Trade War with China

nugroho said:

In case Hu Jianto, Wen jiaobo etc wrote , is this the article the news come from?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the author is Akio Yaita, do you believe a deputy director of the Sankei Shimbun Foreign News Department would know Zhongnanhai so deep?
and the phrase " According to well-informed sources" means there was no source at all.

Click to expand...

vincent said:

Don't move the goalpost. You were talking about the financial market



Christ, Chinese government put money forever into projects that has no long term prospect? You have no freaking idea how the world works. Japan Inc. may be not as big and strong as before, but it is still a very formidable machine. Same with Korean Choebols

Click to expand...

vincent said:

Christ, Chinese government put money forever into projects that has no long term prospect? You have no freaking idea how the world works. Japan Inc. may be not as big and strong as before, but it is still a very formidable machine. Same with Korean Choebols

Click to expand...

Equation said:

By today's current events and latest history, one can say that the China is far less regime changing than the Westerners.

Click to expand...

Anlsvrthng said:

You try to make a straw man argument, OR you didn't read/interpreted pettis/my text.

The key element is the quantity and quality of the available information about companies, protection and enforcement and transferring mechanism of the ownership of the companies, and finally the stability/transparency of the general economy , institutional and legal environment..

It is about things like if I buy a company how accurate are the numbers, can I get an objective picture about the status of it ,and in this regard it can be about a three person micro company, not only big public companies.

Click to expand...

The trade war between China and the United States has come to a turning point. This week, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) is holding public hearings to consider imposing an additional 10 percent duty on approximately 200 billion dollars' worth of Chinese goods.

If the tariffs take effect, an all-out trade war will break out, dealing a heavy blow to both China and the US.

On the US side, as China has taken retaliatory measures, the prices of Chinese products routinely purchased by American households will soar, and imports such as steel, aluminum, and car components will cost more.

Furthermore, multinational companies, like Nike, Disney and Apple, may fear that their interests in China will be put at stake. After all, the US tariffs will eventually be passed along to the ordinary Americans. How much its domestic market will resolve the costs remains to be seen.

The full-blown trade fight inflicts even more damage on China. One indicator of this comes from market performance. Since the beginning of the trade war, China’s stock market has suffered some major setbacks.

Recent data showed that the Shanghai Composite Index dropped 1.34 percent, and the Shenzhen Composite Index is down 1.69 percent. In a similar fashion, the exchange rate has also gone through some turbulence, with the currency plunging to nearly 6.53 against the US dollar in late June.

This clearly shows that the market has taken a hit, and if the confrontation lingers on and even escalates, it will cast a shadow over the Chinese economy, which is in and of itself detrimental.

Apparently, slapping tariffs on such a scale takes a heavy toll on both countries, but compared with the US, China has more to lose. It is critical to note that exports account for 12 percent of the US GDP but 20 percent of the Chinese economy.

Chinese exports to the US are way more than US exports to China. Therefore, China has less ammunition to fire. Moreover, as the trade war comes at a time when domestic issues such as vaccine and private lending scandals are bubbling up, China is in a more vulnerable position to weather the storm.

With that said, by no means should China make a concession. As China’s official narrative rightly argued, after Trump came to power, the US has been shifting away from the ambition of providing safety to its allies, to a more pragmatic stance of putting its own interest first.

And as China is progressively rising as a superpower, it is natural for the US to ratchet up all kinds of measures, trade weapons included, to contain China’s development. Against this background, bowing under US pressure is of little use to ease the tensions and instead solicit harsher clashes.

In the face of a looming full-scale trade war, China should instead focus more on its domestic fronts. For one thing, China should stay alert about the financial challenges within its borders, rein in various forms of peer-to-peer lending, and make sure that the financial market is stable.

Also, rather than resorting to policies and government guidelines, and taking the rule of law halfheartedly, China should not only proffer legal remedies to the disadvantaged, protect intellectual property, and strictly carry out the WTO commitments, but also press ahead with the ongoing reform and ensure that economic and social developments remain along the legal track.

On the whole, the trade spat in effect offers a chance for China to restart a new round of reform.

As an old Chinese saying goes: “When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you.” It is urgent to counter the fierce US attacks, but it is more essential for China to forge ahead with its ongoing opening-up process and reflect upon the pitfalls and achievements it has made.

Click to expand...

Anlsvrthng said:

I agree with it, but it is relatively easy to be peaceful if you are the weaker party.

But of course the last emperor died in old age , protected by Mao, and the Czar family was murdered by Lenin.
But Napolen died in exile, so who know : )

Click to expand...

Anlsvrthng said:

I agree with it, but it is relatively easy to be peaceful if you are the weaker party.

But of course the last emperor died in old age , protected by Mao, and the Czar family was murdered by Lenin.
But Napolen died in exile, so who know : )

Click to expand...

Tam said:

Chinese and European delegates cancel trips to buy American soybeans. Not to mention Indian delegates.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I wonder where is this EU going to buy the soybeans thing Trump boasted.

Click to expand...

vincent said:

So typical for you to focus only one aspect of an issue (tunnel vision). News flash, financial market is not the only source of funding. Moneys from banks have been a major source of funding for ages and bankers have total access to the borrowers' information.

Click to expand...