I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
The Trump China Policy Thread
Author Message
TigerMandingo Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,718
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 46
Post: #201
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
delete
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2018 10:25 PM by TigerMandingo.)
01-30-2018 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Fortis Away
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 4,254
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 104
Post: #202
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
People point to 900+ American military bases and say we're trying to rule the world, but give China 900 Military bases and we'd have a massive world war within weeks.You guys should be thanking your lucky stars that it was USA who created the first nuclear bomb and not China.

lol

I will be checking my PMs weekly, so you can catch me there. I will not be posting.
01-30-2018 10:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 10 users Like Fortis's post:
GlobalMan, Tokyo Joe, C-Note, 8ball, Samseau, TravelerKai, Handsome Creepy Eel, Enigma, CaptainChardonnay, kaotic
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,271
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 54
Post: #203
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(01-30-2018 08:47 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  ...
The mere fact that 900+ U.S. military bases exist overseas exclusively by mutual consent with the host country should tell you that the majority of the world does not fear the USA the most- in fact they obviously view us as their defense against your 24%.

That's a pretty naive take there GMan. The great majority of people from the 130 countries with US military bases view that military presence negatively, more often than not this presence has been imposed by their government.

Take Syria, which is an interesting case because it's the one country that has both American and Russian bases. The Russians have been invited there by the Syrian government, and have successfully destroyed ISIS, protecting the Christian community there. Russian soldiers there don't live behind huge walls in isolated, heavily fortified compounds like US forces there do, they have no trouble blending in because Syrians love the real support Russia has provided in their fight against ISIS and other jihadis supported by the US/NATO and its allies.


The US/NATO on the other hand have been supporting jihadis through backchannels, and are now working to divide that country and protect illegal oil deals on behalf of the Rothschilds and Ruppert Murdoch.

[Image: McCain-ISIS.jpg]

https://www.conservativehq.com/article/1...rotherhood

http://shoebat.com/2014/02/05/john-mccai...hristians/

http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/0...s-on-isis/


US troops aren't "leaving everybody alone", they're overthrowing regimes right and left, either through brute force (Libya, Iraq, Syria...), or through covert operations, NGOs and social engineering (Ukraine, Honduras, Georgia, Yugoslavia,...), actually turning functional countries into shitholes.


Russia is openly pro-Christian, which is triggering the leftist MSM, they've intervened on behalf of Christians in Syria, also antagonizing neocons, who run nearly all well-funded "right-wing" media outlets, who aren't reporting the real situation there.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 03:00 AM by 911.)
01-31-2018 02:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like 911's post:
TigerMandingo, capitangeneral dela armada, Handsome Creepy Eel
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,271
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 54
Post: #204
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(01-30-2018 10:28 PM)Fortis Wrote:  People point to 900+ American military bases and say we're trying to rule the world, but give China 900 Military bases and we'd have a massive world war within weeks.You guys should be thanking your lucky stars that it was USA who created the first nuclear bomb and not China.

lol

China doesn't need 900 bases, they're too busy dominating the world economy, while we throw away trillions in tax dollars on an overstretched military. They're building instead economic beachheads all over Asia and Africa, for starts, making investments that will cement their economic rise while we waste blood and treasure trying to secure Syrian oil for the Rothschilds, or propping up salafist dictatorships in Arabia, or destroying secular regimes in Libya and Syria that unleashed a locust plague of migrants upon Europe.

You've got to upgrade your blue pill patriotism to a smarter version, because that neocon foreign policy in the last two decades has been a disaster.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
01-31-2018 02:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like 911's post:
TigerMandingo, capitangeneral dela armada, PharaohRa, Handsome Creepy Eel, Biologist
GlobalMan Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,027
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 67
Post: #205
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(01-31-2018 02:33 AM)911 Wrote:  
(01-30-2018 08:47 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  ...
The mere fact that 900+ U.S. military bases exist overseas exclusively by mutual consent with the host country should tell you that the majority of the world does not fear the USA the most- in fact they obviously view us as their defense against your 24%.

That's a pretty naive take there GMan. The great majority of people from the 130 countries with US military bases view that military presence negatively, more often than not this presence has been imposed by their government.

So in other words- the bases exist by mutual consent with the host country, as I said. Clearly those 130 countries (their governments) do not view the U.S. as "the greatest threat to world peace" or anything close to that as was claimed, or else we wouldn't be in them. I did not claim that all the citizens of such countries agree with their governments determination, maybe they don't, wouldn't surprise me- though that is far from a certainty which you just fabricated.

I think calling everyone who you don't agree with "naive" is getting old- even more so given that you are in fact confirming what I stated, not refuting it. You are pulling a TigerMandingo here man.

Americans are dreamers too
01-31-2018 07:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like GlobalMan's post:
The Beast1, 8ball
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,271
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 54
Post: #206
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(01-31-2018 07:17 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:33 AM)911 Wrote:  
(01-30-2018 08:47 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  ...
The mere fact that 900+ U.S. military bases exist overseas exclusively by mutual consent with the host country should tell you that the majority of the world does not fear the USA the most- in fact they obviously view us as their defense against your 24%.

That's a pretty naive take there GMan. The great majority of people from the 130 countries with US military bases view that military presence negatively, more often than not this presence has been imposed by their government.

So in other words- the bases exist by mutual consent with the host country, as I said. Clearly those 130 countries (their governments) do not view the U.S. as "the greatest threat to world peace" or anything close to that as was claimed, or else we wouldn't be in them. I did not claim that all the citizens of such countries agree with their governments determination, maybe they don't, wouldn't surprise me- though that is far from a certainty which you just fabricated.

I think calling everyone who you don't agree with "naive" is getting old- even more so given that you are in fact confirming what I stated, not refuting it. You are pulling a TigerMandingo here man.


Your argument is based on the legality of US military presence in those 130+ countries, it is a hollow framework that only a lawyer or a mechanical debater would bother carrying, we're not the UN here, we're arguing about what's best for the US.

