Trump Officials Planning Escalation of US-China Tech Trade War (arstechnica.com) 295
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Trump administration is looking to widen its trade war with China by restricting Chinese access to U.S. technology, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. "The Treasury Department is crafting rules that would block firms with at least 25 percent Chinese ownership from buying companies involved in what the White House calls 'industrially significant technology,'" the Wall Street Journal says. A separate proposal would institute beefed-up export controls preventing Chinese companies from buying these technologies from U.S. firms. The policies could be announced as soon as this week, the Journal says. In the past, the Trump administration has blocked multiple attempts by Chinese companies to buy U.S. semiconductor firms and imposed a sweeping export ban on Chinese smartphone maker ZTE after ZTE was caught selling U.S. technology to Iran and North Korea -- though the administration recently lifted the ban.
I smell a recession coming on. (Score:3, Insightful)
It remains to be seen who will bear the brunt of it.
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:5, Interesting)
The analysis of which states are being hit hardest by Chinese tariffs make it very clear where China wants the hit to be. Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, etc.
Oil, gas, coal, auto, food - who do you think will hurt the most?
$8 billion of Texas exports fall under the first rounds of tariffs and $0.12 billion of New York's. Is that more clear?
The combined hit on the tiny little economies of Alabama and South Carolina beats the hits on the California and Washington mega economies. Maybe that helps make it clear.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were being strategic, they'd try to hit the rust belt, democratic strong holds that went for the protectionism hoping for some type of change.
Maybe that's round two though, or maybe they want Trump in power, as it helps them exery power in Asia.
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sooo. China is applying tariffs intelligently. Their tariffs directly hit and hurt Trumps main voting base. To maximize the pressure on him to remove the tariffs.
Some how is this is the liberals doing?
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some how is this is the liberals doing?
At least in America, protectionism is popular with the left, and much less so with conservatives.
Trumpism is a blend of the stupidest policies from both left and right.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, Conservatives (sic) in Congress still have no balls, even the women.
Re: (Score:3)
At least in America, protectionism is popular with the left, and much less so with conservatives.
Left, right, liberal and conservative are meaningless in America. Democrats and Republicans have a mish-mash of policy that seems to only exist to satiate their need for power than actually improve the outcomes for the people.
United we stand, divided we fall. Ask yourself which direction we are going in and if you choose to continue down that path....
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, the biggest supporters of free trade were the Big Cotton slaveowners.
Why is that ironic? Are you implying that the slave owners were progressive liberals?
You might consider that there is no left or right.
You might consider that, as the centuries go by, parties realign and change constituencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I smell a recession coming on. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Ironically, the biggest supporters of free trade were the Big Cotton slaveowners."
Right, the Democrats.
Correct, the right-wingers. Until the 20th century the Democratic Party was the right-wing conservative party. Left-wing liberals favoured the Republican Party.
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats of the 1800s
Re: (Score:3)
The EU does the same thing.
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that Trump doesn't understand how these things work, this is literally first year global business and trade strategy.
I'd be really surprised if he did.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that helps make it clear.
Okay so let me get this straight. Trump crafted the tariffs to hit states where his approval is high like Texas, but go easy on states that he proclaims to hate like California.
WTF are you saying? This is some leftist plot, except somehow the leftists tricked Trump into doing their bidding?
... food - who do you think will hurt the most?
Food? Um, everyone that eats food?
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing to think there are people who actually believe this type of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing to think there are people who actually believe this type of crap.
There isn't. You read the posts of a Russian troll or trolls that're just trying to rattle the American beehive.
See how they are all AC? Anyone that posts AC is either a bought and paid for troll, or they feel so weakly about their convictions that they can't even attach a mostly-anonymous pseudonym to their posts. Either way ignore them and mod into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
...it starts when you're always afraid....
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:5, Interesting)
Usually the 99%. The rich can afford to wait out storms, and even get richer from recessions by buying low and selling high: be it stocks, co's, or real-estate. Recession bargain-hunting is Warren Buffett's main financial weapon, and he's arguably the richest dude on the planet.
But even without trade-wars, we are statistically due for a recession based on the length of the current upturn. The fact the yield curve is inverting [bloomberg.com] is yet another warning sign. Based on past yield curves, we got roughly 18 months until it "hits".
Trump may unfairly get the blame for a slump. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT defending his overall economic policy, but generally the sitting President's popularity is largely tied to the current economy, and it has been this way for more than 100 years.
Where he might have legitimate blame besides trade wars is the debt: the larger the debt, the smaller the possible stimulus when a slump hits. Even among Republicans, giving personal tax-cuts to the rich in exchange for debt is not popular. (The corporate tax-cuts and middle-class tax-cuts score better with Republicans. They believe US corporate tax-rates were higher than other nations'. Whether that was true is debatable.)
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:5, Funny)
Like everyone else, I come here for CAPITAL-laced flamewars.
Oh; and, bad: punctuation,
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump may unfairly get the blame for the slump but he is the one who tells everybody he sees that he singlehandedly made the economy boom. He did nothing of the sort, in fact he made it boom slower and less, so he deserves the blame for the slump.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is just another country, and certainly not the best country in the world, despite what many Americans think.
Obama did not want to 'destroy the economy.' Why the hell would any politician want that?
And lastly, Obama reigned during a recesssion. Because economy is a global thing nowadays, politics have only a very small influence on their country's economy, and it's much easier for politicians to make their country's economy worse than to improve it.
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:4, Insightful)
The rich can afford to wait out storms, and even get richer from recessions by buying low and selling high: be it stocks, co's, or real-estate. Recession bargain-hunting is Warren Buffett's main financial weapon, and he's arguably the richest dude on the planet.
Trump himself said the same thing back in 80's when discussing his wealth. NYC in the 70's was in a slump, and he knew that slumps are the best time to buy.
It could be that he might even engineer a recession in order to get some more bargains. He only cares about himself so anything is possible.
Trump may unfairly get the blame for a slump.
It's only unfair if it happens in his first 1-2 years like poor old Obama who inherited the country one of the worst positions in a decades. After that it's all you. You are the boss, you take responsibility.
FWIW, Australia with a mix of conservative and liberal leadership is currently into it's 26th year without a recession, the Dutch managed the same thing until the GFC screwed things up. So if Trump can't make the good times last a piddly 8 years he deserves blame.
Re: (Score:2)
But even without trade-wars, we are statistically due for a recession based on the length of the current upturn. The fact the yield curve is inverting [bloomberg.com] is yet another warning sign. Based on past yield curves, we got roughly 18 months until it "hits".
Trump may unfairly get the blame for a slump. Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT defending his overall economic policy, but generally the sitting President's popularity is largely tied to the current economy, and it has been this way for more than 100 years.
There's a relationship, but it's pretty fuzzy when the government is divided. Who gets the credit/blame for the economy? The President who runs the administration or the Congress who passes budgets? Still I think it matters, government need to be willing to spend to keep things going in a recession, and when things are good they need to cut back to slow down the economy (and cut deficits). There's still other things driving the economy, but their actions do matter.
I think the Bush tax cuts were a disaster t
Tariffs almost never help (Score:2)
It remains to be seen who will bear the brunt of it.
You and I will. That much is self evident. Tariffs pretty much always benefit a few at the expense of the many. Trump is doing nothing more than pandering to a political base and costing all of us in the process. If he really wanted to solve trade issues he's going about it entirely backwards.
Re:I smell a recession coming on. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US economy will slip into recession this summer, and Trump will angrily state that it's because the rest of the world is ganging up on the USA after 8 years of weak government under Obama. He'll use Twitter to single out and humiliate opposing politicians - preferably female - and use anger and hatred to ride easily into a second term in office.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum (Score:5, Insightful)
Protectionism is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is, Trump's base wants action and they want it now. Given that wages keep falling (inflation's 3%, wage growth's 2.5%, do the math) and 40% of Americans don't have $400 bucks in the bank I can't blame them.
