OK, so China is going to execute a Canadian national because ... reasons -- give me a break. If China did anything like that they'd lose billions in business overnight through a combination of voluntary departures and ones imposed by law in Canada, the USA, and likely many other western countries.
Early this year when Trump began the tariff fight China was VERY aggressive in response. Trump imposed those tariffs and China responded with there own. Trump then imposed more tariffs and China was VERY aggressive in response. Trump imposed those new tariffs and China responded with there own. Trump then imposed still more tariffs and at this point China, realizing that the balance of trade would hurt them more than the USA, realized the the USA was finally exercising the clout the US market provides and China all of a sudden was more circumspect. This is the game they play and unless confronted they will continue to play and benefit from playing. When the west realizes the clout there money has and begins to exercise it then China will be forced to play fair, but until then China will continue to play this game.
In truth, China has allies in the multi-national companies doing business in China and this was very evident in the wake of the Tiananmen Square slaughter as many western companies, hoping to do business in China, lobbied there governments to not penalize China for the brutal crackdown. For many, money trumps morality.
BrianYou repeatedly say that China's response was "VERY aggressive" but the total tariffs imposed by the Chinese are only half of the US imposed ones, each Chinese step only matched the one from the US at worst and each and every step was a response to a move first made by the US. How can that be construed as very aggressive, other than viewing the moves made by the US as considerably more aggressive?
The aggression of which I spoke was about the verbal threats China made repeatedly but after about the third round of tariff and counter-tariff China was much less aggressive verbally and in fact you could detect a degree of resignation as they realized they were on the losing end of the fight. The US, as a country, is the largest market by far, and with that comes clout, clout the US had not used while China continued to steel IP and undercut US goods. As I mentioned in a prior, I oppose tariffs between relative equals but support tariffs when the two countries are not equal. So, the US and western nations with higher wages and better workplace safety and environmental controls should impose a tariff equal to about 2/3 of the cost advantage the other nation has. In this way production will not automatically move to places where pollution controls etc are less and therefore pollution actually increases. This would also reduce the wage stagnation problem and lessen the wage disparity that has grown to monumental levels in the last four decades. And here's the last point ... when the wage levels and workplace safety and environmental controls are improved in the other country the tariff goes down automatically. This will result in an incentive to raise wage levels and improve workplace safety and environmental controls.
But, the rules are written by people that don't care about the working class and in fact the era we live in, the era that's about 40 years old, is largely governed by the idea that cost is everything and chief among the cost centers is labor cost. The flat-lining of wages for the lower 90% has coincided exactly with the unheard of levels of income disparity and these two facts are not unrelated. Trump's ham fisted approach is not what I'd propose and applying tariffs to relative equals is unnecessary and unwise unless there is some cheating that warrants a penalty.
Brian
The aggression of which I spoke was about the verbal threats China made repeatedly but after about the third round of tariff and counter-tariff China was much less aggressive verbally and in fact you could detect a degree of resignation as they realized they were on the losing end of the fight. The US, as a country, is the largest market by far, and with that comes clout, clout the US had not used while China continued to steel IP and undercut US goods. As I mentioned in a prior, I oppose tariffs between relative equals but support tariffs when the two countries are not equal. So, the US and western nations with higher wages and better workplace safety and environmental controls should impose a tariff equal to about 2/3 of the cost advantage the other nation has. In this way production will not automatically move to places where pollution controls etc are less and therefore pollution actually increases. This would also reduce the wage stagnation problem and lessen the wage disparity that has grown to monumental levels in the last four decades. And here's the last point ... when the wage levels and workplace safety and environmental controls are improved in the other country the tariff goes down automatically. This will result in an incentive to raise wage levels and improve workplace safety and environmental controls.
But, the rules are written by people that don't care about the working class and in fact the era we live in, the era that's about 40 years old, is largely governed by the idea that cost is everything and chief among the cost centers is labor cost. The flat-lining of wages for the lower 90% has coincided exactly with the unheard of levels of income disparity and these two facts are not unrelated. Trump's ham fisted approach is not what I'd propose and applying tariffs to relative equals is unnecessary and unwise unless there is some cheating that warrants a penalty.
BrianLooking at it on a per country basis doesn't make much sense. The US market is third behind the EU and Asian market for China. The reality is that the US needs China more than China needs the US. If all trade between the US and China were to cease tomorrow, the US would certainly have it harder than China. The Chinese won't go that far though, as they own far too much US assets. They'd be shaking money out of their own pockets.
Protectionism never works, regardless of the motivation. It can only lead to isolating your own country while the rest of the world happily overtakes you, if they hadn't already.