My argument was that having 900 bases abroad and an expansionist, neoconservative foreign policy has been a great threat to American prosperity, and yes, to world peace as well. In the post-Soviet era, competition between nations is settled on an economic plane. The US is increasingly operating as a wartime economy, incurring massive debt from military/security spending instead of benefiting from the post-Soviet peace dividend and shoring up its infrastructure and industrial base. Had we spent $5 trillions on infrastructure, education, healthcare and tax breaks, we would have been so much further ahead as a nation and as an economy. This is a huge economic burden that rivals like China, Japan or Germany have not had to carry.

“Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is.”
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 11:36 AM by 911.)
01-31-2018 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like 911's post:
Aquarius, TigerMandingo, Samseau
Samseau Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,308
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 287
Post: #207
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
I disagree that America is a threat to world peace. America is an overall stabilizer.

But I agree that America is throwing away blood and treasure on our bloated military instead of taking care of its citizens.

Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
02-01-2018 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like Samseau's post:
TravelerKai, debeguiled, 8ball, DJ-Matt, Handsome Creepy Eel
Suits Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 9,726
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 239
Post: #208
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(01-30-2018 10:43 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  
(01-30-2018 10:39 AM)Suits Wrote:  That's actually close to being true. The US has consistently demonstrated an interest in the balance of power, ever since WWII, not pure power and hegemony.

The people over at the State Department disagree with you. The US govt. has and continues to operate under the context of "Full Spectrum Dominance".

Why do you think the US has being lashing out over the last decade or so? It's power is waning, although it is still top dog by far.

The US (like all super-powers) has done some fucked up things. The CIA's undermining of democratically elected governments to attempt the installation of puppet states is indefensible and the part that US-based actors have played in instability in resource rich regions of Africa should lead to people being investigated and placed in jail.

Many of the corrupt political types in the US system are no better than their Chinese counterparts.

But what analysis of the worst of US behavior as a hegemonic state fails to take into account is how beneficial the US' role is for a great deal of the world.

The US' many military bases abroad has been mentioned here, but what I didn't see discussed is the reason for these bases. Piracy has been a problem as long as seagoing trade has occurred. The US does the world a major service by patrolling its oceans.

If one country (and the one that arguably has the most to gain or at least has had the most to gain in the past from safe sailing seas) doesn't step, what you end up with is a crisis where no country wants to bite the bullet and spend their tax dollars on big enough navies to protect their area of the world. This can be mitigated somewhat by treaties, but that still leaves the possibility of countries not fulfilling their obligations, resulting in a situation where the other countries spend their share on protecting trade routes, without getting the full coverage needed due to another nation fucking them over by refusing to honour their own treaty obligations.

Thus, it's a very reasonable trade off for most countries to simply let the US have a base in their country to reduce their logistical challenges as they patrol the global ocean trade routes for everyone's benefit. No one is being bullied here.

And do you think that the money the US gives other countries in foreign aid is out of the goodness of their hearts? They know the money will be stolen by corrupt officials. That's the whole point. These are essentially payments to buy allies.

Now, back to China. The US might pull some asshole moves when it comes to countries that are attempting to upset the balance of power as it is, but countries that are on board with global trade and choose to ally with the US, rather than oppose it don't have a history of being fucked with by the US. Sure, it's not a completely just system, but it's not like Canada has to worry about the US invading.

The over-riding philosophy behind many US actions is that trade and peace are good. The US is more than happy to have other countries sell their products in their country and to have people who start companies in the US if they invest a sizeable amount of money in the process and can become residents and citizens by doing so. The US doesn't stop legally earned money from leaving its borders and has no problem with its allies becoming wealthy and even offering a better standard of living than it can within its own country.

China, on the other hand, doesn't have the same over-riding philosophy. The Chinese philosophy is that the only thing that matters in life is winning and that there can only be one winner. This occurs within their own country, with the powerful essentially doing their best to prevent the less powerful from achieving more power than they are born with, but when it comes to China vs other countries, everyone in China is very nationalistic to an extreme.

The Chinese game plan is simply. To systematically and strategically extract all the value in the world and bring it to China and then keep it there.

This has been the game plan for hundreds of years if not thousands. The UK's solution of forcibly importing opium in China prior to the First Opium War and after is regrettable and indefensible, but it was a response to a trade situation not that different from the one occurring today.

The Chinese had a very simply trade policy at the time. It worked like this. Bring us gold and we will allow you to buy silk and porcelain, but you can't sell anything in China. Prior to the decision to resolve the trade in-balance, China had been sucking Europe dry of gold for many years.

China's back at it again today. With increasingly strict currency controls in place that leave most Chinese millionaires spending the majority of their time trying to get their money out of the country and someplace where the Rule of Law applies.

Every year they introduce new laws making it harder for non-Chinese entities to sell products in China and do trade in China. They allow a certain amount of token trade to occur when it is to their long term benefit, but as more intellectual property is absorbed by the Chinese machine, their desire to do so diminishes.

As China gains global power, they won't encourage trade -- their motto will be to squash all trade not controlled directly by The Party. They are already doing this within their borders obviously, but keep in mind that when the Chinese do an infrastructure development deal in Africa, they stipulate that they will own the completed project, they will build the completed project with their own workers (who will take the wages they earn back to China when they are finished to ensure that no money actually leaves China, other than what is spent on construction materials and operations), they will operate the finished project for their own profit and it's probably only a matter of time before they start using these projects as a justification to place their troops in dozens on economically weak nations.

If you don't believe me about the way they think, just come to China and try to cross the street on a green walk signal. These folks are such strong believers in zero-sum games that they'll do everything in their power to prevent pedestrians from going first and if you do manage to cross in front of them as they make a right or left turn, they'll literally stop within their bumper inches from your knees.

The only thing that is understood in China is power, winning and losing. Given the choice between a hegemonic China and a hegemonic USA, it's an easy call in my books.