This is what happens when you ignore a sizable portion of the country. They find somebody who'll listen. If you happen to be doing pretty well in this economy and don't want the boat rocked, well, tough shit. If you don't want desperate people destabilizing the world then you need to do something about their desperation. You'd think we'd have learned this from WWI and II.
Re:Protectionism is fine (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you know that the average wages for someone in non-supervisory jobs has gone down under Trump? Have you seen the price of gasoline? Know anyone who works at the Harley-Davidson plant in Wisconsin (I do)?
The problem is that those people who were being "ignored" have now shot themselves in the foot and are starting to feel the fallout, as are we all. Maybe there's a good reason those people were being ignored, if their solution was to elect this jackoff.
Did you know that only 4% of US workers got a pay raise since the Republicans passed their tax bill 6 months ago? That's why we've got this whole hard-line immigration bullshit going on, because the biggest things Trump has done have been unpopular with real Americans, and all he can hope is that he can gin up enough White Extinction Anxiety to get the oxycontin-dosed disability-collecting racists to act as his human shields.
https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
Re:Protectionism is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
How are those Harley-Davidson people doing? I'm curious considering HD just announced [cnn.com] they're going to move some manufacturing in Europe to avoid the tariffs.
That falls on the heels of their January announcement of closing a Kansas City, MO plant and consolidating work in York, PA. But overseas...they just opened plants in India and Brazil, with another opening in Thailand this year.
Any decent sized "American" company is a "global" company, but this President doesn't get that at all -- nor does his base.
Re:Protectionism is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why China can't keep raising tariffs matching the US. But the US makes a lot of money by investments, which is partly compensating the trade deficit with China, and more than compensating the one with Europe. Also China was the biggest buyer of American state bonds. And a lot of trade in the world is done in dollars, which forces people to accumulate dollars and is part of what allows the huge American deficit.
So the retaliations on Trump's trade war will soon have to target the financial sector.
I don't know if this will be good or bad for the US in the long run. It could shift the US economy away from making income through investments, which only goes to a few people, back to making income through production, which can benefit more people. It could also put the world into chaos, just making everyone lose. It could also be just a threat, trying to force others to make concessions. But I think both Europe and China don't respond too well to such threats. They would never give in, because it would mean that the US could enforce other things afterwards, without a limit.
Re: Protectionism is fine (Score:3)
I think part of what he forgets is that the United States, by dollars, is the largest exporter in the world. We may Imports a lot, but our economy is heavily dependent on exports as well.
While a lot of the trade around the world is conducted it in US dollars, that can easily be changed. Trade could be conducted in Euros without difficulty. We've already started to see some of that change in oil trading.
He also doesn't grasp the concept of soft power. The fact that everyone does trade in US dollars, and we'r
Re: Protectionism is fine (Score:2)
Everyone will just keep trading with each other, losing only a fraction of their total trade, allowing them to continue like before. The US on the other hand will lose trade with everyone, and will have to go through huge economic ch
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of what he forgets is that the United States, by dollars, is the largest exporter in the world. We may Imports a lot, but our economy is heavily dependent on exports as well.
You have to remember though that a lot of US exports aren't commodity, consumer goods. They are high dollar items like heavy machinery, aircraft, farming equipment, cars, etc.
According to wikipedia, there are 46 passenger airlines (sidenote: calling your airline "Okay Airways" is probably not the best branding) in China. Almost every major city government in China has some kind of ownership stake in an airline. By 2025 it is estimated that there will be 4000 commercial aircraft operated by Chinese airli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Protectionism is fine (Score:2)
Thanks. I did mean "from the US to Europe".
Um... you do know the economy doesn't move (Score:5, Informative)
It's kinda hard to shoot yourself in the foot when somebody else already cut you off at the knees.