1. <snip> while China continued to steel IP and undercut US goods.
2. So, the US and western nations with higher wages and better workplace safety and environmental controls should impose a tariff equal to about 2/3 of the cost advantage the other nation has. <snip> This will result in an incentive to raise wage levels and improve workplace safety and environmental controls.
3. But, the rules are written by people that don't care about the working class <snip>
1. I agree. My guess the end of the trade war is China will give up stealing western IPs tp certain degree, under a condition that the West promises never to sanction China by limiting high tech export to China. From Chinese government's perspective, the West uses high tech sanction to protest dictatorship and Taiwan problem. If China is given a green unconditionally on high tech, China will have no excuse to fund cloning of Western technology.
2. BS. If you can't compete, you deserve to die. China will deal with pollution and many other social problems, but human competing and phasing out human will never change. That's the thrust of natural selection.
3. Politicians know what is good for the human as a race, not the humanity BS. If evolution requires, everyone not up to the standard should and can die.
There will never be an end to the outsourcing and when China gets too pricey the multi-nationals will take there business elsewhere -- remember Japan?
You are delusional if you think the US would be harder hit than China. The value of goods and services each country has with the other results in a balance of trade that hugely favors China so it, for example, the trade was to zero out then China would be impacted about 2X as much in dollar value as the USA and given the relative monetary systems the effect would in fact be more like 4X as much or even greater. Mind you I'm not suggesting we engage in a trade war but having a balance of trade in the ballpark of -$500B every year is not sustainable.
Brian
The EU and Asia are not a country but a continent or group of nations and the USA is most definitely the country with the largest market on the planet and with that market has clout.
The Chinese own a lot in the US. That's a lot of leverage. Again, the Chinese aren't stupid enough to do that exactly because they own a lot of US assets and about 5% of US debt. You don't choke the life out of your own investments, even if the other threatens to put his own head into the noose.
Sorry you understated it a little it is actually over 20% of the USA's government debt.
Make no illusion. In China, everyone has to work for Chinese government, even seemingly anti-China propaganda spreaders, such as the Youtuber laowhy86 and his South African friend.
Just to focus back to the main topic... Apparently it is highly unusual to arrest an individual person that is part of a company when the said company is violating some kind of law.
Just to focus back to the main topic... Apparently it is highly unusual to arrest an individual person that is part of a company when the said company is violating some kind of law.There definitely have been arrests when export restrictions were violated. I remember back in 2001, McDonnell-Douglas sold an old CNC machine tool to a permitted aviation shop in China. That shop then transferred the machine to a military plant. The company eventually paid a fine. I'm not sure if jail time was sentenced, but I think some people were at least held in jail and then sentenced to time served.
Jon
Japan was different game back when,,,
Korean war needed a supply base and Japan took off.
You are delusional if you think the US would be harder hit than China. The value of goods and services each country has with the other results in a balance of trade that hugely favors China so it, for example, the trade was to zero out then China would be impacted about 2X as much in dollar value as the USA and given the relative monetary systems the effect would in fact be more like 4X as much or even greater. Mind you I'm not suggesting we engage in a trade war but having a balance of trade in the ballpark of -$500B every year is not sustainable.
Brian
The EU and Asia are not a country but a continent or group of nations and the USA is most definitely the country with the largest market on the planet and with that market has clout.I know Americans don't like to hear it, but the US economy would fall flat on its arse if China decided to call it quits. Look at what gets sold in US shops and stores. It's mostly Chinese made. There's no other country or combination of countries which can fill the gap quickly enough to prevent disaster. It's not just that though. The Chinese own a lot in the US. That's a lot of leverage. Again, the Chinese aren't stupid enough to do that exactly because they own a lot of US assets and about 5% of US debt. You don't choke the life out of your own investments, even if the other threatens to put his own head into the noose.
I'm not getting into a discussion over the balance of trade that gets touted so often, but so few people actually seem to understand. Much more than "big number bad" it generally doesn't appear to be, despite actual economists being very clear about that not being a bad thing.
Yes, given the fact that a substantial percentage of goods sold in the USA is made in China there would indeed be trouble if a full on trade war broke out. The Chinese would see enormous numbers of people thrown out of work while the US would have to employ millions to rebuild our manufacturing base. There would be problems for sure but the rebuilding would begin the turnaround.
Yes, given the fact that a substantial percentage of goods sold in the USA is made in China there would indeed be trouble if a full on trade war broke out. The Chinese would see enormous numbers of people thrown out of work while the US would have to employ millions to rebuild our manufacturing base. There would be problems for sure but the rebuilding would begin the turnaround.
Brian