I'm the King of Beijing!
02-01-2018 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 13 users Like Suits's post:
RoastBeefCurtains4Me, TravelerKai, Transsimian, Samseau, Handsome Creepy Eel, Enigma, GlobalMan, Fortis, C-Note, RaccoonFace, Arado, WalterBlack, Horus
The Beast1 Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,545
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 81
Post: #209
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
I always get a chuckle out of the misguided individuals who complain about US hegemony. Ironically, they always tend to misguided Canadians, Europeans, or Americans (specifically American liberals). It's especially funny when they believe that eliminating American military strength will lead to a kum-bi-ya campfire love.

No, if the US disappeared overnight there would be a huge power void that will be filled with either regional entities or worse, a large one like China.

Suits' analysis is spot on. You will always have to lick a boot and at the end of the day, i'd rather lick the American one than a Chinese one. It's how the world has worked for a millenia.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2018 01:17 PM by The Beast1.)
02-02-2018 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
8ball Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 860
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 13
Post: #210
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(02-02-2018 12:51 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  No, if the US disappeared overnight there would be a huge power void that will be filled with either regional entities or worse, a large one like China.

You are correct, however the US has made some colossal errors in foreign policy and has lost the trust of its people. It will take some time before they regain that trust.

As far as libs in other countries, they are complete morons and don't realize that when their companies or leaders have a geopolitical problem, the first call they make is to America. They trade routes are protected by the US and if the US is not around they will have to fend of bullying by China and Russia alone.

However the right wing in those countries is actually correct, they US along with its State department need to stop funneling money to left wing NGOs and media outlets in foreign countries, undermining their traditional culture. While this is a very serious matter, it does not mean an alliance with Russia/China/Turkey or whoever would be better than the US.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2018 07:02 PM by 8ball.)
02-02-2018 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
capitangeneral dela armada Offline
Banned

Posts: 9
Joined: Dec 2017
Post: #211
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
A system of multiple competing great powers that can keep each other in check, such as existed for much of history, will work better than a single hegemonic power having near-total control.
02-03-2018 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
PharaohRa Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 484
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 3
Post: #212
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(02-01-2018 09:10 PM)Suits Wrote:  
(01-30-2018 10:43 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  
(01-30-2018 10:39 AM)Suits Wrote:  That's actually close to being true. The US has consistently demonstrated an interest in the balance of power, ever since WWII, not pure power and hegemony.

The people over at the State Department disagree with you. The US govt. has and continues to operate under the context of "Full Spectrum Dominance".

Why do you think the US has being lashing out over the last decade or so? It's power is waning, although it is still top dog by far.

The US (like all super-powers) has done some fucked up things. The CIA's undermining of democratically elected governments to attempt the installation of puppet states is indefensible and the part that US-based actors have played in instability in resource rich regions of Africa should lead to people being investigated and placed in jail.

Many of the corrupt political types in the US system are no better than their Chinese counterparts.

But what analysis of the worst of US behavior as a hegemonic state fails to take into account is how beneficial the US' role is for a great deal of the world.

The US' many military bases abroad has been mentioned here, but what I didn't see discussed is the reason for these bases. Piracy has been a problem as long as seagoing trade has occurred. The US does the world a major service by patrolling its oceans.

If one country (and the one that arguably has the most to gain or at least has had the most to gain in the past from safe sailing seas) doesn't step, what you end up with is a crisis where no country wants to bite the bullet and spend their tax dollars on big enough navies to protect their area of the world. This can be mitigated somewhat by treaties, but that still leaves the possibility of countries not fulfilling their obligations, resulting in a situation where the other countries spend their share on protecting trade routes, without getting the full coverage needed due to another nation fucking them over by refusing to honour their own treaty obligations.

Thus, it's a very reasonable trade off for most countries to simply let the US have a base in their country to reduce their logistical challenges as they patrol the global ocean trade routes for everyone's benefit. No one is being bullied here.

And do you think that the money the US gives other countries in foreign aid is out of the goodness of their hearts? They know the money will be stolen by corrupt officials. That's the whole point. These are essentially payments to buy allies.

Now, back to China. The US might pull some asshole moves when it comes to countries that are attempting to upset the balance of power as it is, but countries that are on board with global trade and choose to ally with the US, rather than oppose it don't have a history of being fucked with by the US. Sure, it's not a completely just system, but it's not like Canada has to worry about the US invading.

The over-riding philosophy behind many US actions is that trade and peace are good. The US is more than happy to have other countries sell their products in their country and to have people who start companies in the US if they invest a sizeable amount of money in the process and can become residents and citizens by doing so. The US doesn't stop legally earned money from leaving its borders and has no problem with its allies becoming wealthy and even offering a better standard of living than it can within its own country.

China, on the other hand, doesn't have the same over-riding philosophy. The Chinese philosophy is that the only thing that matters in life is winning and that there can only be one winner. This occurs within their own country, with the powerful essentially doing their best to prevent the less powerful from achieving more power than they are born with, but when it comes to China vs other countries, everyone in China is very nationalistic to an extreme.

The Chinese game plan is simply. To systematically and strategically extract all the value in the world and bring it to China and then keep it there.

This has been the game plan for hundreds of years if not thousands. The UK's solution of forcibly importing opium in China prior to the First Opium War and after is regrettable and indefensible, but it was a response to a trade situation not that different from the one occurring today.

The Chinese had a very simply trade policy at the time. It worked like this. Bring us gold and we will allow you to buy silk and porcelain, but you can't sell anything in China. Prior to the decision to resolve the trade in-balance, China had been sucking Europe dry of gold for many years.

China's back at it again today. With increasingly strict currency controls in place that leave most Chinese millionaires spending the majority of their time trying to get their money out of the country and someplace where the Rule of Law applies.

Every year they introduce new laws making it harder for non-Chinese entities to sell products in China and do trade in China. They allow a certain amount of token trade to occur when it is to their long term benefit, but as more intellectual property is absorbed by the Chinese machine, their desire to do so diminishes.

As China gains global power, they won't encourage trade -- their motto will be to squash all trade not controlled directly by The Party. They are already doing this within their borders obviously, but keep in mind that when the Chinese do an infrastructure development deal in Africa, they stipulate that they will own the completed project, they will build the completed project with their own workers (who will take the wages they earn back to China when they are finished to ensure that no money actually leaves China, other than what is spent on construction materials and operations), they will operate the finished project for their own profit and it's probably only a matter of time before they start using these projects as a justification to place their troops in dozens on economically weak nations.

If you don't believe me about the way they think, just come to China and try to cross the street on a green walk signal. These folks are such strong believers in zero-sum games that they'll do everything in their power to prevent pedestrians from going first and if you do manage to cross in front of them as they make a right or left turn, they'll literally stop within their bumper inches from your knees.

The only thing that is understood in China is power, winning and losing. Given the choice between a hegemonic China and a hegemonic USA, it's an easy call in my books.

There is a reason why the Chinese have been referred to by Europeans as the Jews of Asia!
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2018 02:52 PM by PharaohRa.)
02-03-2018 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Arado Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 877
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 20
Post: #213
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Bumping this thread. Looks like Trump is planning a massive set of tariffs on China.

Long overdue measures, but we should have cracked down on Chinese trade practices and technology acquisition a long time ago while they were still very dependent on us. Now less than 20% of their exports go to the U.S. and we are battling them for dominance in third country markets.

Quote:Trump Readies Sweeping Tariffs and Investment Restrictions on China

WASHINGTON — The dust has yet to settle on President Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, but the White House is preparing another major trade measure, this time aimed squarely at China.

Mr. Trump and his top trade advisers are readying a raft of actions to penalize China’s theft of American intellectual property, including tariffs on at least $30 billion of annual Chinese imports, people familiar with the discussions said.

The measures, which could be announced as early as next week, may also include investment restrictions, caps on visas for Chinese researchers and challenges to China’s trade practices at the World Trade Organization. Those familiar with the planning cautioned that the timing could be delayed, and that such measures are likely to be introduced in stages.

The rapid pace of White House trade measures is no accident and comes at the president’s request. At a White House meeting last week, Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, presented Mr. Trump with a plan to target $30 billion a year in Chinese imports.

That amount is equal to the cost that Mr. Lighthizer’s office estimates Chinese policies aimed at acquiring American technology impose on American companies annually. In August, Mr. Lighthizer officially began an investigation into those practices, which include digital warfare as well as requiring companies to hand over trade secrets and form joint ventures with Chinese partners to gain access to certain markets.

Mr. Trump — surrounded by his commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, his trade adviser Peter Navarro and others — asked for a figure beyond $30 billion and for the plan to be officially announced in the coming weeks, according to two people familiar with the exchange.

The administration is devising the measure to broadly counter a Chinese strategy known as the Made in China 2025 plan. China introduced a comprehensive initiative in 2015 to upgrade Chinese industry over the next decade and dominate sectors of the future, including advanced information technology, new energy vehicles and aerospace equipment.

Unlike the steel and aluminum measure, which divided the president’s advisers and his own party, the idea of targeting China has broad support among a number of officials who believe China is cheating in global trade.

Gary D. Cohn, a top economic adviser who resigned over the steel and aluminum tariffs, had approved of action against China, the people familiar with the discussions said. Orrin G. Hatch, the chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Republicans who criticized those tariffs, have also endorsed a tough approach toward China.

Congress is also weighing legislation that would strengthen national security checks on Chinese investment. In a House hearing on Thursday, Heath P. Tarbert, an assistant secretary of the Treasury Department, said the current system for assessing investment is riddled with loopholes that allowed Chinese companies to evade such checks.

Concern over China’s practices picked up speed at the end of the Obama administration and has only increased since. Last year, a technology-focused unit in the Defense Department issued a report arguing that rising Chinese investment in Silicon Valley was giving China unprecedented access to the military technologies of the future, and increasing Chinese ownership of supply chains that service the United States military.

In recent months, China’s political apparatus has exerted even greater control over the nation’s economy. Business leaders and politicians of both parties now widely say that Washington’s past strategy of offering Beijing economic incentives to liberalize its market has failed. On Sunday, China officially ended term limits on the presidency, clearing the way for President Xi Jinping to stay in power indefinitely.

Administration officials say that past failure to rein in China warrants a much tougher approach. Mr. Trump took one step toward this in his national security strategy, which identified China as an economic aggressor. When a top Chinese economic envoy visited in late February, the administration asked China to shave $100 billion off its $375.2 billion trade surplus with the United States, two people close to the talks said. And while the steel and aluminum tariffs will hit many countries, they are primarily aimed at combating overcapacity in Chinese metals, including those that are routed through other nations.

The next step, advisers say, is to more aggressively focus on trade with China.

The United States is expected to impose tariffs on Chinese imports of high-technology goods specified in the Made in China 2025 plan, including semiconductors and new energy vehicles. But they could go beyond that to target more mundane products, including consumer electronics, apparel and even shoes. The breadth of the tariffs remains a contentious topic in the business sector and the White House, with some industries fretting about retaliation and increased costs to American companies and consumers.

Thomas J. Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said on Wednesday that while the administration was right to focus on China’s unfair trade practices, his group strongly disagreed with sweeping tariffs.

“Simply put, tariffs are damaging taxes on American consumers,” he said. “Tariffs of $30 billion a year would wipe out over a third of the savings American families received from the doubling of the standard deduction in tax reform.”

Hun Quach, the vice president for international trade at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said that tariffs on apparel, shoes and electronics would hit American families most. “Is the best response to make American consumers pay for China’s violations? We don’t think so,” she said.

Although there is wide support for taking action against unfair trade practices by China, business groups and economists still say the measure could be risky. The United States and China maintain the world’s largest trading relationship, and the tariffs could easily provoke a backlash.

