careful, one step towards Trump is a leap off the left's bandwagon and they don't tolerate that very well. At least call him a dirty SOB when offering the slightest complimentary salvo, might distract them enough to get away with it. :D

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, and then said:

He may not be skilled in politics but he knows how to negotiate.  Getting up and walking out on Kim was a brilliant move.

He shouldn’t have been in the same room as Kim to start off with. You know one of Trumps many mistakes is he’s just not consistent with his election promises. He got the North Korean’s to agree to talks because he threatened them with war, once they realised he wasn’t prepared to walk the talk they walked. 

Edited by Captain Risky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

once they realised he wasn’t prepared to walk the talk they walked.

Wait... did you really just compare Trump's ability to negotiate with Kim's?  FWIW, I don't believe there will be any agreement to denuclearize.  Those nukes, crude as they are, are an insurance policy for Kim.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)

^^^ don't you know he is smarter than trump, and a better business man, and i'm not talking about kim. lol 

it is a sarcasm, for those who do not get it,

Edited by aztek
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
8 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Careful, one step towards Trump is a leap off the left's bandwagon and they don't tolerate that very well. At least call him a dirty SOB when offering the slightest complimentary salvo, might distract them enough to get away with it. :D

Mate I call it the way I see it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
37 minutes ago, and then said:

Wait... did you really just compare Trump's ability to negotiate with Kim's?  FWIW, I don't believe there will be any agreement to denuclearize.  Those nukes, crude as they are, are an insurance policy for Kim.

Not just North Korea but on a host of other election promises Trump has folded. His hard line on trade is the only instance where he’s stuck to his guns, so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Not just North Korea but on a host of other election promises Trump has folded. His hard line on trade is the only instance where he’s stuck to his guns, so far.

He's a U.S. president, not a monarch 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
3 minutes ago, and then said:

He's a U.S. president, not a monarch 

Well he is POTUS but a bruising political brawler is a better description. In trade matters he’s kicking ****. But that’s it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo

be interesting for the world economy this one.. if china does not back down.. all his cheering about how great the american economy is doing is going to go down the toilet.. rapidly.. 

 It appeared to be a painful start to the week for the stock market, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeting more than 470 points at the open Monday before rebounding and then tumbling again by as much as 350 points on Tuesday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/06/how-financial-advisors-can-calm-their-clients-worried-about-a-trade-war.html

working in mining a lot of the guys have share portfolio's (I'm not one of them) a few of the guys were talking about selling their international shares (US companies) and buying gold again.. or buying more of the blue chip companies here in australia.. investment companies here are watching the coming trade dispute between you guys and china closely.. the nervous are selling now.. some are watching.. but if it keeps going.. stock prices will fall because as more and more of the nervous people sell the more rapidly it will happen.. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo

Told you 

Global markets tumbled — with Wall Street suffering its worst day since early January — after China said it will impose further tariffs on imports from the United States, escalating their ongoing trade war.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-14/wall-street-shares-sink-as-china-announces-retaliatory-tariffs/11109650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

An awful lot of people have crowed about Trump making mistakes and being wrong and ineffective.  They've found themselves on the losing side every time.  It just takes a little while :)  Ask Avennati and Daniels and Mueller and... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 5/7/2019 at 2:40 PM, Captain Risky said:

Well he is POTUS but a bruising political brawler is a better description. In trade matters he’s kicking ****. But that’s it.  

Are you sure?  Our trade deficit is still going up.  Maybe andthen is right, it might take a while, but I guess we can wait and see.  One thing it points to is a lack of competitiveness of American manufacturers on the world market.  That would seem like a long term issue we should be addressing.  You can't just tariff your way into competition.  

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276

In 2018, the U.S. trade deficit was $621 billion according to the U.S. Census. It imported $3.1 trillion of goods and services while exporting $2.5 trillion. The deficit is higher than in 2017 when it was $552 billion. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Are you sure?  Our trade deficit is still going up.  Maybe andthen is right, it might take a while, but I guess we can wait and see.  One thing it points to is a lack of competitiveness of American manufacturers on the world market.  That would seem like a long term issue we should be addressing.  You can't just tariff your way into competition.  

