Continues to blabber about our economic system and level playing field for American business and workers and that it would in the PRC best interest to transition to neoliberalism (free market). Which level playing field are you talking about old hag? The unilateral sanctions to hobble the future of Chinese people so that the US can keep their absolute technological and political hegemony. And the government must only build roads and toilets and the economy should be given over to foreign companies and domestic oligarchs like Jack Ma. No need for targeted polices to develop certain technologies because that is unfair and not a level playing field. Like I said the point is that they still feel the need to enforce their economic and political models upon others. The white mans burden has changed but is still reality of live with regards to the economic, financial and political fields. In the past centuries this also included their religious model. That is the so called rules based world order. One in which one side makes all the rules and enforces neoliberalism and democracy upon the whole globe?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen at Press Conference in Beijing, the People’s Republic of China
Over the past two days, I have had the chance to do just that. I’ve met with Premier Li, Vice Premier He, Finance Minister Liu, People’s Bank of China Head Pan, and other senior officials to discuss important pillars of our economic relationship. These conversations were direct, substantive, and productive. We were able to learn more about each other’s economies and policy choices, which I believe is vital as the world’s two largest economies. Even where we don’t see eye-to-eye, I believe there is clear value in the frank and in-depth discussions we had on the opportunities and challenges in our relationship, and the better understanding it gave us of each country’s actions and intentions. Broadly speaking, I believe that my bilateral meetings – which totaled about 10 hours over two days – served as a step forward in our effort to put the U.S.-China relationship on surer footing.
I also communicated to my counterparts that healthy economic competition is only sustainable if it benefits both sides. I pressed them on our serious concerns about China’s unfair economic practices. That includes the breadth and depth of China’s non-market policies, along with barriers to market access for foreign firms and issues involving intellectual property. Fair treatment is critical so American firms and workers compete on a level playing field – and benefit economically from trade and investment with China and the huge market it presents for American goods and services. I also expressed my worries about a recent uptick in coercive actions against American firms.
Importantly, I believe that a shift toward a more market-oriented system in China would not only be in the interests of the U.S. and other countries. It would be better for the Chinese economy as well. During this trip, I met with U.S. business leaders who said they would like to see greater economic engagement with China. I also know that many businesses have expressed a range of concerns on the challenges that foreign firms can face here. It is important that we work together to make sure businesses understand there is a wide swath of economic interactions that are uncontroversial to both sides.
Second, we also spoke about national security and human rights. I emphasized to my counterparts the necessity of clear and direct communication on the actions we are taking – and why we are taking them. Senior-level engagement is particularly vital during moments of tension. The U.S. will continue to take targeted actions that are necessary to protect our national security interests and those of our allies. As we do so, we adhere to a set of important principles like making sure our national security actions are transparent, narrowly scoped, and targeted to clear objectives. Importantly, these actions are motivated by straightforward national security considerations. They are not used by us to gain economic advantage.
Source:
