China Trade thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Theo520

Guest
Thought we could start a single thread on this important topic.

Communist China Deserves Donald Trump a Human Wrecking Ball​

A U.S. businessman friend of mine who works in China remarked to me recently that Donald Trump is not the American president America deserves, but he sure is the American president China deserves.

Trump’s instinct that America needs to rebalance its trade relationship with Beijing — before China gets too big to compromise — is correct. And it took a human wrecking ball like Trump to get China’s attention. But now that we have it, both countries need to recognize just how pivotal this moment is.

The original U.S.-China opening back in the 1970s defined our restored trade ties, which were limited. When we let China join the World Trade Organization in 2001, it propelled China into a trading powerhouse under rules that still gave China lots of concessions as a developing economy.
. . .(see link for full article)
Blockquote
Click to expand...
 
An important matter, I even watched one pundit say, economically, China has been at war with the US for 20 years. I’m glad we are taking them to task although, it might hurt at times.

Their human rights record is atrocious. I think this article was posted too:

https://www.newsweek.com/china-newt-gingrich-xi-j(name removed by moderator)ing-5g-technology-dangerous-myths-fantasy-1408874

Our local farmers, get revenue with the Cuba deal that opened up. Despite that, I"m largely against the new deal with Cuba.

It’s really something, I can claim little expertise on but I look forward to anyone who can debate this matter fully.
 
DIERM said:
Here is an important read:
Click to expand...
It completely ignores the impact of targeted tariffs.

Buyers in the US are scrambling to switch their orders out of China, to alternative ‘approved’ factories in Thailand, Vietnam, etal. Obviously not all orders can be redirected but a significant number will be. China will see a decline in new orders as alternative sources are ramped up.

Having worked in OEM manufacturing in ASIA, I speak with experience. This is why producers have factories in multiple low cost locations, as an insurance policy for such events.

asia.nikkei.com

AirPod maker Inventec has alternatives to China production, executive says

Taiwanese supplier touts Shanghai location as advantage over inland rival
asia.nikkei.com asia.nikkei.com
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Taiwanese supplier touts Shanghai location as advantage over inland rival
Click to expand...
But again, the Trumpanian take, of course, is to ignore the facts of what a tariff is, and who pays for it and instead swallow the Trump line which either shows ignorance on his part at best, or another of his seemingly never ending chain of lies at worst.
 
Last edited:
DIERM said:
But again, the Trumpanian take, of course, is to ignore the facts of what a tariff is, and who pays for it and instead swallow the Trump line which either shows ignorance on his part at best, or another of his seemingly never ending chain of lies at worst.
Click to expand...
Why do you ignore the real world impact on trade, which I just pointed out to you. You bothered to quote me yet side stepped it completely.

I’ve never denied the cost of tariffs paid will trickle down to the consumer price.
I haven’t seen anyone here make that claim, it’s a strawman argument by you.
 
Last edited:
China has had their way because they could. Hopefully we can save something after all the neglect we have allowed. Lots of Americans were content to have the junk made in China and sold back in the US - as long as it was working for their bank account, because they could. Well, along comes 2016 and we have a Business Man in the White House!
Let’s get things straightened up in the United States - its long overdue.
 
Again, China will respond with compromise or more and more companies will move their production.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

GSP: GSP countries to benefit from trade war with China: Report

In the first quarter of 2019, GSP saved American companies USD 285 million. That is USD 63 million more than the first quarter of 2018 itself a record-shattering year.
economictimes.indiatimes.com economictimes.indiatimes.com

novalinkmx.com

Avoiding the China Tariffs: Save Costs and Stay Competitive [2023]

In this blog post, we examine why manufacturing in Mexico can be effective in avoiding the China tariffs and how it can be achieved.
novalinkmx.com novalinkmx.com
 
Last edited:
Overall, an across-the-board tariff could mean as much as $69 billion worth of production returning to the United States each year by 2024.

Wall Street’s annoyance at the tariffs can be at least in part explained by the above quote from the article. As a discounting mechanism, the stock markets prices today profit projections into the future. The future in Wall Street’s calculus is not much beyond the next quarter and never 5 years out.