“They know our system inside out,” said Jim McGregor, the chairman of the greater China region for APCO Worldwide. He added, referring to the House speaker and the Senate majority leader: “They know what companies are important to Paul Ryan. They know what companies are important to Mitch McConnell. They know which trade associations and political groups have a big voice in Washington.”

Scott Kennedy, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that while China deserved a tough response, he feared the consequences of the administration’s actions had not been well considered. “You really have to be smart,” he said. “The Chinese aren’t just going to fold over on this.”

Mr. Kennedy compared China to a bully that had stolen America’s lunch money. "You want to teach them a lesson,” he said. “But it’s not as simple as going up in the playground and punching them on the nose.”
(This post was last modified: 03-16-2018 01:23 PM by Arado.)
03-16-2018 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Arado's post:
Transsimian, DJ-Matt
Lunostrelki Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 419
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 14
Post: #214
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Trump going hard on China is actually good for it in the long run. Liberal US trade policies seem to have benefited extremely corrupt Chinese officials and their relatives by giving China a bunch of loopholes they could profit from easily. This made not pursuing economic reform (i.e. making China a place that actually respects rules) an attractive option for many years. Assuming no nuclear civil war due to the CCP imploding, it should be back on track in a decade or so since there are many qualified and motivated Chinese, but they have to deal with a terrible political and business culture.
(This post was last modified: 03-16-2018 02:46 PM by Lunostrelki.)
03-16-2018 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lunostrelki's post:
Enoch
Fortis Away
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 4,254
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 104
Post: #215
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Agreed with Arado that it should have happened decades ago, but i'm glad it's happening now and not never.

Lunostrelki, actually funny that you should mention the CCP imploding. According to a few chinese friends, XJP's bigger fear now is a military coup. He's been promising more and more benefits to the military to try and keep things clean, though. I hope we don't get a coup down here.

I will be checking my PMs weekly, so you can catch me there. I will not be posting.
03-17-2018 12:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Arado Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 877
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 20
Post: #216
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
The Chinese also are upset that President Trump has passed the Taiwan Travel Act.

I really hope he knows what he's doing. Trade is one thing - the Chinese know they are screwing over other countries (especially the US) so it's only natural for us to seek revisions at some point. Even NK isn't essential to Chinese interests if they can come to a deal with the South Koreans. However, Taiwan is in another league - it is an issue that the Chinese won't back down on since it is so important to the CCP's legitimacy since Chinese people have been brainwashed since birth to view Taiwan as a part of China.

In addition, word is on the street that Pompeo is much more of a skeptic on China than Tillerson was. Peter Navarro (producer of the "Death by China" documentary) also appears to be gaining influence with Trump among his economic advisors after beating Cohn on the tariff battle.

Quote:Beijing ‘strongly dissatisfied’ as Trump signs Taiwan Travel Act

Mainland says move, which allows US representatives to meet officials from self-ruled island, will hurt bilateral relations

PUBLISHED : Saturday, 17 March, 2018, 8:59am
Laura Zhou

Trump’s endorsement of the Taiwan Travel Act comes as Beijing and Washington are in a stand-off over trade and Beijing’s attempts to boost its influence worldwide, with the US House of Representatives proposing that China’s cultural outposts in the US be registered as foreign agents.

The Chinese embassy in Washington said in a statement on Saturday that China was “strongly dissatisfied with” the travel act and firmly opposed it.

“The relevant clauses of the Taiwan Travel Act severely violate the one-China principle,” a statement from the Chinese embassy in Washington said.

The statement said the US should stop pursuing any official ties with Taiwan or improving its current relations with Taiwan in any substantive way.

The White House said the bill would pave the way for more official exchanges with Taipei.

The bill said it should be the policy of the United States to allow officials at all levels of the government to travel to Taiwan to meet their counterparts.

It also said the government should allow high-level Taiwanese officials to enter the United States under conditions of appropriate respect, and to meet their US counterparts.

Taiwan cheered the signing of the act, expressing gratitude for US support for the island.

A statement released by its Foreign Affairs Ministry said it would continue to maintain close contacts with the US and deepen bilateral partnerships at all levels.

“The relationship between Taiwan and the US is close, and has been consolidated after efforts by both sides in recent years,” it said. “The US executive branch has sent more senior officials to Taiwan since Trump has come to office.”

The US travel bill, introduced by Steve Chabot, a Republican congressman from Ohio, had earlier won approval from the House and Senate.

Taiwan has been self-governed since the end of China’s civil war in 1949, but Beijing has always considered it a renegade province awaiting reunification, by force if necessary.

Before his inauguration, Trump angered Beijing by speaking over the phone to Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen and suggesting he might use the so-called one-China policy as a bargaining chip to advance US interests in trade, currency and strategic issues, such as the disputed South China Sea.

In December, diplomat Li Kexin warned that Beijing would seize Taiwan by force if US warships visited Taiwan.

But contacts between Taiwan and the US are ongoing despite Beijing’s opposition. A US-Taiwan defence industry conference will be held in Taiwan in May to discuss arms sales.

Shi Yinghong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, said Trump’s signing of the act was a “serious setback” in Sino-US relations.

“The Taiwan Travel Act has offered the possibility that officials, even high-level officials, from the US and Taiwan could conduct consultations on any issues. This is a setback in the one-China policy with a severe negative impact on bilateral relations, and could send a misleading signal to the pro-independence force in Taiwan.

“China’s basic strategy with the Trump administration is to be patient, trying not to make major counter-US moves ... Trump’s signing of [this act] could mean that China’s strategy in the past year has failed to meet its goal.”

Lu Xiang, a US specialist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said Beijing still needed to be cautious.

“But I think [the signing of the act] is not a total surprise to Beijing, given its high level of support in the US Congress. However, even though Beijing can do little about the signing of the act now, it is ready for measures to respond [to any tangible moves from the US] if necessary.”

China and the United States are already locking horns over other issues. US congressman for South Carolina Joe Wilson said he was drafting a bill that would put foreign funding at US universities, including programs organized by the Confucius Institute, under closer scrutiny.