I should add (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I should add (Score:4, Interesting)
Cry me a fucking river. That 40% is still 1000x better than half the fucking world.
"At least we're better off than 3rd world countries!"
- New Trumper motto, apparently.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's like saying you shouldn't bitch when someone breaks your arm, because the next person in line got a broken leg.
Fallacious reasoning, plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Not an argument.
It actually is. Nature abhors a vacuum, and once global trade became easy, thanks to improved comms and transport technology, then the only possible outcome is a rebalancing of wealth from the extreme rich (on a global scale) to everyone else.
To give you an idea, what is an unskilled labour salary in the US, $13/hour? In Indonesia it's $10/day. You simply cannot compete with that, so the only option is to find something else to do that can't be exported easily.
It may be that the $13/hour labourer was fa
Re: (Score:2)
It's not rebalancing from the extreme rich (Score:2)
The American working class doesn't have to
Re: (Score:2)
This too is bullshit since keeping the higher paid jobs here in the USA spreads the wealth to local service industry which creates more customers that can afford airpods and other imported chinese garbage. You think poor Chinese or Indonesian workers are buying Harley Davidson? No, USA factory and service workers are.
I've actually been in a Harley Davidson [harley-davidson.com] dealer in Indonesia, so someone there is buying them.
Size of US Market: 320M
Size of Global Market: 7500M
There are now more billionaires in Asia than the US [independent.co.uk]
Do the maths
Re: (Score:2)
that is a stupid remark (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's just a better life (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Jesus, when are ACs going to learn better than to challenge me? Here is the source, from 9 days ago:
ht [chicagotribune.com]
Re: (Score:3)
US manufacturing output has nearly tripled [bloomberg.com] since the 70s, so China's manufacturing has taken apparently hasn't harmed the local industry much at all.
US manufacturing jobs have declined sharply, however - and this is what Trump's base is concerned about. But since the local industry is quite healthy, blaming China for killing it is misguided - blame the rise of automation instead; output per worker has risen even faster than total output.
I certainly agree that those ex-workers need help, but those unskilled
Re: (Score:3)
They weren't [nytimes.com] ignored [csmonitor.com]. And indeed, a lot of jobs were recovered after the GFC losses. But they've been declining steadily since 1980, so that's unlikely to change much soon.
As for "having nothing to lose", we've already seen how e.g. Trump's steel tariffs can actually damage local manufacturing by dramatically raising their costs, so I very much doubt that's true. The decline in those jobs might be slowed a little, but at the cost of making other sectors less competitive - and workers in construction and aut
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so American companies hollowed out the U.S. economy while everyone was down at Wally World stocking up on the cheap toilet paper. You want the White House to run the economy. See the Soviet Union and how well that worked out for them.
Re:Protectionism is fine (Score:4)
China has leverage because we've let them take over virtually all our manufacturing.
Technology (cheap easy communication and transport) unleashed Globalisation and no amount of complaining will get that genie back in the bottle. The smart move is to deal with the new environment we are all in and try and make it work in your favour, the dumb move is to pretend you can wish the world back to the 1950's.
Trump is firmly in the latter camp, and it can't possibly work.
If you don't want desperate people destabilizing the world then you need to do something about their desperation.
Agree 100%
The big picture. (Score:3, Insightful)
Protectionist trade policy is the knee-jerk reaction of the weak. Retaliation by not just the Chinese, but America's traditional allies in Europe, Canada, and Mexico will cost US jobs, not create them.
There were originally 6 good reasons for the tariffs:
1) Chinese manufacturers take our designs, make extras, and sell counterfeits as if they were original(*)
2) Chinese manufacturers steal our IP and trade secrets for other products
3) The Chinese violate licensing agreements (ie - hacked copies of software) and the government does nothing about it.
4) Chinese working in the US commit industrial espionage and send the information back to China
5) The Chinese government subsidizes certain industries so that the
Re: (Score:2)
Does not matter if your points 1) to 6) are true or false. ... go figure.
