But the people familiar said that the tariff level could be raised back to 25% if Mr. Trump concludes that Beijing doesn’t soon show signs that it is acceding to U.S. demands to change its economic policies.
....
Recall last week Deutsche Bank that so far the US had carefully avoided consumer and China dependent products, and as a result, the trade war so far has had little impact on US economy and consumers. But this would become harder as the tariff list expands to the next 200 billion, which contains about 78 billion in consumer products (chart below, left). These include different types furniture (24bn), travel bags(2.2bn), vacuum cleaners (1.8bn), vinyl flooring(1.7bn), window/wall air conditioners (1.3bn), etc. Similarly, reliance on China increases sharply for the 200bn products in tariff pipeline. China import shares are above 20% for most of the products, and for about half of them, China's share are more than 50% (chart below, right).
Chinese leaders must be annoyed and bewildered about how to avert the trade war with the US.
It is not obvious exactly what US President Donald Trump wants. What he repeatedly says he wants, bilaterally balanced trade, is nearly impossible.
At the very least it would require extensive and permanent government intervention with tariffs and exchange controls, the antithesis of free trade.
China tried to offer a concession package in May, including lower auto tariffs, buying more natural gas and agricultural products, and greater opening of its financial sector. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin negotiated the package, but Trump shot it down.
It included the sort of pro-trade reforms that might have impressed the Obama administration, but China is only slowly realizing that Trump's objectives are way different.
One difficulty for China is that Trump is coy about what he wants, at least in public, even in private if it might leak to the press.
What Trump wants is not more reform in the direction of liberal principles, what he wants is to preserve what he considers key American industries. He does not want free trade, he wants managed trade.
Unfortunately for Chinese comprehension, he cannot proclaim that outright because in American politics free trade is a necessary mantra. Advocating government managed trade is an anathema, especially within the Republican Party.
The concept of managed trade or "industrial policy" was popular among certain segments of the Democratic Party during the 1970s and 1980s when Japan seemed the greatest industrial competitor of the US.
Even supposedly free-market champion Republican President Ronald Reagan pressured Japan to institute so-called "voluntary export restraints" to limit the number of cars it exported.
This was possible only because the Japanese automobile industry was already highly centralized, so implementing an export cartel to limit output was not difficult. In fact, Japanese executives were pleased.
While they somewhat restricted the number of cars exported to the US each year, by curtailing output and raising prices they significantly increased their profit margin on each car sold. Suppressing free competition is good for profits. Business knows this, but politicians can't admit they sympathize.
Former Democrat Trump probably harks back to the industrial policy previously advocated by Democratic leaders like former Sen. Richard Gephardt. Trump disdains liberal principles in favor of negotiated results.
This is the inspiration behind his campaign rhetoric that so resonated with industrial workers in Middle America, perplexing bicoastal liberals like candidate Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Trump speaks a language no longer in fashion in either party; it is somewhat cryptic to the uninitiated. It must be translated for those ignorant of American political history.
One needs to listen closely to what Trump says about trade and to the diatribes of his more unorthodox advisors, such as Peter Navarro. Trump himself scrawled “trade is bad” on a draft of one of his speeches, according to the new Bob Woodward book "Fear: Trump in the White House."
The book describes the president's idea that if he wreaks havoc on trade by tearing up trade agreements and raising tariffs, our trading partners (he would say, “adversaries”) will soon return to the bargaining table and offer tangible deals for managed trade.
Trump's vague trade demands confuse not only China, but also other major US trading partners that have been targeted. Trump has now invited further negotiations prior to imposing tariffs on another 200 billion US dollars' worth of Chinese exports, far more than the 50 plus billion US dollars already affected.
If that next sanction fails to induce satisfactory Chinese remediation, he threatens tariffs on all the rest of China's exports to the US. Even if China offered to reduce all its tariffs to zero, this would not come close to satiating Trump. He wants to force China to help him preserve key American industries. This is one of the few things (another is immigration) that does actually obsess Trump.
As his former strategist Steve Bannon said, "Donald Trump may be flexible on so much stuff, but the hill he's willing to die on is China."
It now appears that China's escalation will be even more targeted, and that some Chinese officials involved in advising the leadership are proposing to step up the trade fight a notch by restricting China’s sales of materials, equipment and other parts key to U.S. manufacturers’ supply chain.
...
China can adopt “export restraints” as a way to hit back at the U.S. in addition to retaliatory tariffs, former Finance Minister Lou Jiwei told a gathering of Chinese and American academics and business executives Sunday.
Which is not to say that China has given up hope. As we , China’s leaders continue to court U.S. businesses to get them to lobby against the Trump tariffs. On Sunday, representatives from American multinationals, along with academics and others from both China and the U.S., attended a special session of the China Development Forum at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, a complex of buildings on manicured grounds. The meeting, usually held in the spring, was convened to mark the 40th anniversary of the Communist government’s adoption of pro-market policies (which alas have yet to bear any real fruit).
At the same time, a group of Wall Street bankers were invited to a financial forum in a different guesthouse building and are scheduled to meet with Vice Premier Wang Qishan on Monday.
The reason why Beijing is bypassing Washington and bringing the fight straight to US corporations is that Chinese officials have expressed growing frustration in dealing with the Trump administration, which has demanded not only better terms for trade but an end to industrial subsidies and other policies Beijing sees as vital to securing China’s economic future.
Agree, there are possible scenarios with different probabilities.
USA works actively to restricting the technology transfer from USA to China.
Considering that in many cases it is nothing else just restrictions about start-up participation it bring up real questions about the Chinese economy capability to make real technology improvements.
@Anlsvrthng
The US National Science Foundation estimates that Chinese R&D spending will be greater than the USA in the year 2019.
Also note that Chinese R&D spending is still in the high growth stage.
And that the vast majority of R&D spending is conducted by private companies, like the rest of the world (the notable big exception being India)
Plus China already represents the world's largest and most competitive marketplace for most categories of goods and services.
All these statements are backed up by the available data.
So in the medium-long term, China should be able to develop and sustain hi-tech companies in every industry.
If you can break this chain of logic, I'm happy to revise my views.
How China is battling ever more intensely in world markets
...
China is not the first country to industrialise, but none has ever made the leap so rapidly and on such a monumental scale. Little more than a decade ago Chinese boom towns churned out zips, socks and cigarette lighters. Today the country is at the global frontier of new technology in everything from mobile payments to driverless cars.
...
Read More: Economist
US is asking China to restart talks, and Trump is reportedly dropping 10% tarrifss (down from earlier proposed 25% tariffs) on $200 billion.
With RMB's recent decline of 8%, the proposed 10% tariffs is effectively negated. Basically, there is no underlying strategy behind Trump, it's all for Pomp and show for domestic distraction from his investigations.
US is asking China to restart talks, and Trump is reportedly dropping 10% tarrifss (down from earlier proposed 25% tariffs) on $200 billion.
With RMB's recent decline of 8%, the proposed 10% tariffs is effectively negated. Basically, there is no underlying strategy behind Trump, it's all for Pomp and show for domestic distraction from his investigations.