Wilson said the move would let the American people know that the Chinese programs were disseminating propaganda.

Beijing has rejected suggestions that it runs a political infiltration campaign overseas, saying it has never used the Chinese diaspora to interfere in another nation’s affairs.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2018 12:46 PM by Arado.)
03-18-2018 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Arado's post:
Enigma, Transsimian
Enigma Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,504
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 87
Post: #217
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
^ What concessions has China made to the US since Trump has been president?

You say they know they're screwing countries on trade; then why did Trump have to pass tariffs after a year of negotiation?

Has China made any concessions in the South China Sea since Trump has been president?

My perspective is that Trump put tariffs and Taiwan, among other things, on the table immediately after getting elected, and then backed off in the hopes of negotiating with China. As China fails to make concessions regarding the economy and South China Sea, tariffs and Taiwan have been put back on the table.

We both agree that China is a major threat. Would you not agree that one of the biggest reasons for that is that they do NOT appear to be a good faith actor? Or, as others have put it, that they are a "gamma" nation?

How long do you feel the US and China's neighbors should attempt to negotiate in good faith with a country that does not seem capable of good faith negotiations?

As you've said, a push back against China is long overdue; it's only logical that they'd try to stall, whether that's through failed negotiations or temper tantrums. Because stalling benefits them, not the US or China's neighbors.

By the way, I want to bring attention to this gem buried at the bottom of that article:

Quote:China and the United States are already locking horns over other issues. US congressman for South Carolina Joe Wilson said he was drafting a bill that would put foreign funding at US universities, including programs organized by the Confucius Institute, under closer scrutiny.

Wilson said the move would let the American people know that the Chinese programs were disseminating propaganda.


Beijing has rejected suggestions that it runs a political infiltration campaign overseas, saying it has never used the Chinese diaspora to interfere in another nation’s affairs.

Amazing move. Now if we can just get other (((foreign))), anti-West propaganda out of American universities.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2018 01:52 PM by Enigma.)
03-18-2018 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Enigma's post:
Transsimian, Arado, Handsome Creepy Eel
Arado Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 877
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 20
Post: #218
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(03-18-2018 01:37 PM)Enigma Wrote:  ^ What concessions has China made to the US since Trump has been president?

You say they know they're screwing countries on trade; then why did Trump have to pass tariffs after a year of negotiation?

Has China made any concessions in the South China Sea since Trump has been president?

My perspective is that Trump put tariffs and Taiwan, among other things, on the table immediately after getting elected, and then backed off in the hopes of negotiating with China. As China fails to make concessions regarding the economy and South China Sea, tariffs and Taiwan have been put back on the table.

We both agree that China is a major threat. Would you not agree that one of the biggest reasons for that is that they do NOT appear to be a good faith actor? Or, as others have put it, that they are a "gamma" nation?

How long do you feel the US and China's neighbors should attempt to negotiate in good faith with a country that does not seem capable of good faith negotiations?

As you've said, a push back against China is long overdue; it's only logical that they'd try to stall, whether that's through failed negotiations or temper tantrums. Because stalling benefits them, not the US or China's neighbors.

By the way, I want to bring attention to this gem buried at the bottom of that article:

Quote:China and the United States are already locking horns over other issues. US congressman for South Carolina Joe Wilson said he was drafting a bill that would put foreign funding at US universities, including programs organized by the Confucius Institute, under closer scrutiny.

Wilson said the move would let the American people know that the Chinese programs were disseminating propaganda.


Beijing has rejected suggestions that it runs a political infiltration campaign overseas, saying it has never used the Chinese diaspora to interfere in another nation’s affairs.

Amazing move. Now if we can just get other (((foreign))), anti-West propaganda out of American universities.

Agreed that it's a good thing we are finally calling out the Confucius institutes.

No disagreements on your point above - we are bringing more issues into the negotiations in order to gain leverage, which makes sense.

Just my point is that if Trump is going to bring Taiwan in then he has to make sure his moves are carefully calculated. If the Taiwanese get the impression that we will back them no matter what (as a result of the legislation and/or Trump's rhetoric), then they may make more moves towards independence. China's subsequent response, if military, could force us to decide between a scuffle that could cause WW3 vs. being kicked out of Asia with our tail between our legs.
03-19-2018 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Arado's post:
Enigma
Lunostrelki Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 419
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 14
Post: #219
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(03-17-2018 12:00 AM)Fortis Wrote:  Agreed with Arado that it should have happened decades ago, but i'm glad it's happening now and not never.

Lunostrelki, actually funny that you should mention the CCP imploding. According to a few chinese friends, XJP's bigger fear now is a military coup. He's been promising more and more benefits to the military to try and keep things clean, though. I hope we don't get a coup down here.
Xi Jinping has crushed a lot of the existing and potential opposition to his power (mostly by diminishing the concept of "collective rule" that western observers love so much because to them things like that and "term limits" sound like reform), but he's indeed got enemies with influence. If the economy tanks, or if his infrastructure project backfires too much, Xi could be in physical trouble. He could get sent on vacation or have an accident. At the same time, he has vested a lot of power in his own person. Removing Xi suddenly would leave a power vacuum and who knows what would happen then.

I think if worse comes to worse, Xi will simply suspend the authority of the Party organization and set up a parallel command structure that answers to him only, similar to how Mao "bombarded the headquarters" in the Cultural Revolution. The Chinese are no strangers to totalitarianism, and the government would rather give up its recent prosperity than lose power. There's a book about this, "China Alone," which posits that China is ending a 30-year period of relative economic and social freedom and returning to a period of isolation and totalitarianism as a stability mechanism. I should have another look at it.
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2018 01:26 PM by Lunostrelki.)
03-19-2018 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Lunostrelki's post:
Enigma, Aquarius, Fortis, Handsome Creepy Eel
Enoch Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,332
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 12
Post: #220
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(03-19-2018 01:20 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  
(03-17-2018 12:00 AM)Fortis Wrote:  Agreed with Arado that it should have happened decades ago, but i'm glad it's happening now and not never.