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276

In 2018, the U.S. trade deficit was $621 billion according to the U.S. Census. It imported $3.1 trillion of goods and services while exporting $2.5 trillion. The deficit is higher than in 2017 when it was $552 billion. 

No, you're right, a tough trade environment breeds competitiveness. i just feel that China has been given much and returned little under previous American administrations. I think that the trade deficit can't also be blamed on Trump. Its obvious that trade is Trump's forte. On everything else he's an indifferent thinker.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

China has given the world access to vast quantities of cheap consumer goods. All tariffs do is make those goods dearer for consumers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
3 hours ago, Habitat said:

China has given the world access to vast quantities of cheap consumer goods. All tariffs do is make those goods dearer for consumers.

So how do we bridge the consumers and the producers? How do we achieve trade balance given current circumstances? Not directing this at you, but all the complaints are seemingly in defense of the consumer or the industries that have been affected negatively. There is little talk about the intention of trying to re-balance things, which is to try to bring jobs back home where they belong. Maybe a t-shirt or an alarm clock shouldn't be $7 any more than it should be $27 at full American made retail. Just seems to me that again, one side is expected to give (producers) and the other isn't (consumer). 

Also, from an international economy standpoint, is it possible the reason China owns so much American debt is because, in some small part, of the trade deficit year over year? We know they have the wage advantage and they likely spend much less in aid, so do we continue to contribute to this imbalance that about more than just trade? I think Trump, right or wrong, is trying to keep as many of our problems in house, which is a notion I think many voters wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Most Presidents wield a carrier task group.  For Trump, he wields the tariff as his WMD and he is well adapted to it.  China is the enemy and he is charging, sword drawn to do battle.  Yes, there will be collateral damage.  Americans are made of nails.  This is the essence of American Exceptionalism.  Short term sacrifice for long term gain.  The innovation of the American economy will give us the staying power to outlast China.  All we need is that "yes we can" attitude.  Do people really want China to dominate the world economy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

No, you're right, a tough trade environment breeds competitiveness. i just feel that China has been given much and returned little under previous American administrations.

Yes, but consider that it was not only government policy that gave China such an advantage.   American corporations have been fighting with other world businesses for a chunk of the Chinese market.  They have been willing to  give up all kinds of perks to get their feet in the door. They see dollar signs.  The Chinese middle class has the potential to be 10 times as large as the fading American middle class. International corporations are fickle, they go where the money is and care little for what  gets left behind.

 

3 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

So how do we bridge the consumers and the producers? How do we achieve trade balance given current circumstances? Not directing this at you, but all the complaints are seemingly in defense of the consumer or the industries that have been affected negatively. There is little talk about the intention of trying to re-balance things, which is to try to bring jobs back home where they belong. Maybe a t-shirt or an alarm clock shouldn't be $7 any more than it should be $27 at full American made retail. Just seems to me that again, one side is expected to give (producers) and the other isn't (consumer). 

 Good point Jerry, but be careful.  People use the t-shirt and alarm clock argument for a $15 dollar minimum wage too. 

How do you re balance things and bring jobs back home?   Do you stop working overtime at your $35 dollar an hour technician job so you have time to sew your own shirts?  The more your time is worth, the more it makes sense to work at your job and use your money to buy services from others.  Can you work an hour and buy 3 shirts that would take you 12 hours to make?  Same with countries and people, you sell jet airplanes and buy alarm clocks because it is a more profitable way to allocate your time and energy.

Rather than bring jobs back, I think we will have to stay in the forefront of technology to produce things that are valuable and few others can make to create new jobs.  Making competitive  t-shirts in America might require automation and provide very few jobs.

Consider the root of the complaints from consumers.  If you pay more for alarm clocks and t-shirts, either you need a raise, or you buy less of something else to spend within your means. If gasoline and food and other products also rise in price, then your standard of living begins to decrease.  Why do you think that would only be short term?   Not many people can get excited about sacrificing and fighting hard if they know they will only lose ground.

Tariffs will bring very few jobs back or even slow down the trend of losing them.  If Harley Davidson wants to stay profitable and can't pay the tariff for steel, they move manufacturing overseas to sell to overseas markets.  Our negotiations with China include the  government's desire to protect American corporations intellectual property and further open Chinese markets to American corporations.  That is wonderful for corporations and the stock market but will not bring back a single job to America.  GM will make Chinese cars in China.  Google will hire Chinese engineers in their China headquarters.  

It takes more than toughness to solve this.  It will not be over in a month or a year even if we claim victory and move on to other distractions.  

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Americans are made of nails.  This is the essence of American Exceptionalism.  Short term sacrifice for long term gain.  The innovation of the American economy will give us the staying power to outlast China.  All we need is that "yes we can" attitude.  Do people really want China to dominate the world economy?

Sounds good RavenHawk and no we do not want China to dominate the world economy.  But what  short term sacrifice for long term gain?  What do we get for the sacrifice? What will change?  As you point out innovation in American economy has been one of our greatest advantages.  As a corollary, recall that all of that innovation has resulted in more productivity, cheaper products, more automation, and fewer jobs.  It would take a focus on technology, productivity, training and job redesign to turn the corner for us.  

And by the way, I think I have heard that "Yes we can" before.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Good point Jerry, but be careful.  People use the t-shirt and alarm clock argument for a $15 dollar minimum wage too. 

How do you re balance things and bring jobs back home?   Do you stop working overtime at your $35 dollar an hour technician job so you have time to sew your own shirts?  The more your time is worth, the more it makes sense to work at your job and use your money to buy services from others.  Can you work an hour and buy 3 shirts that would take you 12 hours to make?  Same with countries and people, you sell jet airplanes and buy alarm clocks because it is a more profitable way to allocate your time and energy.

Rather than bring jobs back, I think we will have to stay in the forefront of technology to produce things that are valuable and few others can make to create new jobs.  Making competitive  t-shirts in America might require automation and provide very few jobs.

Consider the root of the complaints from consumers.  If you pay more for alarm clocks and t-shirts, either you need a raise, or you buy less of something else to spend within your means. If gasoline and food and other products also rise in price, then your standard of living begins to decrease.  Why do you think that would only be short term?   Not many people can get excited about sacrificing and fighting hard if they know they will only lose ground.

Tariffs will bring very few jobs back or even slow down the trend of losing them.  If Harley Davidson wants to stay profitable and can't pay the tariff for steel, they move manufacturing overseas to sell to overseas markets.  Our negotiations with China include the  government's desire to protect American corporations intellectual property and further open Chinese markets to American corporations.  That is wonderful for corporations and the stock market but will not bring back a single job to America.  GM will make Chinese cars in China.  Google will hire Chinese engineers in their China headquarters.  

It takes more than toughness to solve this.  It will not be over in a month or a year even if we claim victory and move on to other distractions. 

You make some excellent points and I can't argue against them. However, I do think it is is China's best interest to negotiate something equitable for both sides. Sure China will do so from a position of strength, but a lot of their imports from us are necessities. A lot of products affected may not be needs. But good post sir, excellent food for thought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
29 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

You make some excellent points and I can't argue against them. However, I do think it is is China's best interest to negotiate something equitable for both sides. Sure China will do so from a position of strength, but a lot of their imports from us are necessities. A lot of products affected may not be needs. But good post sir, excellent food for thought!

I agree with you for sure.  I think both sides want to settle back to some comfortable and profitable trading.  Probably China is going to have to respect international rights more than they currently do.  I feel pretty certain that we will have to do something different though, if we want to be more competitive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
12 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I agree with you for sure.  I think both sides want to settle back to some comfortable and profitable trading.  Probably China is going to have to respect international rights more than they currently do.  I feel pretty certain that we will have to do something different though, if we want to be more competitive. 

I do think the new epidemic in the US is what to do with all the jobs usurped by automation. Labor costs have always been the big inhibitor to profitability for the producer and obstacle to affordability for the consumer. If I try to be Switzerland on the progressive movement and meld the ideas on shrinking our military, open borders, globalization and punishing the wealthy, I wonder what we'll do with Depression Era unemployment numbers, a government that doesn't produce income on it's own, and an exodus of the tax base. The left says "Great, finally we'll have socialism, folks will have no choice but to accept reliance on Gov't for everything". But they never explain how to fund it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
5 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

I do think the new epidemic in the US is what to do with all the jobs usurped by automation.

It is isn't it, and neither the left or the right has faced it head on and approach it responsibly.  I can't see a way to stop it short of Draconian measures that would crush individual rights and outlaw automation.   To me that seems like a worse blow to individualism and humanity than dealing with it.  I admit I don't know what to do.  Fewer people, a new homestead act or, everybody gets a productivity stipend for life based on robot production?  Not good.  Some smart people need to tackle this.

5 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Labor costs have always been the big inhibitor to profitability for the producer and obstacle to affordability for the consumer.

Now you seem to be the voice of the robots.  Labor costs are us earning a living, if we view that as an unnecessary burden and inhibitor, the solution is to wipe out all labor. Do you view the producer, whether that be a small businessman or an arm of a conglomerate managed by an algorithm, as the only entity that deserves consideration?  That seems to be a holdover from the divine right of kings with an injection on Ayn Rand thrown in. Unless they have capital to spend, there are no consumers either, and without consumers, production becomes illogical.  As you might guess, I come from freemen, Scottish yeomen and pioneers more attuned to Robert Burns than  Karl Marx or Ayn Rand.  I am looking for a way that produces men of dignity and independent mind.

 

5 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

punishing the wealthy,

There is no need to punish the wealthy or the poor.  The rich are not tho only worthy humans, and often not even the best examples of the morality that makes us most proud to be humans. I am guessing we are talking about taxation.  If you have the desire and the talent to accumulate billions of dollars, then good for you, you should be able to do it.  But you should pay a share of taxes.  A government doesn't need to  raise the tax rate to astronomical levels on the rich if it closes some of the loopholes they currently use to their advantage. 

There is a graduated tax in the US and I pay more than some people because I make more money than they do.  Not only do I subsist very comfortably, but I have excess to invest in my future and my families.  I do not demand that a person who is living from paycheck to paycheck pay quite as much if it threatens their survival.

However, If I can comfortably pay a nominal tax rate of 15% because of  my income level, is it punishment to expect a billionaire to pay 15% rather than zero because of the loopholes he currently uses?  Tax laws have been written for the rich by lobbyists and officials who want to be rich.  

6 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

I wonder what we'll do with Depression Era unemployment numbers,

Well, that is exactly the question isn't it?  

The military may indeed shrink.  Automation in the military and our desire to stop being the world's policeman may have that effect.  I don't view that as being bad or confound it with weakening our defenses.  If we have a larger military than we need,that is then decried as government waste.  

We don't need open borders.  I know there are some people that say we do, and there are some that say we should be a white supremacist nation.  We don't have to let either extreme guide a sensible policy.  Both the left and the right like to throw up the extreme ideas from the other side and pretend they are the rational ones by comparison.  These are difficult issues and require best effort from all views to solve; not smokescreens.

Globalization is what?  A world government; or  worldwide consumers and producers  linked by a web of supply chains?  We don't have to have a world government,  but pure capitalism has led us into some pretty complex global relationships.  Does nationalism come into conflict with capitalism?  Do we have to choose sides?

Regardless of our views on those issues, unemployment  may be in our future.  It won't be just chicken-pluckers and vegetable-pickers either.  It will be miners, truck drivers, farmers, electronics assemblers, engineers, accountants, teachers, construction workers, supervisors, attorneys, doctors, and  college professors who all feel the pressure.  In reality, I would guess that unemployment will shake our society and nation even sooner than global warming.

The collapse of our society is not my preferred solution to climate change.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.