Time is of the essence. The Chinese are quickly building their own middle class to replace the United States as their primary market. National Income, a measure of purchasing power, is identical to Gross Domestic Product. The extraordinary growth of the Chinese economy in the last 20 years also measures the Chinese ability to consume goods and services. It is doubtful that the Chinese government will easily allow that newly established purchasing power to be expended on non-Chinese goods.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
The Chinese are quickly building their own middle class to replace the United States as their primary market.
Click to expand...
40.png
China's population shrinks despite two-child policy: Experts World News
I wonder if China’s current aggressiveness is a recognition by their leaders that their window to achieve something approaching parity with the West is rapidly shrinking. China is in a race to get rich before they get old. I think I know where the smart money is.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
robertmidwest said:
The Chinese are quickly building their own middle class to replace the United States as their primary market.
Click to expand...
From the cited article:
The number of live births nationwide in 2018 fell by 2.5 million year on year, contrary to a predicted increase of 790,000 births, according to an analysis by US-based academic Yi Fuxian.

Dr. Yi has not yet published his study for peer review. The article suggests his data on China population changes is derived from sources that were “pieced” together from China’s National Health Commission rather than China’s National Bureau of Statistics.

One should be somewhat skeptical of the conclusion that “China population shrinks”. The percentage Dr. YI’s estimates of decline are very small. A 2.5 million decline is only 0.18% and a 79,000 increase is only 0.06% of the 1.4 billion population total. These percentages are often within the standard error of most statistical studies.
Click to expand...
 
www.dw.com

Sieren's China: A shrinking population – DW – 04/04/2019

The size of the economically active population has been dwindling in China for decades, posing a challenge to the social security system. But it’s not the end of the world, says DW’s Frank Sieren.
www.dw.com www.dw.com
China has reached a turning point in recent history. In 2018, the country’s birth rate fell for a second year running, to 15.23 million newborns — 2 million fewer than the previous year.
Click to expand...
At this rate, the active population will have fallen from a high of 925 million in 2011 to 700 million by 2050. Every third person in China will be a pensioner. The average life expectancy in China is 77 and the country has a per capita GDP equivalent to that of Bulgaria.
Click to expand...
It will pose a huge challenge to China’s economic and social balance. A smaller active population will have to provide for an increasingly large elderly population. The health and social system, which is already deficient, will come under more pressure.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
robertmidwest said:
???
Please cite a source that shows their populating isn’t shrinking.
Click to expand...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

Population growth rate: The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative. The growth rate is a factor in determining how great a burden would be imposed on a country by the changing needs of its people for infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals, housing, roads), resources (e.g., food, water, electricity), and jobs. Rapid population growth can be seen as . . . more

0.37% (2018 est.)

country comparison to the world: 165

Birth rate: This entry gives the average annual number of births during a year per 1,000 persons in the population at midyear; also known as crude birth rate. The birth rate is usually the dominant factor in determining the rate of population growth. It depends on both the level of fertility and the age structure of the population.

12.1 births/1,000 population (2018 est.)

country comparison to the world: 161

Death rate: This entry gives the average annual number of deaths during a year per 1,000 population at midyear; also known as crude death rate. The death rate, while only a rough indicator of the mortality situation in a country, accurately indicates the current mortality impact on population growth. This indicator is significantly affected by age distribution, and most countries will eventually show a rise in the overall death rate, in spite of continued decline in mortality at all ages, as declining . . . more

8 deaths/1,000 population (2018 est.)
 
I think below article is ignoring that a negotiation requires leverage. The tariffs on Mexico brought negotiations to a close that had been ongoing for quite some time.

China has been acting knowingly in bad faith per WTO for a very long time, the negotiators have failed to resolve just by talking. Now we’ll see if the stick works better than the carrot.

I can’t comment on our Cuba objectives beyond saying it seems both the carrot and negotiation have failed to drive change.

www.newyorker.com

Mexico, Cuba, and Trump’s Increasing Preference for Punishment Over Diplomacy

The language and the intent of the emerging Trump doctrine in Latin America, if it can be called that, is very much Cold War 2.0.
www.newyorker.com www.newyorker.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top