US tariffs on Chinese companies/products change nothing on that
China violates their trade agreements in every possible way, so much so that it would *almost* be better to not trade with China at all. :D
Citation needed
What kind of trade agreements do you even have with China?
Re: (Score:2)
On #5 above, China has been subsidizing their steel production, pushing US foundries out of business.
That's the big one, and it seems to be one f the Chinese government's strategies. I don't really see that tarriffs in such an area are a bad idea. Funny thing is David Cameron used it t odrum up anti-EU sentiment prior to justifying the Brexit referendum: evil EU won't allow us to support our steel industry with local tarriffs or government support. Of coure they won't it's supposed to be an EU wide thing,
Re:The big picture. (Score:4, Informative)
1) Chinese manufacturers take our designs, make extras, and sell counterfeits as if they were original(*)
2) Chinese manufacturers steal our IP and trade secrets for other products
3) The Chinese violate licensing agreements (ie - hacked copies of software) and the government does nothing about it.
4) Chinese working in the US commit industrial espionage and send the information back to China
How to trade tariffs fix any of that? At best they might make it harder to sell those products in the US, but not the rest of the world.
On the one hand, US companies want the cheapest possible manufacturing. On the other hand, they want extreme loyalty and security. And the solution to this predicament is apparently is apparently trade tariffs.
Seems like a bit of a non-sequitur.
How about Apple then? They make all their crap in China. It doesn't get counterfeited really - you get a few similar looking phones but none run iOS or have knock-off Apple CPUs in them or anything like that. And a lot of companies just resell OEM Chinese stuff anyway, and somehow do okay because people trust US brands to at least provide some support and warranty coverage.
Trade tariffs are the wrong tool.
Re: (Score:2)
It (Apple) doesn't get counterfeited really
It gets counterfeited. I saw an fake iPhone 5, backside with Apple logo, FC number, "designed in Cupertino" etc. in gold letters.
Starting it showed a typical iPhone screen with Safari and Mail etc. icons, but all the apps where Androids with replaced icons. Was funny.
Re: (Score:2)
There are loads of fake Apple stores in China, but they sell genuine Apple phones. They are kinda funny, they have the standard Apple wooden tables and fake-titanium decor. I asked about it and they don't really regard them as fake as such, as in no-one mistakes them for actual Apple stores, it's just a kind of advertising or "trade dress" to differentiate them from the shops that sell other brands of phone.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Chinese manufacturers take our designs, make extras, and sell counterfeits as if they were original(*) 2) Chinese manufacturers steal our IP and trade secrets for other products 3) The Chinese violate licensing agreements (ie - hacked copies of software) and the government does nothing about it. 4) Chinese working in the US commit industrial espionage and send the information back to China
How to trade tariffs fix any of that?
Well, it doesn't. That is what TPP and the NAFTA renewal were supposed to do, create a group of singaturees to band together against Chinese counterfitting of IP. However, we dropped out of TPP and are not really interested in NAFTA anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the Chinese position on #2 (and #4?) might be that the US IP laws are excessive and unfair (to society) and actually hurt the innovation and progress they were designed to promote.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that for the first time in ever we have a businessman leading the country.
Here's the heart of the problem for you and a lot of your fellow travellers. You think Trump is a business man who is somehow representative of how business operates, who can bring the skills of business with him. But Trump runs a two-bit real estate operation. His business has none of the complexity of a Boeing, FedEx, Pfizer etc; his decision-making is a million miles from how decisions are made at actual MNCs. He's a dumbshit person's idea of what a businessman is. He's just been spending Pappy's bucks a
Re: The big picture. (Score:2)
There is nothing that prevents our armed forces from buying USA steel only. Even if it means they pay extra. Even if it means they need to float the industry.
Oh wait, that's pretty much what they do today; before the tariffs. Pretty much every federally funded agency has directives to buy Made in USA. Even if it costs more. Heck the IT consulting firms aren't even allowed to have off shore teams working on certain projects at some agencies!
Even the states do this all the time. They only buy locally and set
Re:Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'd be open to at least hearing a rational argument in favor of pursuing more nationalist trade policies. But starting a trade war with everyone clearly isn't rational. It's the policy equivalent of a temper tantrum.
A trade war with China hurts US exports to 20% of the world's population. Starting a trade war with everyone but the US hurts US exports to 95% of the world's population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the trade balances between the U.S and the countries/blocks Trump has so far threatened or actually started a trade war with you can see that they all have a trade imbalance in their favor.
But it doesn't work like that. Because you're talking millions of businesses that are all interdependent, when you turn the tap off they all suffer.
Global prosperity increased massively with global trade, the only result of closing that off if is a reduced overall economy. ie Nobody wins.
Remember Xi is there for life, he knows he can simply wait Trump out and allow him to squander the US's position in the world. The Chinese probably can't believe their luck. They will already have a strategy in place to d
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the trade balances between the U.S and the countries/blocks Trump has so far threatened or actually started a trade war with you can see that they all have a trade imbalance in their favor.
A) That's false. We have a surplus with Canada. B)That only works if you engage in limited accounting. For one, ignoring services, especially financial investments, skews the overall perception of what value we're getting for the trade surplus. For another, If a US industry needs a product that is part of that trade surplus, we don't count the financial impact of that against the dollar value of the surplus.
Simply focusing on the straight dollar amount of the trade imbalance is an overly simplistic thing to
Re: (Score:2)
I just do not get tired of winning
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was the war reparations from WW1?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When will US companies steal Tech from China? (Score:3)
Re:When will US companies steal Tech from China? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you think that if we share our technology with China that the reverse would also occur and China would share the other direction? Your arguement is it may lock the US out not to share but assume they would share and some would consider it highly likely that they wouldn't.
Part of the problem and things that people are concerned about is that China appears to see economy not as something that brings people together and creates interdependence but something that can be "won". That their end goal is to acquire all this technology and then shut out foreign competition. They've already done it in too many industries to count where expertise was sold then the Chinese company displaced the American company with copies of their product.
The problem is Trump approached this completely the wrong direction. He started a war with everyone instead of working with out allies. He could have arranged an agreement with every Western country to take China on in this area and demand change. He could have united the world and forced China to stop the unfair trade practices at the threat of losing all market access in the west, instead Trump started a trade war with all our allies and drove them to make deals with Russia and China at our expense. China and Russia are laughing all the way to the bank while we've destroyed the goodwill and soft power it took this country a century and millions of lives to build and one guy trashed it in 18 months. It's a staggering achievement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really an answer to you, Rahvin, I just quote you. ... hm, now let me think ... an iPhone is not really "technology", neither is a laptop ... they can build nukes, so can China ... hm ... an Aircraft Carrier, China bought their only one from Russia, hm ... actually I have a really hard time to th
Your arguement is it may lock the US out not to share but assume they would share and some would consider it highly likely that they wouldn't.
What technology does the USA actually have to share? Intel processors
Re: (Score:2)
That their end goal is to acquire all this technology and then shut out foreign competition.
Isn't that Trump's policy too?
Re: (Score:3)
EU would not cooperate they are happy to work with China against the USA's interests.
Why would the EU work for the USA's interests? I would expect the EU to look to their own interests.
I would also like an example of the EU working in China's interest please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there are a lot of Chinese students who stayed in the U.S., became scientists and engineers, and are happily increasing the industrial and scientific might of the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
My hometown, Karlsruhe, Germany, is overrun with Chinese students.
Mostly studying electric and mechanical engineering.
The NON-ham-handed way to do it (Score:2)
Whether it's "logical" to accept trade imbalances is moot in politics. Large imbalances will often be blamed for various problems, such as the shrinkage of various local industries. Whether such is fair blame or not doesn't matter: it makes a great political scapegoat and eventually somebody will use it for political gain. You have to work with humans as they are, not as they should be.
