Economy The U.S-China Trade War: China said it would impose retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion in U.S. goods

Trump's trade war advantage: The US economy is 'firing on all cylinders,' says expert
Weizhen Tan | Published Mon, 13 Aug 2018
  • "We have to realize that perhaps China isn't as strong as when we at first think. China is still figuring out also how to deal with this trade situation, how to ensure the stability of its domestic economy," said Curtis Chin, an Asia fellow at the Milken Institute.
  • Speaking to CNBC's "Squawk Box," Chin also "totally" disagreed with the view that U.S. President Donald Trump's policies are backfiring.

China's power may have been overrated and the U.S. economy is staying strong, meaning that U.S. President Donald Trump has an advantage in the trade war, according to one expert.

"We have to realize that perhaps China isn't as strong as when we at first think. China is still figuring out also how to deal with this trade situation, how to ensure the stability of its domestic economy," said Curtis Chin, an Asia fellow at economic think tank the Milken Institute.

"And that works to the advantage of President Trump, and I think what's really working to the advantage of President Trump is the state of the U.S. economy right now. Really, the U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Monday.

That economic strength would give Trump a "backstop" if the trade situation deteriorates in the long run, Chin said.

Chin told CNBC he "totally" disagreed with the view that the White House's policies are backfiring. The Milken expert, who was also U.S. ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, said Trump has made it clear he's been elected as "president of Americans, not of the world."

"Right now we're seeing record employment in the U.S., not just unemployment down, but people getting back into the economy, that people think they can find a job if they start looking again. I think that's a positive message," he said.

Chin also suggested that, going by the rhetoric in Chinese state media, Beijing has not been as aggressive toward Trump as expected. The second-largest economy is still figuring out its game plan, he said.

The decision from China's leadership will ultimately impact more than just the U.S.

"How will China's future actions play out with regards not just military like the South China Sea, but will these trade tensions lead to China beginning to dump products, products they can no longer sell in the U.S., into the rest of the region," he said. "I think that's a significant concern for Asian companies, for Southeast Asian companies that I deal with."

 
Last edited:
It's kind of hard to believe that anyone who has read anything ITT would be vehemently opposed to confronting China on a multitude of issues, unless of course they already hold anti-American opinions and interests.

Sadly there are posters who are either stupid or intellectually dishonest enough to reduce this to a Democrat/Republican partisan squabble. Funny thing is, as soon as Trump is out of office the next president, no matter the party, is going to pick up this ball and run with it. They wouldn’t have pissed off donors by starting the trade war and they may be protesting now but they are absolutely going to continue and try to claim credit for any and all good that comes of it. If that new president is a democrat, the posters complaining today will put on their cheerleading skirts, grab their pom-poms and tell us all about how they were always in favor. You’ll get a bunch of republicans as well reverting to their old, simplistic all-trade-is-good/benefits-everybody mantras.
 
Trump's trade war advantage: The US economy is 'firing on all cylinders,' says expert
  • "We have to realize that perhaps China isn't as strong as when we at first think. China is still figuring out also how to deal with this trade situation, how to ensure the stability of its domestic economy," said Curtis Chin, an Asia fellow at the Milken Institute.
  • Speaking to CNBC's "Squawk Box," Chin also "totally" disagreed with the view that U.S. President Donald Trump's policies are backfiring.

China's power may have been overrated and the U.S. economy is staying strong, meaning that U.S. President Donald Trump has an advantage in the trade war, according to one expert.

"We have to realize that perhaps China isn't as strong as when we at first think. China is still figuring out also how to deal with this trade situation, how to ensure the stability of its domestic economy," said Curtis Chin, an Asia fellow at economic think tank the Milken Institute.

"And that works to the advantage of President Trump, and I think what's really working to the advantage of President Trump is the state of the U.S. economy right now. Really, the U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Monday.

That economic strength would give Trump a "backstop" if the trade situation deteriorates in the long run, Chin said.

Chin told CNBC he "totally" disagreed with the view that the White House's policies are backfiring. The Milken expert, who was also U.S. ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, said Trump has made it clear he's been elected as "president of Americans, not of the world."

"Right now we're seeing record employment in the U.S., not just unemployment down, but people getting back into the economy, that people think they can find a job if they start looking again. I think that's a positive message," he said.

Chin also suggested that, going by the rhetoric in Chinese state media, Beijing has not been as aggressive toward Trump as expected. The second-largest economy is still figuring out its game plan, he said.

The decision from China's leadership will ultimately impact more than just the U.S.

"How will China's future actions play out with regards not just military like the South China Sea, but will these trade tensions lead to China beginning to dump products, products they can no longer sell in the U.S., into the rest of the region," he said. "I think that's a significant concern for Asian companies, for Southeast Asian companies that I deal with."

Well, time to ramp up the war production...
 
Sadly there are posters who are either stupid or intellectually dishonest enough to reduce this to a Democrat/Republican partisan squabble. Funny thing is, as soon as Trump is out of office the next president, no matter the party, is going to pick up this ball and run with it. They wouldn’t have pissed off donors by starting the trade war and they may be protesting now but they are absolutely going to continue and try to claim credit for any and all good that comes of it. If that new president is a democrat, the posters complaining today will put on their cheerleading skirts, grab their pom-poms and tell us all about how they were always in favor. You’ll get a bunch of republicans as well reverting to their old, simplistic all-trade-is-good/benefits-everybody mantras.

There are many posters MIA in this thread, others expressing quiet approval (which is good enough for me) and it's barely 5+ pages deep. I have like half of the damn posts in it, probably because I stuck my neck out there so much before it started. I am demonstrably not Team MAGA, but very pro-America and want the best for it. It's entirely justified and we ain't losing this.
 
This thread has a pro-trump trade war vibe to it. Not sure if that is intended.

I too am wondering where all those posters bashing the trade war/economic decisions by Trump are.
 
Drove by the new plant under construction earlier, coming along nicely.

investing-v3d.jpg


Intel is America’s largest high-technology capital expenditure investor and its third largest investor in global R&D ($12.6 billion in 2016). The majority of Intel’s manufacturing and R&D is in the United States. As a result, Intel employs more than 50,000 people in the United States, while directly supporting almost half a million other U.S. jobs across a range of industries, including semiconductor tooling, software, logistics, channels, OEMs and other manufacturers that incorporate our products into theirs.

The 7 nm semiconductor manufacturing process targeted for Fab 42 will be the most advanced semiconductor process technology used in the world and represents the future of Moore’s Law. In 1968 Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted that computing power will become significantly more capable and yet cost less year after year.

Making a leading-edge computer chip is the most complex manufacturing process in the world, engineering magic that turns sand into semiconductors, the foundation of the knowledge economy.
 
(earlier this year)

WIRED: For Apple, Quitting Intel Won't Come Easy

It happened again: a report that Apple will soon ditch Intel chips for its Mac lineup. But while that rumor pops up as dependably as a perennial, this time it has enough weight to merit some serious consideration. And the first thing to consider is just how hard it would be for Apple to actually pull this off.

It seems likely the company will give it an earnest effort. The report comes from Bloomberg Businessweek’s Mark Gurman, who has the best track record of any Apple outsider in divining Cupertino’s plans. And in some ways, the company has already spent the last few years laying the groundwork, not only investing heavily in its own homegrown processors, but also hewing together elements of its iOS mobile operating system and MacOS desktop counterpart that would make this kind of switch feasible

Intel has provided Apple with processors for its Mac lineup since 2006, a long and mutually profitable relationship. While MacBooks and iMacs lack the marquee appeal of the iPhone, Apple still sold nearly $7 billion worth of Intel-powered laptops and desktops just last quarter; Apple reportedly provided about four percent of Intel’s revenue last year.

Still, quitting Intel would come with a host of complications. How Apple navigates them will shape its next decade and beyond.
 
Last edited:
New York Times: Fuck White Peop... We Mean, Trump’s Trade War Is Rattling China’s Leaders

BEIJING — China’s leaders have sought to project confidence in the face of President Trump’s tariffs and trade threats. But as it becomes clear that a protracted trade war with the United States may be unavoidable, there are growing signs of unease inside the Communist political establishment.

In recent days, officials from the Commerce Ministry, the police and other agencies have summoned exporters to ask about plans to lay off workers or shift supply chains to other countries.

With stocks slumping into bear territory and the currency dropping 9 percent against the dollar since mid-April, censors have been deleting a torrent of criticism online, some of it directed at President Xi Jinping’s leadership. State news outlets, by contrast, have sought to promote the official line, with the authorities restricting the use of the phrase “trade war.”

Still, policy disputes over how to bolster the economy have at times spilled into the open, with the state media sometimes coming under attack for boasting about China’s economic strengths.

If the trade war escalates — and Mr. Trump has shown no sign of backing down — some worry that the public’s faith in the economy could be shaken, exposing the nation to much more serious problems than a drop in exports. New economic data on Tuesday showed slower growth in investment and consumer spending, and there are fears that the financial crisis in Turkey could spread.


@JonesBones
 
This thread has a pro-trump trade war vibe to it. Not sure if that is intended.

I too am wondering where all those posters bashing the trade war/economic decisions by Trump are.

Supporting the President on an issue or multiple positions does not make you a Trumptard(WR terminology)

He’s doing the right thing here.
 
Supporting the President on an issue or multiple positions does not make you a Trumptard(WR terminology)

He’s doing the right thing here.

I mentioned back on the first page that I trust Lighthizer.

https://qz.com/1247295/the-man-behind-trumps-trade-war-once-negotiated-with-a-paper-airplane/amp/

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is the man lurking in the shadows of Donald Trump’s trade offensive on China.

The veteran international trade lawyer is known to share several traits with the US President, not least of all his skepticism of free trade, his belief that the US has been treated unfairly in trade agreements, and his belligerence.

These qualities are seen clearly in a story about Lighthizer from 1985, when he was the deputy trade representative under Ronald Reagan. Negotiating on steel imports, the rep showed his disdain for an offer from the Japanese by sending it flying back. According to the Wall Street Journal, after that, Lighthizer became known as “the missile man” in Japan.

Bloomberg described the moment:

"The trade talks on steel imports were dragging on, and Robert Lighthizer didn’t care for the Japanese offer. So he folded it into a paper airplane and launched it across his desk at Japan’s lead negotiator… The 1985 deal capped weeks of negotiations in which Lighthizer, then the deputy U.S. Trade Representative, shocked his Japanese counterparts with rough-hewn jokes and wore them out with his disdain for their proposals, former colleagues recalled. During one Japanese presentation, he devoted his attention to playfully disassembling his microphone."


Lighthizer.jpg
 
Not sure if this has been posted but it’s a great piece on the subject from Obama’s secretary of commerce.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-13/china-needs-to-understand-trump-s-not-alone

What China Needs to Understand About Trump

He’s only voicing a widely shared resentment about Chinese double-dealing in economic policy.
Penny PritzkerAugust 13, 2018, 5:00 PM CDT

It was late November 2016, and my Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier Wang Yang, was visiting Washington, D.C. Over the course of my tenure as U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the vice premier and I had developed a warm and candid relationship. Since this was to be our last official meeting, I decided to do something a bit different: take him to rural Virginia for a traditional Thanksgiving meal.

While we were surrounded by our usual phalanx of security, we effectively sat alone, with the exception of our two closest aides. Shortly after we were seated, the vice premier leaned in close and almost whispered to me, “Can you explain what just happened in your presidential election?” Clearly, the Chinese were just as surprised by the results as we were.

I told the vice premier that we were still trying to understand the outcome ourselves, but that it was important for him to appreciate that China had played a significant role in the election. As the translator spoke into his ear, he shot me a somewhat surprised look. I explained that then-candidate Donald Trump’s “tough on China” rhetoric had tapped into an underlying strain of thought in the U.S. that Wang and other Chinese leaders needed to understand.

For years, Americans were told that China was a developing country and shouldn’t necessarily be held to the same standard as developed nations such as the U.S. But China’s success had severely undercut that line of reasoning. The Chinese economy was growing at 6 percent or more annually. Chinese cities, roads, ports and bridges were rising seemingly overnight. The world’s low-cost manufacturer was rapidly becoming a global technology hub. And the Chinese government was investing billions of renminbi in support of its “Made in China 2025” industrial plan. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality was profound and growing by the day.

At the same time, Americans felt that at least some of China’s success had come at their expense. They were seeing their middle-class jobs and once-prosperous lifestyles disappearing. China wasn’t playing fairly; it was consistently violating its international commitments and tilting the playing field to advantage Chinese firms. Economic complexities aside, the fact that Americans were, in part, paying the bill for such behavior had begun to sink in with millions of my fellow citizens.

Candidate Trump, of course, didn’t create these imbalances; he was simply very effective at tapping into this growing resentment. With or without Trump, the U.S.-China relationship was moving quickly toward a crossroads.

The point I was making to the vice premier is that, as China has risen to become a global power, the dynamic between the two countries has unquestionably changed. Meanwhile, too many Chinese actions and policies have not.

In fact, Chinese officials still frequently rely on the outdated rhetoric that China is merely a developing country. The developing nation narrative is clearly at odds with the observable reality of modern China, and it logically runs counter to China’s lofty goal of establishing a “new model of great power relations” between the U.S. and China — a dynamic focused on fostering cooperation and competition but avoiding confrontation, which, historically, has been the defining feature of relations between existing and rising powers.

It is hard to be both a poor, developing nation and the other party to a “new model of great power relations.” The formulation assumes the existence of two great powers. In the modern world, though, being a great power requires leadership. It requires being a good steward of the global economy, not just benefiting from it. It requires playing by the same rules and competing fairly, not relying on state resources to support domestic industries and innovation. If China wants to be the world’s other great power, it is manifestly in its interest to start acting like one.

To be fair, we have seen China emerge as a global leader on certain issues — such as climate — and, in recent months, President Xi Jinping has spoken consistently about China assuming a larger role in world affairs. In other areas, however, particularly those tied to economic and trade policy, the rhetoric continues to surpass the policies.

In part, it was this disconnect between words and reality that gave Trump his political resonance in the U.S. China is a great power. China has risen and, in so doing, has lifted 800 million people out of poverty. But, if China doesn’t change its approach to economic competition, I fear that today’s trade war will be nothing compared to the heightened tensions to come. Frankly, our domestic political system will demand action and President Trump will look like the mild first incarnation of a trend rather than an outlier.
In large part, China’s progress wouldn’t have been possible without the stable global economic order that the U.S. has underwritten and secured for the last 70 years. In that time, this system has limited conflict and led to the greatest increase in prosperity the world has ever seen. Without question, particularly over the last two decades, China has reaped the benefits of this rules-based order not just by competing aggressively but, it must be said, at times exploiting the existing system. That must change.

If it doesn’t, I fear that the stated goal of this “new model of great power relations” — competitive cooperation — will fall victim to China’s inability to change course. Then the politically plausible options for navigating China’s rise over the decades to come will be narrowed down to one: confrontation.
 
China angered at new U.S. defense act
Ben Blanchard | August 13, 2018

r

BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Tuesday condemned measures targeting it in a new U.S. defense act, saying it exaggerated antagonism and that Beijing would take a close look at aspects that beef up the role of a U.S. panel that reviews foreign investment proposals.

China’s complaints about the act come as the world’s two biggest economies engage in an increasingly bitter fight over trade, levying tariffs on each others’ products.

U.S. President Donald Trump signed a $716-billion defense policy act on Monday that authorizes military spending and waters down controls on U.S. government contracts with China’s ZTE Corp and Huawei Technologies Co Ltd .

The National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, strengthens the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews proposals to determine if they threaten national security. That measure was seen as targeting China.

China’s Commerce Ministry said it had noted the inclusion of CFIUS in the act and would “comprehensively assess the contents”, paying close attention to the impact on Chinese firms.

“The U.S. side should objectively and fairly treat Chinese investors, and avoid CFIUS becoming an obstacle to investment cooperation between Chinese and U.S. firms,” the ministry said in a statement.

Chinese and U.S. companies seek greater cooperation on investment, it added, urging the two countries’ governments to heed the voices of their companies, and provide a good environment and stable expectations.

Monday’s legislation also calls “long-term strategic competition with China” a top priority for the United States, which should improve the defense capabilities of self-ruled Taiwan, claimed by China as a wayward province.

In a separate statement, China’s foreign ministry said the United States passed the act despite China’s strong objections and it was dissatisfied with the “negative content related to China”.

China urges the United States to abandon Cold War thinking and correctly and objectively view relations, and not implement the act’s negative clauses about China, so as to avoid harming cooperation, the ministry added.

China’s Defense Ministry also weighed in, saying the act “exaggerated Sino-U.S. antagonism”, damaged trust between the two militaries and involved the most important and sensitive issue in bilateral ties, namely Taiwan.

“We will never let any person, at any time or in any form split Taiwan off from China,” it added.

In Taipei, Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry thanked the United States for its consistent support.

Taiwan would “continue to actively coordinate with the U.S. government to stably deepen the security partnership between Taiwan and the United States on a mutually beneficial basis”, Taiwan’s foreign ministry said.

The United States has no formal ties with Taiwan but is the island’s strongest ally and sole foreign arms supplier.

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen is visiting the United States this month, stopping off first in Los Angeles and then in Houston on her way to and from Paraguay and Belize.

China has complained to Washington about the visits.

 
Last edited:



That article was adorable. But seriously, if they feel so confident that they don’t need the US market then great - the US can just withdraw access with peaceful tranquility and no further need for gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothes. Let this no longer be thought of as a trade war but an orderly divorce by mutual consent.
 
That article was adorable. But seriously, if they feel so confident that they don’t need the US market then great - the US can just withdraw access with peaceful tranquility and no further need for gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothes. Let this no longer be thought of as a trade war but an orderly divorce by mutual consent.

I'm down with zero-sum. Peter Navarro claims it is.

China angered at new U.S. defense act

Good.
 
Here's another great article that provides some much needed nuance to the topic of China's reciprocal tariffs. An often overlooked point about China's trade retaliations is that, for all intents and purposes, they really only buy US products that they desperately need (food, energy, semi-conductors, raw building materials, etc.) and for which they lack plentiful alternative sources and/or are themselves, incapable of producing. This is not so of the US and even those products we don't produce could be geared up for domestic production or sourced elsewhere globally in just a couple of years. The net affect is that China's tariffs on US products aren't going to do much harm to US but actually will harm China.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...-china-soy-tariffs-brazil-trump/#78226ead2bc7

Trade War Update: China May Have Shot Self In Foot

China made a “dumb move” in targeting America’s heartland with tariffs. Soybeans are a case in point.

“I understood politically why they chose soybeans, but they made a dumb move,” says John Baize, a market analyst with the U.S. Soybean Export Council. The U.S. is the number one exporter of soybeans. Brazil is number two. No one comes close after that except for Argentina, which is the largest exporter of soymeal and soybean oil.

Soybeans don’t fall from the sky, so China has very little mega-markets outside of the U.S. Brazil is the only one, really. And now they are paying more for soy at a time when soy prices are near rock bottom thanks to record acreage and harvest sizes in Brazil and the U.S.

Soy is the number one item China buys from the U.S. and a top three item from Brazil. That alone stands as a testament to just how important that crop is to feed not only the Chinese but Chinese fish and Chinese livestock that live on the stuff.

“What’s going to happen is that if they don’t buy from the U.S. they will be short by about 20%,” estimates Baize. “This will impact feed grain and food in general, and the Chinese will pay the price for that,” he says...

The U.S. could, in theory, lose some China market share to Brazil. But as Brazil soy is not limitless and low prices have many traders holding onto what they have anyway, they will end up selling less to Europe, the world’s No. 2 soy market after China. Less Brazil beans to Europe means more American beans to Europe. As the U.S. risks losing China market share to Brazil, so Brazil risks losing European market share to the Americans.

The 25% tariff on soybeans is almost entirely priced into the price difference between U.S. soy and Brazilian soy. Brazilian soy always costs more simply because it is harder to get it out of the country. Today, soy prices in Brazil cost at least $2.60 more per bushel...

Cargill, ADM, and Bunge all have subsidiaries in Brazil. The soy exporters could sell American soy to Brazil if demand warrants. Brazilian traders said there is talk of big American soy exporters doing just that.

Normally prices ebb and flow with harvest season. This year is different. Trump sent prices higher, even though Chinese demand is not any greater than it’s been before. “It is definitely not because of Chinese demand. Chinese demand for Brazil soy is within historic norms; nothing exceptional,” says Ulian.

China may end up buying from the U.S. and paying the price.

“I’ll say this much, Trump has been a positive force for Brazilian farmers,” says Samuel Garcia Filho, a commodity broker with H.Commcor in São Paulo. “Low soy prices have been made up for by the rise in premium prices. For the Americans, we are hearing that Brazil-based exporters will buy from the U.S. cheap and sell to the Chinese high if they have to.”

“Brazil will have the most expensive soy in the world," says Aedson Pereira, a market analyst with Informa. “The higher cost will probably restructure the global soy trade. The EU, Japan, Mexico and the countries of southeast Asia will likely focus their attention on buying from the U.S. instead,” he says.

In 2017, Brazil exported 53.8 million tons of soy to China. This year, that number is expected to be around 66 million tons even though China is not really saving much by buying there. More Brazil soy to China means less soy elsewhere. The U.S. soy farmer will gladly sell where the Brazilians are not.
 
Here's another great article that provides some much needed nuance to the topic of China's reciprocal tariffs. An often overlooked point about China's trade retaliations is that, for all intents and purposes, they really only buy US products that they desperately need (food, energy, semi-conductors, raw building materials, etc.) and for which they lack plentiful alternative sources and/or are themselves, incapable of producing. This is not so of the US and even those products we don't produce could be geared up for domestic production or sourced elsewhere globally in just a couple of years. The net affect is that China's tariffs on US products aren't going to do much harm to US but actually will harm China.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...-china-soy-tariffs-brazil-trump/#78226ead2bc7

Trade War Update: China May Have Shot Self In Foot

China made a “dumb move” in targeting America’s heartland with tariffs. Soybeans are a case in point.

“I understood politically why they chose soybeans, but they made a dumb move,” says John Baize, a market analyst with the U.S. Soybean Export Council. The U.S. is the number one exporter of soybeans. Brazil is number two. No one comes close after that except for Argentina, which is the largest exporter of soymeal and soybean oil.

Soybeans don’t fall from the sky, so China has very little mega-markets outside of the U.S. Brazil is the only one, really. And now they are paying more for soy at a time when soy prices are near rock bottom thanks to record acreage and harvest sizes in Brazil and the U.S.

Soy is the number one item China buys from the U.S. and a top three item from Brazil. That alone stands as a testament to just how important that crop is to feed not only the Chinese but Chinese fish and Chinese livestock that live on the stuff.

“What’s going to happen is that if they don’t buy from the U.S. they will be short by about 20%,” estimates Baize. “This will impact feed grain and food in general, and the Chinese will pay the price for that,” he says...

The U.S. could, in theory, lose some China market share to Brazil. But as Brazil soy is not limitless and low prices have many traders holding onto what they have anyway, they will end up selling less to Europe, the world’s No. 2 soy market after China. Less Brazil beans to Europe means more American beans to Europe. As the U.S. risks losing China market share to Brazil, so Brazil risks losing European market share to the Americans.

The 25% tariff on soybeans is almost entirely priced into the price difference between U.S. soy and Brazilian soy. Brazilian soy always costs more simply because it is harder to get it out of the country. Today, soy prices in Brazil cost at least $2.60 more per bushel...

Cargill, ADM, and Bunge all have subsidiaries in Brazil. The soy exporters could sell American soy to Brazil if demand warrants. Brazilian traders said there is talk of big American soy exporters doing just that.

Normally prices ebb and flow with harvest season. This year is different. Trump sent prices higher, even though Chinese demand is not any greater than it’s been before. “It is definitely not because of Chinese demand. Chinese demand for Brazil soy is within historic norms; nothing exceptional,” says Ulian.

China may end up buying from the U.S. and paying the price.

“I’ll say this much, Trump has been a positive force for Brazilian farmers,” says Samuel Garcia Filho, a commodity broker with H.Commcor in São Paulo. “Low soy prices have been made up for by the rise in premium prices. For the Americans, we are hearing that Brazil-based exporters will buy from the U.S. cheap and sell to the Chinese high if they have to.”

“Brazil will have the most expensive soy in the world," says Aedson Pereira, a market analyst with Informa. “The higher cost will probably restructure the global soy trade. The EU, Japan, Mexico and the countries of southeast Asia will likely focus their attention on buying from the U.S. instead,” he says.

In 2017, Brazil exported 53.8 million tons of soy to China. This year, that number is expected to be around 66 million tons even though China is not really saving much by buying there. More Brazil soy to China means less soy elsewhere. The U.S. soy farmer will gladly sell where the Brazilians are not.

So, not even soybeans now?

<{MingNope}>

Oh, Donnie Two Scoops!

Is this going to turn out to be the greatest move he ever makes in office?
 
Well Done President Trump!<JonesDXSuckIt>

Is so good to have a president that puts America first, and have a backbone.
Carry on to trigger the traitors and cucks.
 
Here's another great article that provides some much needed nuance to the topic of China's reciprocal tariffs. An often overlooked point about China's trade retaliations is that, for all intents and purposes, they really only buy US products that they desperately need (food, energy, semi-conductors, raw building materials, etc.) and for which they lack plentiful alternative sources and/or are themselves, incapable of producing. This is not so of the US and even those products we don't produce could be geared up for domestic production or sourced elsewhere globally in just a couple of years. The net affect is that China's tariffs on US products aren't going to do much harm to US but actually will harm China.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...-china-soy-tariffs-brazil-trump/#78226ead2bc7

Trade War Update: China May Have Shot Self In Foot

China made a “dumb move” in targeting America’s heartland with tariffs. Soybeans are a case in point.

“I understood politically why they chose soybeans, but they made a dumb move,” says John Baize, a market analyst with the U.S. Soybean Export Council. The U.S. is the number one exporter of soybeans. Brazil is number two. No one comes close after that except for Argentina, which is the largest exporter of soymeal and soybean oil.

Soybeans don’t fall from the sky, so China has very little mega-markets outside of the U.S. Brazil is the only one, really. And now they are paying more for soy at a time when soy prices are near rock bottom thanks to record acreage and harvest sizes in Brazil and the U.S.

Soy is the number one item China buys from the U.S. and a top three item from Brazil. That alone stands as a testament to just how important that crop is to feed not only the Chinese but Chinese fish and Chinese livestock that live on the stuff.

“What’s going to happen is that if they don’t buy from the U.S. they will be short by about 20%,” estimates Baize. “This will impact feed grain and food in general, and the Chinese will pay the price for that,” he says...

The U.S. could, in theory, lose some China market share to Brazil. But as Brazil soy is not limitless and low prices have many traders holding onto what they have anyway, they will end up selling less to Europe, the world’s No. 2 soy market after China. Less Brazil beans to Europe means more American beans to Europe. As the U.S. risks losing China market share to Brazil, so Brazil risks losing European market share to the Americans.

The 25% tariff on soybeans is almost entirely priced into the price difference between U.S. soy and Brazilian soy. Brazilian soy always costs more simply because it is harder to get it out of the country. Today, soy prices in Brazil cost at least $2.60 more per bushel...

Cargill, ADM, and Bunge all have subsidiaries in Brazil. The soy exporters could sell American soy to Brazil if demand warrants. Brazilian traders said there is talk of big American soy exporters doing just that.

Normally prices ebb and flow with harvest season. This year is different. Trump sent prices higher, even though Chinese demand is not any greater than it’s been before. “It is definitely not because of Chinese demand. Chinese demand for Brazil soy is within historic norms; nothing exceptional,” says Ulian.

China may end up buying from the U.S. and paying the price.

“I’ll say this much, Trump has been a positive force for Brazilian farmers,” says Samuel Garcia Filho, a commodity broker with H.Commcor in São Paulo. “Low soy prices have been made up for by the rise in premium prices. For the Americans, we are hearing that Brazil-based exporters will buy from the U.S. cheap and sell to the Chinese high if they have to.”

“Brazil will have the most expensive soy in the world," says Aedson Pereira, a market analyst with Informa. “The higher cost will probably restructure the global soy trade. The EU, Japan, Mexico and the countries of southeast Asia will likely focus their attention on buying from the U.S. instead,” he says.

In 2017, Brazil exported 53.8 million tons of soy to China. This year, that number is expected to be around 66 million tons even though China is not really saving much by buying there. More Brazil soy to China means less soy elsewhere. The U.S. soy farmer will gladly sell where the Brazilians are not.

Gee, its almost as if tariffs were a tax on consumers and not on producers.

This is why ultimately nobody wins a trade war, they only "lose less".
 
China to send trade delegation to U.S, raising hopes of breakthrough in escalating trade war
Michael Collins, USA TODAY | Aug. 16, 2018

636664428364579397-AFP-AFP-1776QC.jpg

WASHINGTON – Analysts said Thursday that China’s decision to send a trade delegation to the United States this month could be the first signs of a breakthrough in what has been an escalating trade war between the two countries.

“It’s definitely a good sign that the two sides are talking,” said Erin Ennis, senior vice president of the U.S. China Business Council, a Washington-based nonprofit group.

China’s Ministry of Commerce announced Thursday that Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen will lead a delegation to the U.S. in late August to hold talks on the economy and trade issues.

Wang will meet with a U.S. delegation headed by David Malpass, the undersecretary of Treasury for international affairs, the commerce ministry said in a statement on its website.

“China welcomes communications and dialogue on the basis of reciprocity, equality and integrity,” the statement said, but Beijing emphasized that it continues to oppose “unilateralism and trade protectionism and does not accept any unilateral trade restrictions.”

The statement did not say when or where the meetings would take place. But the discussions would mark the first formal dialogue between the two countries since trade talks broke down two months ago and both countries began a series of tit-for-tat actions by slapping tariffs on each others’ imports.

While the agenda has not been disclosed, analysts noted that the announcement did not indicate that the U.S. Trade Representative’s office would be involved in the discussions. They interpreted that as a sign that the talks could be a prelude to further negotiations down the road.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross have both shown interest in trying “to get some things moving in the relationship that shows the two sides can work together,” Ennis said.

“You need to create the circumstances so that both sides have trust that they are going to follow through on their commitments, but then also use that as a basis of being able to have the more difficult discussions that are going to take a little longer to work out,” she said.

Both countries are experiencing mounting domestic economic pressures from key sectors as a result of their trade war actions, “so they need to get to the negotiating table in an effort to ease those pressures,” said Kevin Madden, a Republican consultant who has worked with private companies to promote free trade.

The decision to resume talks is an indication that, “while the politics of trade war rhetoric can be alluring, trade wars are still not good and not easy to win,” Madden said.

The announcement out of China comes just one week before the U.S. is set to impose a second round of tariffs on Chinese goods.

In July, the U.S. placed tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese products, including farm equipment, motor vehicles, medical equipment and products made of aluminum and steel, in response to complaints that Beijing steals or pressures companies to hand over technology.

China retaliated by slapping an extra 25 percent duty on 545 products from the United States including soybeans, electric cars, orange juice, whiskey, salmon and cigars, in retaliation for Trump’s initial round of tariffs.

Last week, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office announced that it also is moving forward with a 25 percent tariff on $16 billion in Chinese goods. The tariffs are set to take effect on Aug. 23 and will impact 279 product lines, including electronics, plastics and railway freight cars.

It was not clear whether the latest round of talks would begin before those tariffs take effect.

In response to those levies, China slapped additional tariffs of 25 percent on $16 billion worth of U.S. goods, including fuel, steel products, autos and medical equipment.

President Donald Trump also has threatened to levy a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion of Chinese products, prompting a warning from Beijing that it would retaliate with duties on $60 billion of U.S. goods including coffee, honey and industrial chemicals.

 
Back
Top