Lunostrelki, actually funny that you should mention the CCP imploding. According to a few chinese friends, XJP's bigger fear now is a military coup. He's been promising more and more benefits to the military to try and keep things clean, though. I hope we don't get a coup down here.
Xi Jinping has crushed a lot of the existing and potential opposition to his power (mostly by diminishing the concept of "collective rule" that western observers love so much because to them things like that and "term limits" sound like reform), but he's indeed got enemies with influence. If the economy tanks, or if his infrastructure project backfires too much, Xi could be in physical trouble. He could get sent on vacation or have an accident. At the same time, he has vested a lot of power in his own person. Removing Xi suddenly would leave a power vacuum and who knows what would happen then.

I think if worse comes to worse, Xi will simply suspend the authority of the Party organization and set up a parallel command structure that answers to him only, similar to how Mao "bombarded the headquarters" in the Cultural Revolution. The Chinese are no strangers to totalitarianism, and the government would rather give up its recent prosperity than lose power. There's a book about this, "China Alone," which posits that China is ending a 30-year period of relative economic and social freedom and returning to a period of isolation and totalitarianism as a stability mechanism. I should have another look at it.

His abolition of term limits may have actually strengthened popular support for aggressive action against China as the sheeple can finally see how Machiavellian the Chinese govt is.
03-19-2018 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Enoch's post:
Arado
captain_shane Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,225
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation: 12
Post: #221
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Boo fuckin hoo. The chinese can start bitchin when they stop stealing US tech and treating their citizens like slaves.
03-20-2018 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Transsimian Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,871
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 14
Post: #222
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
What the West Doesn’t Get About Xi Jinping

By [former Australian PM] KEVIN RUDD, MARCH 20, 2018

The recent decision by China’s National People’s Congress to abolish term limits for the office of the president has sent shock waves through the West: Xi Jinping, the current officeholder, is suddenly being described as a new Confucian autocrat, overseeing a state still governed by a Marxist-Leninist party, presiding over a selectively capitalist economy, with ambitions to make his country a global superpower.

This sense of shock says more about the West than China. For the last five years, Western leaders and analysts have often projected onto China an image of their preferred imaginings, rather than one reflecting the actual statements of China’s own leaders, or in the physical evidence of Chinese statecraft. These have long pointed to a vastly different reality.

Mr. Xi has not suddenly changed. From early on, he demonstrated an unmatched level of political skill in rapidly consolidating power. To get to the top, he has outflanked, outmaneuvered, marginalized and then removed all his principal opponents. The story of his remarkable ascent is hardly a secret. And it’s certainly not for the faint-hearted.

His anti-corruption campaign has been a master class in political warfare; since 2013 he has used it to clean up the party, clean out any potential challengers and insert his loyalists into broad swaths of the government, with himself at the top. And he’s not finished yet: A “National Supervisory Commission” is now being established to take this campaign beyond the ranks of the party to the entire country.

Mr. Xi now chairs six top-level “leading small groups” as well as a number of central committees and commissions, covering every major area of policy. So-called Xi Jinping Thought is being incorporated into the Constitution — a unique arrangement for a sitting president (unlike his predecessors, who had to wait until they were out of office to have their “thought” incorporated). In this light, the abolition of term limits on his office is just the icing on the cake; even without this change, Mr. Xi was likely to remain China’s paramount leader through the 2020s.

Continue reading the main story Much of the focus has been on Mr. Xi’s “new authoritarianism.” But there is a danger that in doing so analysts miss the broader changes in China’s overall national direction. For the last few years China has been returning to parts of its old Marxist-Leninist ideological orthodoxy, after four decades of policy pragmatism. Along with this change, the Chinese Communist Party is regaining its institutional status over the policy machinery of the Chinese state; before, the party had focused on ideology, while professionals at the various departments of state handled the complex questions of policy and governance.

Today the locus of policy power has shifted from the State Council to the Politburo Standing Committee, including on the core question of the economy. This is a critical change from the days of the previous premier, Zhu Rongji. Mr. Xi believes the party must play a vital role in managing the economy while holding the country together, as China’s transformation into a global great power continues.

There is danger here. Mr. Xi is not an economist, and his premier, Li Keqiang, technically responsible for the economy, is politically weak. This sets up a potential tension between the party and the president’s desire for control over the economy and the party’s previous plans for further economic reform.

In 2013, the party released a blueprint for the next generation of economic change — transforming China from an old model of high growth, based on low-wage, labor-intensive manufacturing for export and supplemented by high levels of state investment in basic economic infrastructure, to a new model accepting lower, sustainable growth rates based on expanding domestic consumption, the services sector and the replacement over time of state-owned enterprises with a new generation of private companies like Alibaba.

However, over the past five years, the pace of reform has slowed, in large part because the party has feared losing control. The 13th National People’s Congress has promised to accelerate the reform program once more, with a renewed commitment to put “the market” at the center of the economy. We will see.

Perhaps the greatest analytical error across the West has been the view that Xi Jinping would want to continue to sustain the liberal, international rules-based order once its economic power began to rival that of the United States. Again, this hope goes against the well-known facts: China has long said that it sees the existing order as one invented by the victors of the last world war, one in which China did not have a seat at the table.

China has never shared the West’s view of human rights. It has long sought to weaken the powers of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. China has at best had an ambivalent attitude to free trade — just look at its qualified support for the World Trade Organization, its opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its own long history of mercantilism.

And as for the global security order, China has never changed its hostility to the global system of American military alliances, in particular those in the Asia Pacific, which it has long attacked as legacies of the Cold War. That’s in addition to China’s assertion of its territorial claims in the South China Sea.

For these reasons, Mr. Xi has explicitly called for “a new type of great power relations,” “a new type of international system” emerging out of the “current struggle for the international order” and a new type of activist Chinese diplomacy that puts to bed Deng Xiaoping’s dictum of “hide your strength, bide your time, and never take the lead.” Hence its efforts to foster an alternative multilateral system with the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road Initiative.