Therefore, it's best to avoid large imbalances. I propose the WTO change their approach such that countries be able to rais
True, Trump is all about grand proportions (Score:2)
> Small problems can be quietly negotiated. T lacks a sense of proportion
I've kept an eye on Trump for 20 years, and I'd say that's a fundamental part of his personality, his psyche. Parodies of him always have him talking about "yuge" because that's Trump, he always wants to go big, the biggest.
There is good and bad about "go big or go home" in a president.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? Sources please
Fiscal heaven (Score:2)
rules that would block firms with at least 25 percent Chinese ownership from buying companies
What if the official owner is in a fiscal heaven where the real owner is completely hidden?
We need to De-Trump... (Score:2)
Russia vs. China proxy war (Score:2)
The Chinese however have a vested, large monetary interest in a stable and prosperous USA. The failure of the US economy will have a huge detrimental effect on China. One could see Xi Jinping phoning Putin to tell him to knock it off, le
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike the US, China is capable of long-range planning. Yes, in the short term, it would damage the Chinese economy if the US economy tanked.
However, if the ultimate result was to make the world turn its back on the US dollar as the "Global Currency", China would rejoice. And if the US dollar was demoted to third place as the IMF's World Reserve Currency behind the euro and the yuan, China would be equally pleased.
Last year, the banks of Japan, Germany, France and the UK held more liabilities denominated
Made in China 2025 (Score:2)
"Under Made in China 2025, unveiled by China’s State Council in 2015, China wants to catch up with rivals in sectors including robotics, aerospace, clean-energy cars and advanced basic materials. "
"The strategy is at the core of China’s efforts to move up the value chain and achieve Xi’s vision of turning the country into a global superpower by 2050. "
"Under the plan, Beijing wants Chinese suppliers to capture 70 percent of
On a related note... (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
It was good for Bezos and Jobs and all the other tech robber barrons.
I notice you don't want to blame the Waltons and Walmart for any of our country's ills. Not only did they help flood the market with cheap chinese crap for decades, they helped gut wages at the low end, shifted the cost of feeding their employees to the rest of us, while filling their own pockets. Now they hide in gated communities where they don't have to deal with results of their handiwork.
But sure, blame Bezos and Jobs. Amazon and Apple employ 10s of thousands of highly compensated employees who don't need "food stamps" in order to eat. Can you say the same for Walmart?
And Trump won't even pay Americans. His resorts bring in hundreds of foreign workers on temp visas because they'll work for even less than Americans. That's #MAGA for you.
(Not sure who the barrons are. Did you mean robber barons?)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's not protecting jobs. Metal transformation jobs are now leaving: Harley Davidson moving manufacturing, Mid Continent Nail Corporation shutting down and dozens more to come. Don't worry, the rest of the world is more than happy about it! We'll gladly take your jobs!
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, fuck all the people who say fuck you about anything. Fuck you!
Better stop or you'll go blind.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sick and tired of people like you not thinking through the role of a government.
The role of the government is to protect the commons. That means it is there job to protect all the "me"s not just you. You may be ok with the factory next door polluting the air and water. There however literarily millions of "me"s that aren't ok with it. Many of those millions don't have enough information, education or time to make an informed decision about the pollution.
For example the GPDR in the EU. It is clear
Re: (Score:2)
But it is government's business what the business two private parties do. The SEC (before it was defanged by Bush) was supposed to right shotgun over Wall Street. They didn't and the Great Recession ensued. Your friendly neighborhood drug company would gladly sell you bags of doxie dropping claiming they'll cure what ails you...were it not for the FDA telling them they cannot. You airlines would like to apply cost benefit analysis to plane crashes, i.e., how many a year before it hits our bottom line, were
Re: (Score:2)
Bending over while suckling and being stabbed in the back -- all at the same time! You Trumpkins certainly have a penchant for vivid imagery. Albeit stolen without attribution from Nazi predecessors sore about losing WWI. Your spiritual, political and moral predecessors too.