Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › China
- This topic has 248 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 15, 2019 at 11:31 AM #812500May 15, 2019 at 11:38 AM #812501
FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=temeculaguy]
Let’s not even talk about China and it’s dealings with Taiwan, Tibet, Venezuela, animal cruelty and endangered animals being killed for Chinese medicine, the South China Sea. If anyone needs a “chin check” it’s China
If Hilary had won she’d be doing the same thing, it was on the to do list regardless of party. China didn’t bring a dish to the potluck but wants to take the leftovers, someone had to say something.[/quote]
If Hillary had won she would have signed TPP and built an international coalition to pressure China rather than slap traffic on our allies such as Canada.
Example: under Trump Panama, our own “satellite banana republic” threw its support to China. Obviously we didn’t give them a better deal.
May 15, 2019 at 11:42 AM #812502The-Shoveler
ParticipantThere is more we can do LOL.
We should target all the industries they are.
Solar should be made here, batteries etc…
Shoes etc.. not so much
May 15, 2019 at 12:34 PM #812503Guest[quote=The-Shoveler]There is more we can do LOL.
We should target all the industries they are.
Solar should be made here, batteries etc…
Shoes etc.. not so much[/quote]
I agree. But remember Solyndra? The free markets took care of that.
Does anyone see the hypocrisy with wanting market reforms in China but having the state picking the American food citizens will eat? That argument needs to go.
Stephen Roach on China.
May 15, 2019 at 1:11 PM #812504ParticipantSolyndra was one bad bet,weed out the corruption and move on.
It is not the 1930’s, there is really a lot of scholars on that period that have the opinion that a lot more was wrong and tariffs got disproportional blame.
May 15, 2019 at 2:07 PM #812507Guest[quote=The-Shoveler]
It is not the 1930’s, there is really a lot of scholars on that period that have the opinion that a lot more was wrong and tariffs got disproportional blame.[/quote]
Which economists?
I think Stephen Roach is right. China is changing and we’re not. China is moving up the innovation ladder, a level that we never anticipated they could reach so fast. And now we are worried.
Bruce Heyman is also right. China is still selling to us and trade data shows that the trade dedicit is going up, now down. So American consumers are paying the tariffs.
It was funny to see Joe Kernan (I call him the chubby guy on squawk box) at a loss for words. Andrew Ross Sorkin is a lot more impartial and intelligent.
May 15, 2019 at 2:28 PM #812509ParticipantSome economists argue that the Smoot-Hawley tariff act may have been a very bad idea but that it did not cause the Great Depression. They point out that exports only accounted for some seven percent of the U.S. gross national product in 1929 and the decline in U.S. exports in the ensuing years may have been caused by the depression itself and not solely by tariff retaliation. Some note that the U.S. had also enormously raised tariffs in 1922 and that this did not cause a depression.
US exports to china are only 0.5 percent of GDP.
May 15, 2019 at 2:45 PM #812510Guestno one thing causes a recession, but a confluence of events. Bad policy will cause bad results.
Don’t we want to grow exports to China and the rest of the world?
Tariffs are consumption tax on Americans. Tariffs also restrict choices and consumer wellbeing.
People keep on saying that China is out of ammo… but out of ammo for what? American consumers are still buying Chinese products and paying the tax, because I believe that sourcing away from China will not be easy.
True, Chinese manufacturers are moving production to Vietnam, Ethiopia, etc… but if we source from those countries, will help China in the end because those countries will use our USD to buy Huawei phones.
Meanwhile American farmers are losing real business because the Chinese are now buying agricultural commodities from Brazil, Argentina, etc… In a real free market, commodities should be bid on world markets. We, the taxpayers, are paying farmers $billions for doing nothing. Scandalous!
I still don’t see a winning Trump strategy. The trade war is the macho talk that plays well with the American public and may reelect Trump. American voters don’t like intellectual girly men.
May 15, 2019 at 2:53 PM #812511ParticipantI give up,
It is about protecting our industrial base.
it is them not playing by any rules LOL.
Anyway I am done.
May 15, 2019 at 5:13 PM #812512Myriad
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Tariffs are consumption tax on Americans. Tariffs also restrict choices and consumer wellbeing. [/quote]
Generally tariffs are ineffective and economically negative. At least that what’s economists will tell you. Except that in an Economic Cold War, they make perfect sense against a single/group of country(ies) that you want to create higher costs for their products.[quote=FlyerInHi]
…I believe that sourcing away from China will not be easy.True, Chinese manufacturers are moving production to Vietnam, Ethiopia, etc… but if we source from those countries, will help China in the end because those countries will use our USD to buy Huawei phones.[/quote]
Give enough time and money, the supply chain will move out of China. What’s the definition of not easy? I have a hard time believing that by year 3 profit-greedy companies will not have found a way to alter the supply chain.Your argument about other countries buying Huawei phones doesn’t quite jibe. Higher tariffs will force production out of China (which is happening already in some sectors due to labor costs). Any production and jobs that are moved out of China is a net negative to their GDP. Either way it’s lost GDP output regardless of whether another country bought a consumer good from China. How much lost output is a matter of debate.
The question at this point is whether we will step back from the brink of an Economic Cold War or whether the world will divide into 2 different economic and technology spheres.
Or maybe as part of a deal, Trump will outsource the housing of refugees to China where they already have a few million in camps. They do build stuff quick over there.
May 15, 2019 at 5:26 PM #812513Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]We believe the free markets work best so let’s see which ones work better. And let’s apply global rules consistently regardless of whether the target is China, Germany or the USA. That’s what WTO is for. [/quote]
It’s unlikely we’ll ever really have “free trade” or no subsidies in the world – building an economic order that doesn’t take into account of the geopolitical issues seems like something destined to failure. That’s where the WTO and other UN organizations are at now. Basically impotent and have unenforceable edicts.[quote=FlyerInHi]
But Trump wants the Chinese State to buy American farmers’ commodities. Such a ridiculous argument in its face. What if the US Federal government agreed to buy Italian olive oil? [/quote]
Huh? the main issue in the trade war is not about how many goods the Chinese govt buys from the US. The issue is a major disagreement in how to align the different Chinese and US economic models along with all the other technology issues. I would suspect the reason the Chinese government has to get involved with purchases at all is that the they are way more involved with decisions at SOE and other large private companies.May 15, 2019 at 11:17 PM #812514
CoronitaParticipant[quote=temeculaguy]
Let’s not even talk about China and it’s dealings with Taiwan, Tibet, Venezuela, animal cruelty and endangered animals being killed for Chinese medicine, the South China Sea. If anyone needs a “chin check” it’s China.
[/quote]Um, killing endangered animals isn’t really the worst thing…. Harvesting political prisoner’s organs, and killing them to make cosmetics (collegan) is…. Brutally put, much of the cosmetics made in china and sold to american consumers probably have some organic material from a dead human that was executed to produce it…..
Folks belonging to Falun Gong (a religious group… you might know them becuse Shen Yun Performing Arts here often do performances, and they are part of that group) are routinely targeted and jailed in China for it… Let that sink in for a minute…..
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/13/medicineandhealth.china
No dancing around this truth. It’s a pretty wide known practice, especially confirmed by a lot of foreigners that specifically went to China for organ transplants who otherwise would not have received a transplant.
Admiring PRC’s communist party is a pretty disturbing concept. it’s right up there with thinking Hitler did Germany a good thing…
It’s pretty sick… And for someone in America to admire the PRC government, despite what is a clear fact of what is going it, that’s either grossly ignorant or grossly sick…. Either way, it’s bad..
And there is no equivalent to this in the US no matter how twisted you try to make a comparison to….
Chinese Doctors Who Harvest Organs Get Away With MurderMay 15, 2019 at 11:54 PM #812515temeculaguy
ParticipantWow FLU, That was eye opening. I’m all in, what shoveler and myriad said, plus two parts of what FLU said. Now my wife is going to lose her mind checking all her lancome cosmetics to see of there are chinese political prisoners in them, we don’t have enough vallium for her to get through this. I pity the Lancome girl at Macy’s if she finds a connection. She’s already stressing about Sun Bear liver bile and Dogs being tortured to make the meat tender, I had to hear it at dinner tonight, As soon as I hear Richard Attenbourough’s voice on a nature show I take the remote.
At least Brian took the bait on my Hilary comment and confirmed he isn’t a chinabot. Therein lies the problem Brian, you aren’t a citizen of the world, you have a blue passport and all the virtue signalling won’t save you from becoming make-up in China if you were a citizen of China and treated them as you do the USA. That’s why freedom wins, because we don’t turn our Brian into Make-up, we just get frustrated with his progressive WTO drivel, then have a glass of wine and go to bed.
May 16, 2019 at 1:29 AM #812519ParticipantIt’s hard to find the details on the China organ harvesting from independent 3rd party sources – mainly because research into these stories, the government makes it difficult to find out.
But if China starts exporting food that in the shape of green squares called soylent, I would be highly suspicious…May 16, 2019 at 10:20 AM #812520GuestWhat does it have to do with trade. Do we have tariffs on Saudi Arabia for their human rights violations? A rules based order international order is consistent.
BTW, Flu, the US commits human rights violations everyday. Example: when a foreigner is arrested s/he needs to be accorded consular service according to international law. How would you feel if an American is arrested in Guatemala but the American consulate is not notified?
I agree with Myriad that it has to do with economic models. But that’s not how trump frames it and sells it to the American people. And isn’t China entitled to have their own policies and model? With Trump’s way, China could easily turn it on us if they were more powerful and didn’t like our economic model.
The problem now is that the American model is not producing innovation and winning. Otherwise countries like Panama, our long time vassal, would not turn to China.
As Stephen Roach said, the problems are of our own making. China is changing, but we’re not.Even Chuck Grasley is saying Trump’s trade policies are a disaster. For those of you who still believe Trump is winning, show me the data that the trade deficit is going down. It’s going up because Chinese good are still cheap, even with the tariffs. American farmers however are losing real sales. Farmers got $12 billion extra subsidies last year and are about to get an extra $15 billion.
Where is the data on winning?
The problem with America is that we expect everyone to follow our rules. We are not willing to develop common rules that everyone follows. That’s the feature of a bully and that how the world sees us. They may say it to our face because we are still rich and powerful and they want to do business in USD. But if we continue to go down that path, watch out when what goes around comes around.
If we want to constrain China when they become the biggest, we need to constrain our own behavior now and develop strong international institutions. Unilateralism only works when you’re strongest.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.