Over time Mr. Xi would like to turn the page on the liberal Western order and write a new chapter in world history. If China in the next decade becomes the largest economy in the world with Mr. Xi still likely its leader, the country’s economic success would be based on a form of state capitalism that rejects the notion that rising income parallels broader economic liberalization and political democracy.

None of us knows how much Mr. Xi will seek to apply the principles of this “China model” to the wider international order. There will be tensions here. But we should be very clear about what Mr. Xi wants for China itself, rather than seeing it through the rose-colored glasses of the West, still shaped by the images of Deng Xiaoping’s China, a quarter of a century ago. Xi Jinping’s China is radically different.

Likes denote appreciation, not necessarily agreement |Stay Anonymous Online Datasheet| Unmissable video on Free Speech
03-21-2018 05:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Transsimian's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel, Suits, C-Note, Samseau
Enigma Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,504
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 87
Post: #223
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
China to start paying for its oil imports from Russia and Angola in yuan.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-3...ad-dollars

Quote:Just days after Beijing officially launched Yuan-denominated crude oil futures (with a bang, as shown in the chart below, surpassing Brent trading volume) which are expected to quickly become the third global price benchmark along Brent and WTI, China took the next major step in the challenging the Dollar's supremacy as global reserve currency (and internationalizing the Yuan) when on Thursday Reuters reported that China took the first steps to paying for crude oil imports in its own currency instead of the US Dollars.

A pilot program for yuan payment could be launched as soon as the second half of the year and regulators have already asked some financial institutions to "prepare for pricing crude imports in the yuan", Reuters sourcesreveal.

According to the proposed plan, Beijing would start with purchases from Russia and Angola, two nations which, like China, are keen to break the dollar’s global dominance. They are also two of the top suppliers of crude oil to China, along with Saudi Arabia.

A change in the default crude oil transactional currency - which for decades has been the "Petrodollar", blessing the US with global reserve currency status - would have monumental consequences for capital allocations and trade flows, not to mention geopolitics: as Reuters notes, a shift in just a small part of global oil trade into the yuan is potentially huge. "Oil is the world’s most traded commodity, with an annual trade value of around $14 trillion, roughly equivalent to China’s gross domestic product last year." Currently, virtually all global crude oil trading is in dollars, barring an estimated 1 per cent in other currencies. This is the basis of US dominance in the world economy.

I don't know enough about economics to predict how this will shake out, but the number of shills in the comments is interesting.
03-31-2018 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Enigma's post:
Samseau, Handsome Creepy Eel
Arado Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 877
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 20
Post: #224
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
China has decided to retaliate against U.S. tariffs.

Quote:China on Monday imposed tariffs of up to 25 per cent on 128 US imports worth US$3 billion a year, including fruits and pork, in retaliation to US duties on steel and aluminium, fuelling fears of a trade war.

Beijing’s move, which the Xinhua news agency said was decided by the custom tariffs commission of the State Council, follows weeks of heated rhetoric and threats between the world’s two biggest economies.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly railed against China’s massive trade surplus over the United States, promising during the US election campaign to slash the US deficit.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said it was suspending its obligations to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to reduce tariffs on 120 US goods, including fruit. The tariff on the products will be raised to 15 per cent.

Another eight products, including pork, will now be subject to tariffs of 25 per cent, it said, with the measures effective from April 2.

Beijing had warned last month that it was considering the tariffs of 15 per cent and 25 per cent on a range of products that also include wine, nuts and aluminium scrap. The tariffs came into force on Monday, Xinhua said, citing a finance ministry statement.

The levies are in response to tariffs of 10 per cent on aluminium and 25 per cent on steel that have also angered US allies.

Trump, however, has temporarily suspended the tariffs for the European Union as well as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and South Korea.

The US leader has also unveiled plans to impose new tariffs on some US$60 billion of Chinese imports over the “theft” of intellectual property.

China has called on the United States to stop its “economic intimidation” and warned it was ready to hit back.

But Beijing has so far held fire against major agricultural products such as soybeans or major industries such as aerospace giant Boeing – items that state-run daily Global Times suggests should be targeted.

The nationalistic newspaper said in an editorial last week that China has “nearly completed its list of retaliatory tariffs on US products and will release it soon.”

“The list will involve major Chinese imports from the US,” the newspaper wrote, without saying which items were on the document.

“This will deal a heavy blow to Washington that aggressively wields the stick of trade war and will make the US pay a price for its radical trade policy toward China,” the Global Times wrote.

Despite the rhetoric, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Thursday suggested the new measures on intellectual property were a “prelude to a set of negotiations”.

The United States ran a US$375.2 billion trading deficit with China last year.

But the Global Times, without revealing sources, said the United States had made “some unreasonable demands in an attempt to coerce China into a compromise.

“This was naive. With strong trading power, China held its ground.”

Your move, Mr. President.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2018 10:35 AM by Arado.)
04-02-2018 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Hell_Is_Like_Newark Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 714
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation: 14
Post: #225
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
(04-02-2018 10:34 AM)Arado Wrote:  China has decided to retaliate against U.S. tariffs.

Your move, Mr. President.

We roughly import from China in an amount that is equal to about 5% of our GDP. China imports an equivalent of about 1% from us. China trades far more with Asia and Europe.

When it comes to low cost manufactured goods (i.e. garments), Vietnam, India, etc. can replace China (in fact, they already are).

China won't win this trade war.
04-02-2018 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Hell_Is_Like_Newark's post:
Horus, C-Note, Enigma, Handsome Creepy Eel
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Donald Trump thread Samseau 92,041 24,229,319 Today 04:28 PM
Last Post: 911
  The Trump bio thread TigerMandingo 4 964 04-14-2019 11:55 PM
Last Post: MrLemon
  Obama ending ‘wet-foot, dry-foot’ policy JayMillz 48 14,039 06-16-2017 04:38 PM
Last Post: RaccoonFace

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication