General > General Technical Chat

I have the feeling that the whole trade war starts from a pile of nonsense.

<< < (6/145) > >>

paulca:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china-buys-us-treasury-bonds.asp

orion242:
No mention of the forced technology transfers here which IMO are a bigger aspect than just the trade deficit.


--- Quote from: soldar on May 23, 2019, 08:49:25 am ---America lead the world not so much with military strength but with a moral standing which lead most free countries to side with her. Now that is gone
--- End quote ---

Guess long as our interests align with what’s publicly thought as “moral”.  Not sure Saddam & his imaginary nuclear weapons, Muammar Gadhafi, or the handful of American citizens that had a hellfire dropped on them would agree.


technix:

--- Quote from: orion242 on May 23, 2019, 11:13:14 am ---No mention of the forced technology transfers here which IMO are a bigger aspect than just the trade deficit.

--- End quote ---
If you think technology transfer is too high a price tag for you, you could have just rejected the deal in the first place. It is pure capitalist bargaining, you took the deal without calming your heads first, and and you are just having buyer’s regret. Nobody is forcing you to take the deal in the first place.

There is a reason why there is no 250km/h rated bullet trains in China based on Siemens technology. Technology transfer have always been part of the deal when China Railways bought their trains, and Siemens rejected it when the first round of negotiations happened. You can reject the deal too if you don’t agree to the terms.

orion242:

--- Quote from: technix on May 23, 2019, 12:05:58 pm ---It is pure capitalist bargaining, you took the deal without calming your heads first, and and you are just having buyer’s regret.
--- End quote ---

Good point.  If these companies don't like it, go elsewhere or quit crying.

CatalinaWOW:
Persistent large trade deficits cannot persist.  Eventually the money runs out and something changes.  So what is being argued about is how that change occurs.

One approach has been indirectly mentioned already on this thread.  You do nothing, and the old empire dies, crashing into poverty.  Horrible for the crashing country, and not really pretty for the former big exporters.  Even if it isn't a dominant market the loss of sales hurts.  Tariffs are another approach.  The 1930s proved that they aren't infallible as a solution, but they have worked in other places and times.  Can make for a softer landing.

In any case it will require the US in general to get hungrier, willing to work harder.  Is 25% harder the right answer?  In spite of the millions of experts willing to speak on the subject, no one knows.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod