Trade War with China

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
I don't see no reason wht the north east provinces of Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning cannot grow Soy Bean
THE REPORT
6d0aa4ae1dc74642970b060d4600-630x378.jpg

A farmer harvests soybeans in China's Jilin province. Photo: Xinhua
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
REAL-TIME INTEL ON WHAT MOVES MARKETS
Farmers in China’s northeast get a new task: Grow soybeans
With US soybeans targeted in the trade war, Chinese farmers, and diners, are being asked to make changes in what they grow, and eat
By ASIA TIMES STAFF MAY 4, 2018 4:45 PM (UTC+8)

Soybeans have become a weapon for Beijing in its tit-for-tat trade row with Washington. Chinese importers stopped buying the US legumes after Beijing imposed a 25% tariff in early April, a move which threatens billions in exports and many farmers in the US Midwest.

US agribusiness conglomerate Bunge Ltd has said Chinese importers had stopped buying American soybeans and were now sourcing the crop from Canada and Brazil.

The US exported over 53 million tons of soybeans last year and most of that – nearly 33 million tons – was shipped to China. In 2016, some 61% of US soybeans were sold to China, a $14-billion business that made the crop the most valuable agricultural export for US farmers, according to the US Department of Agriculture,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
reported.

But overseas croppers elsewhere are unlikely to fill the gap given China’s appetite for soybeans, a major source of protein to feed livestock, as well as people, and a fundamental agricultural produce for numerous industrial uses.

Reports in Chinese papers anticipate a huge shortfall in soybeans if the trade dispute is not resolved and that Beijing will be forced to turn to domestic suppliers, in particular farmers in its northeastern provinces of Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang, which have long been areas where rice and other grains were grown.

Officials in the northeast, told recently to stave off defectors from North Korea and brace for refugees if Kim Jong-un’s nuclear buildup goes astray, have been assigned a new task: head to the countryside, get your hands dirty and grow soybeans.

Hong Kong’s Ming Pao daily also noted that farms in Jilin and Heilongjiang were asked to uproot corn and rice crops so there is land to grow soybeans, after an ad-hoc meeting attended by a deputy premier last month exhorted leaders in the three northeast provinces to act fast to ratchet up domestic supplies so that Beijing’s use of soybean imports as a lever in the trade war against Washington doesn’t backfire.

Heihe, a prefecture-level city in Heilongjiang, has set aside 15.5 million acres of land, which would account for a sixth of China’s total soybean cultivation. Allowances and a government-guaranteed procurement price was gazetted as an added incentive to lure self-employed peasants to grow soybeans.

Wang Xiudong, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told the Beijing-based Economic Observer that the shortfall could be no less than 25 million tons this year, and that estimate was on the conservative side.

Wang said China had already bought 72% of Brazil’s soybeans while other key producers like Argentina were facing a drought. But Beijing was yet to establish diplomatic ties with Paraguay, another big exporter.

While these northeastern provinces can do little to hasten the growth of soybeans already planted there, some whimsical stop-gap measures have been proposed by Chinese papers, like a campaign against people eating meat – from livestock fed with soybeans – but also tofu, soy milk and soy sauce.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
I don't see no reason wht the north east provinces of Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning cannot grow Soy Bean

The Soy Bean is native to East Asia and grew wild in Russia, China and Korea so there is absolutely no reason why it wouldn't grow in NE China! More of a question why it's NOT grown there en masse already!
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
The Soy Bean is native to East Asia and grew wild in Russia, China and Korea so there is absolutely no reason why it wouldn't grow in NE China! More of a question why it's NOT grown there en masse already!

Becaus of the inefficiency of Chinese agi .For along time it was hobbled by small plot and lack of mechanization. It change in the last 10 years or so due to reformed in land management allowing peasant to lease their land to large agi corporation improving the yield and efficiency
Anyway the latest from the trade negotiation. Nothing change still large disagreement
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S.-China Trade Talks End With Key Differences Still Unresolved
Bloomberg News
May 3, 2018, 10:05 AM CDT Updated on May 4, 2018, 6:17 AM CDT

China’s official Xinhua News Agency reported Friday afternoon that both sides reached a consensus on some trade issues while acknowledging major disagreements on some matters. It said they would continue discussions, without providing specifics for when they would start again. Neither side briefed the media, and the U.S. delegation led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin departed Beijing in the evening.

While a cure-all deal was always a long shot, the discord between the world’s two biggest economies means skittish global markets will continue to face ongoing trade tensions. The immediate question -- which may not be answered until President Donald Trump takes to Twitter -- is whether the U.S. got enough wins to delay planned tariffs of up to $150 billion on Chinese imports.

“A disagreement over trade practices that has built up over more than two decades will take much more than two days to resolve,” said Shane Oliver, the head of investment strategy at AMP Capital Investors Ltd. in Sydney. “A negotiated solution remains most likely but it will take time with a lot of posturing and near-death moments along the way.”

Heading into the talks, both sides outlined a series of tough demands, with the U.S. focused on reducing a deficit in goods it says reached a record $375 billion last year.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The U.S. delegation asked China to reduce support for high-tech industries, allow U.S. companies non-discriminatory access in China and cut the trade deficit by at least
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
by the end of 2020 from 2018, according to a document seen by Bloomberg. It also called on China to avoid any retaliation, drop World Trade Organization cases and agree to quarterly reviews of its progress in meeting targets.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
’s application for a financial license.

China also warned that U.S. companies may be excluded from its domestic market, saying any of its moves to reduce investment restrictions may not be applicable to American businesses if the Trump administration doesn’t agree to treat Chinese companies equally, the document said.

Trump had sounded a positive note just before the talks began, saying in a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that his “great financial team is in China trying to negotiate a level playing field on trade!” Yet
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
was evident, with the U.S. releasing a report Thursday that showed the trade gap with China surged by 16 percent to more than $91 billion in the first quarter of this year.

China had also drawn hard lines. A senior official, who asked not to be named, said Xi’s government wouldn’t accept U.S. preconditions for negotiations such as abandoning its long-term advanced manufacturing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or narrowing the trade gap by $100 billion.

Reporters had little access to information in Beijing. China’s largest media outlets were banned from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
anything on the talks beyond official press releases, while the U.S. side studiously avoided journalists staked out at their hotel in Beijing.

‘Trade War’
During the second day of discussions, Xi gave a speech commemorating the 200th anniversary of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in which he said those who reject the world will be rejected by the world. It’s unclear if he met with the U.S. delegation.

That may not have made much difference given the wide chasm between negotiators.

“The U.S. demand of cutting the trade gap is baseless, and can’t be done by the Chinese government,” said He Weiwen, deputy director of the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing and a former Commerce Ministry official. “It’s at least good the two sides decided to keep talking, though one can’t rule out the possibility of a trade war.”

200x-1.jpg

Mnuchin arrives with his delegation after a meeting with Chinese officials in Beijing on May 3.

Photographer: Andy Wong/AP Photo
While tensions are set to increase, the economic impact would likely be limited, according to Tom Orlik, chief economist at Bloomberg Economics in Beijing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The two sides, which suspended high-level economic talks last year, sounded some notes of optimism. They agreed a “sound and stable” trade relationship is crucial, and planned to “establish a corresponding work mechanism,” Xinhua said.

Still, any deal appears to be a long way off.

“The U.S. has gone off the deep end by asking for too much,” said Brian Jackson, China director at Medley Global Advisors LLC, which gives policy guidance to institutional investors. “They’ve asked for $200 billion off the deficit in a very short timeframe. For me that’s a deal-breaker for the Chinese. If you state such an extreme starting position, you know you can’t get somewhere reasonable.”
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
The Soy Bean is native to East Asia and grew wild in Russia, China and Korea so there is absolutely no reason why it wouldn't grow in NE China! More of a question why it's NOT grown there en masse already!

Demographics and economics, with some history added in.

Beijing has been loathed to encourage the consolidation of China’s post revolution small family plot centric farming model for a number of reasons, chief of which is social harmony and stability.

With the family plot, all the hundreds of millions of migrant works have that as a fall back option. After they have made enough money, they can go home to invest and make an easy living running small business; and/or as times get though, as it did after the 2008 crash, they can always buy a one-way ticket home and have a means of feeding themselves and their families pretty much indefinitely.

Without this easy fallback option, after 2008 you would have had millions of unemployed migrant workers hanging around the cities for lack of a better alternative, with no state safety net, which would have inevitably lead to increased crime, inequality, social friction, exploitation and all the other bad stuff.

Keeping this alternative form of social safety net has is costs, with inefficiency the chief one.

Also, with the bulk of the young workers having gone to the cities, the older people left on the farms have tended to favour less labour intensive crops like fruits, vegetables and anminals etc.

Fruit and veg are quick to perish, so shipping costs are prohibitively high for long distance imports from countries with highly efficiency large scale mechanised farming like the US and EU; perishability and trade barriers protect much of the meat market. But grains are exposed to market forces, making it economically unattractive for Chinese farmers to grow them on top of the high labour investment needed.

But I see an obvious flaw with the arguments made in that AT article. It seems to be ignoring economic basics.

It seems to be assuming that prices for soya beans are supposed to stay static even after 25% tarriffs on US beans kick in.

That’s pure nonsense for all the reasons they listed.

Thing is, soyabeans is hardly an essential and hard to replace commodity.

As prices for them increase, demand will naturally fall until an equilibrium point is naturally reached.

China did not start this trade war, so the Chinese populous is going to be far more understanding and willing to tolerant any economic hardships that result than the US public will be.

You are not going to see anyone starving to death or rioting in the street for a lack of tofu or soyabean milk. As prices increase, people will switch to alternatives and/or simply change their consumption patterns.

What China is doing is starting to make supply and demand side policy changes to try and minimise any hardship from such a transition.

That’s just plain basic common sense and a clear signal that China isn’t bluffing or planning to back down in this standoff. So the adjustment between supply and demand is going to be quicker and smoother than a pure market driven adjustment. That is pretty much the fundamental essence of capitalism with Chinese characteristics.

Beijing decides the overall strategic direction the economic should be heading in, and uses market forces as a tool (among many) to achieve that and work out the finer details so they can focus on the big picture instead of getting bogged down with all the details like how the Soviets failed.

The fundamental problem the Americans are facing is that so long as Beijing keep getting the big calls right in identifying the key economic and scientific strategic areas to focus on, as it has been, China’s state directed capitalism model is fundamentally more efficient and effective than America’s market driven model at achieving breakthrough and consolidated gains.

If America wasn’t so blinded by its own dogma and rhetoric about the divine supremacy of the Holy Market, and critically analysed its own recent history, they will find that their own zenith was also achieved under similar strategic state planning. Which was done in the name of winning the Cold War. And done through the vast sums America and the west invested in defence R&D and procurement.

Most of the western, and especially American, 80-90s commercial economic golden age had its roots in government funded R&D programmes, the fruits from which were subsequently made available to Corporate America for nearly free afterwards. Just look at the iPhone as a case in point. Every one of the 10 key technologies that made it possible started off as government funded military programmes.

And those technologies were made available for pretty much all American companies, and at laughably cheap prices.

Since the end of the Cold War, western government R&D spending was slashed, and worse, what was being spent lacked the coherent planning and direction of the Cold War years.

To very crudely summarise, without the threat of the soviets to focus their efforts, US and western government funded R&D projects started to become more and more abstract and about pure theoretics, and lacked the hard edged practicality consideration that made Cold War government R&D so useful and valuable for corporate America.

Think the ISS, LHC, Hubble even. While those did produce interesting theoretical findings, there was very little practical use for their results or technologies. I call them vanity programmes because they are more about winning Nobel prizes than trying to produce practically useful and commercially viable fruits (which are considered low brow considerations by the lofty minded scientists without a government task master keeping them in check).

When corporate America does dig into its own pockets to develop new tech, they go to great lengths of keep the fruits for themselves. Just look at the endless petty lawsuits between Apple and Samsung for example. Although America’s ludicrous patent system is a monster of a mess in its own right.

Those are the key reasons why corporate America has been largely treading water since the mid to late 2000s, after all the gains from Cold War era government R&D have all been exhausted and the rest of the world started to catch with with America in terms of commercial tech levels.

When American goods are no longer technologically unrivalled, the world stopped being willing to pay the massive premiums that allowed blue collar America to live the lavish lifestyles they have grown accustomed to. That was a core reason for the long slow decline of American manufacturing.

But American dogma about the absolutely divine supremacy of the almighty Market makes it impossible for them to acknowledge and accept this. And without such a watershed moment of epiphany, there is little hope of a fundamental change of course needed to arrest, never mind reverse the overall trend of China’s relentless gains in America’s now slender lead.

That is a secret unspoken reason for why so many of America’s leaders and strategists secretly or even openly wish for a new Cold War.

They hope that with a new bogeyman to scare people with, they can again backdoor a version of China’s government directed market economic model (which to be fair, China first learnt from the Americans themselves) in America.

The people pushing and cheering on Trump to start this trade war has this exact objective in mind, even if they deny it to even themselves.

They want to at one end do as much damage to China as possible to delay China’s rise; while at the same time start getting the American people used to the idea of seeing China as the enemy.
 

Orthan

Senior Member
The US president will decide the next steps, after the beijing talks

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Taking into account that IMO, the US got very little or almost nothing from the demands that they had, what do you think that Trump will do? impose tariffs, delay tariffs or do nothing? if he imposes tariffs, what will be their range? 50 billion or 150 billion of chinese exports to the US? or some other value? If he delays tariffs, will this be interpreted as a sign of weakness?
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Excellent write up Plawolf It is always dilemma On one hand the user land right is a kind of insurance for the peasantry but at the same time it pevent the large mechanization of modern agriculture
Though as I said it has change now allowing the peasant to lease the land and derive income from the land while at the same time they can work for the agi company tending the land.

Beijing is loathed to jettison the present arrangement It goes to the core of Socialist with Chinese characteristic which you so eloquently explained going back to the beginning of CCP of land reform
I recently watch interesting but rather boring interview on the subject

Adding to your comment the central government emphasized grain self sufficiently by guarateeing the floor price for the crop. Soy bean is a kind of luxury their primary use is for animal feed so if they reduce the meat consumption they are not going to die . That is why it was given lower rank of attention. They can easily switch as they are doing now
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
The US president will decide the next steps, after the beijing talks

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Taking into account that IMO, the US got very little or almost nothing from the demands that they had, what do you think that Trump will do? impose tariffs, delay tariffs or do nothing? if he imposes tariffs, what will be their range? 50 billion or 150 billion of chinese exports to the US? or some other value? If he delays tariffs, will this be interpreted as a sign of weakness?

Well looking into the US demand it doesn't leave much room for negotiation doesn't it. Those neo con probably think this is Plaza II agreement or worse Harris treaty. And China is a push over like Japan.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here is the list
of demand via Vincent, I agree with Vincent it is ironic May the 4th is eternally etched in the common consciousness of Chinese people as the day of humiliation and infamy

Who picked the date for the trade talk? May 4th! Anyone with a little knowledge of history would know the May 4th movement is the watershed event for the downfall of the Qing government

Trump and Navaro is smoking something REALLY good!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


By Enda Curran and Keith Zhai
May 4, 2018, 4:47 AM EDT Updated on May 4, 2018, 7:28 AM EDT

The U.S. and China issued long lists of demands at talks in Beijing this week to resolve the simmering trade dispute between the world’s two biggest economies.

In a document entitled “Balancing the Trade Relationship,” seen by Bloomberg News, the U.S. divided its demands into eight sections, ranging from trade-deficit reduction to tariff barriers to implementation. Here’s a synopsis of the U.S. requests, which were presented to China at the outset of the talks:

Trade Deficit Reduction

  • The U.S. wants China to cut the two nations’ trade deficit by at least $200 billion by the end of 2020 from 2018 levels.
  • Chinese purchases of U.S. goods will represent at least 75 percent of a commitment to a $100 billion increase in purchases of U.S. exports for the 12 months beginning June 1, 2018, and at least 50 percent of China’s commitment to an additional $100 billion increase in purchases of U.S. exports in the 12 months beginning June 1, 2019.

Protection of American Technology and Intellectual Property
  • China to immediately cease providing subsidies and government support that fuels excess capacity in industries targeted by the Made in China 2025 plan.
  • Specific policies and practices linked to technology transfer are eliminated.
  • A cessation of government-sponsored cyber intrusion and cyber theft.
  • Strengthened intellectual property rights protection and enforcement.
  • By Jan. 1, 2019, China will eliminate provisions of the Regulations on the Administration of the Import and Export of Technologies and the Regulations on the Implementation of the Law on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures identified in the U.S.
  • By July 1, 2018, China will withdraw its request for WTO consultations in United States – Tariff Measures on Certain Goods from China and take no further action on the matter
  • The document also calls on China to take no retaliatory action in response to actions taken or to be taken by the U.S.

Restrictions on Investment in Sensitive Technology
  • A demand that China does not “oppose, challenge, or otherwise retaliate against the United States’ imposition of restrictions on investments from China in sensitive U.S. technology sectors or sectors critical to U.S. national security.”

U.S. Investment in China
  • A demand that China does not distort trade through investment restrictions and any restrictions are narrow and transparent
  • U.S. investors in China to receive “fair, effective and non-discriminatory market access and treatment, including removal of the application of foreign investment restrictions and foreign ownership/shareholding requirements.”
  • China to issue an improved nationwide negative list for foreign investment by July 1, 2018. Within 90 days the U.S. will identify existing investment restrictions that deny U.S. investors market access. China is then to remove all identified investment restrictions on a timetable to be decided by both nations.

Tariff and non-tariff barriers
  • By July 1, 2020, China will reduce tariffs on all products in non-critical sectors to levels that are no higher than the levels of the U.S.’ corresponding tariffs
  • China to remove specified non-tariff barriers and recognizes that the U.S. may impose import restrictions and tariffs on products in critical sectors, including sectors identified in the Made in China 2025 industrial plan.

U.S. Services and Services Suppliers
  • A demand for China to improve market access in specified ways

U.S. Agricultural Products
  • A demand for China to improve market access in specified ways

Implementation
  • Both countries to meet quarterly to review targets and reforms
  • If the U.S. declares China is not complying with the framework, the U.S. can impose tariffs or other restrictions on Chinese products or restrict supply of services
  • A demand that China does not “oppose, challenge or take any form of action against the United States’ imposition of additional tariffs or restrictions.”
  • China to withdraw its WTO complaints regarding designations of China as a non-market economy and will refrain from future challenges
  • Within 15 days of receiving written notice of a prohibited product that may have been transshipped through one or more countries, China will provide full details of every shipment. Failure to do so will trigger tariffs.
  • If China fails to uphold commitments the U.S. will impose tariffs on imports from China and will confiscate counterfeit and pirated goods or levy tariffs to compensate for lost technologies and intellectual property.
  • A demand that China does not take any retaliatory action in response.

The following is a synopsis of China’s demands:
  • In an official document seen by Bloomberg News, China stated that measures to open up its economy will not be applicable to U.S. investors if the U.S. doesn’t meet China’s request on equal treatment of Chinese investment. Other requests of the U.S. included:
    • Lift bans on exports of integrated circuits to China.
    • Stop imposing 25 percent extra tariffs against Chinese products.
    • Open government procurement to Chinese technology products and services.
    • Give equal treatment to Chinese companies in national security review.
    • Adjust the export ban on ZTE. Corp.
    • Drop surrogate-country approach in anti-dumping, anti-remedy cases.
    • Not to initiate any Section 301 investigation against China in the future.
    • Open its e-payment market to Chinese companies.
    • Approve China International Capital Corp.’s application for a financial license.
    • Open the e-payment market to Chinese companies
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Well looking into the US demand it doesn't leave much room for negotiation doesn't it. Those neo con probably think this is Plaza II agreement or worse Harris treaty. And China is a push over like Japan.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here is the list
of demand via Vincent, I agree with Vincent it is ironic May the 4th is eternally etched in the common consciousness of Chinese people as the day of humiliation and infamy

Who picked the date for the trade talk? May 4th! Anyone with a little knowledge of history would know the May 4th movement is the watershed event for the downfall of the Qing government

Trump and Navaro is smoking something REALLY good!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


By Enda Curran and Keith Zhai
May 4, 2018, 4:47 AM EDT Updated on May 4, 2018, 7:28 AM EDT

The U.S. and China issued long lists of demands at talks in Beijing this week to resolve the simmering trade dispute between the world’s two biggest economies.

In a document entitled “Balancing the Trade Relationship,” seen by Bloomberg News, the U.S. divided its demands into eight sections, ranging from trade-deficit reduction to tariff barriers to implementation. Here’s a synopsis of the U.S. requests, which were presented to China at the outset of the talks:

Trade Deficit Reduction

  • The U.S. wants China to cut the two nations’ trade deficit by at least $200 billion by the end of 2020 from 2018 levels.
  • Chinese purchases of U.S. goods will represent at least 75 percent of a commitment to a $100 billion increase in purchases of U.S. exports for the 12 months beginning June 1, 2018, and at least 50 percent of China’s commitment to an additional $100 billion increase in purchases of U.S. exports in the 12 months beginning June 1, 2019.

Protection of American Technology and Intellectual Property
  • China to immediately cease providing subsidies and government support that fuels excess capacity in industries targeted by the Made in China 2025 plan.
  • Specific policies and practices linked to technology transfer are eliminated.
  • A cessation of government-sponsored cyber intrusion and cyber theft.
  • Strengthened intellectual property rights protection and enforcement.
  • By Jan. 1, 2019, China will eliminate provisions of the Regulations on the Administration of the Import and Export of Technologies and the Regulations on the Implementation of the Law on Chinese-Foreign Equity Joint Ventures identified in the U.S.
  • By July 1, 2018, China will withdraw its request for WTO consultations in United States – Tariff Measures on Certain Goods from China and take no further action on the matter
  • The document also calls on China to take no retaliatory action in response to actions taken or to be taken by the U.S.

Restrictions on Investment in Sensitive Technology
  • A demand that China does not “oppose, challenge, or otherwise retaliate against the United States’ imposition of restrictions on investments from China in sensitive U.S. technology sectors or sectors critical to U.S. national security.”

U.S. Investment in China
  • A demand that China does not distort trade through investment restrictions and any restrictions are narrow and transparent
  • U.S. investors in China to receive “fair, effective and non-discriminatory market access and treatment, including removal of the application of foreign investment restrictions and foreign ownership/shareholding requirements.”
  • China to issue an improved nationwide negative list for foreign investment by July 1, 2018. Within 90 days the U.S. will identify existing investment restrictions that deny U.S. investors market access. China is then to remove all identified investment restrictions on a timetable to be decided by both nations.

Tariff and non-tariff barriers
  • By July 1, 2020, China will reduce tariffs on all products in non-critical sectors to levels that are no higher than the levels of the U.S.’ corresponding tariffs
  • China to remove specified non-tariff barriers and recognizes that the U.S. may impose import restrictions and tariffs on products in critical sectors, including sectors identified in the Made in China 2025 industrial plan.

U.S. Services and Services Suppliers
  • A demand for China to improve market access in specified ways

U.S. Agricultural Products
  • A demand for China to improve market access in specified ways

Implementation
  • Both countries to meet quarterly to review targets and reforms
  • If the U.S. declares China is not complying with the framework, the U.S. can impose tariffs or other restrictions on Chinese products or restrict supply of services
  • A demand that China does not “oppose, challenge or take any form of action against the United States’ imposition of additional tariffs or restrictions.”
  • China to withdraw its WTO complaints regarding designations of China as a non-market economy and will refrain from future challenges
  • Within 15 days of receiving written notice of a prohibited product that may have been transshipped through one or more countries, China will provide full details of every shipment. Failure to do so will trigger tariffs.
  • If China fails to uphold commitments the U.S. will impose tariffs on imports from China and will confiscate counterfeit and pirated goods or levy tariffs to compensate for lost technologies and intellectual property.
  • A demand that China does not take any retaliatory action in response.

The following is a synopsis of China’s demands:
  • In an official document seen by Bloomberg News, China stated that measures to open up its economy will not be applicable to U.S. investors if the U.S. doesn’t meet China’s request on equal treatment of Chinese investment. Other requests of the U.S. included:
    • Lift bans on exports of integrated circuits to China.
    • Stop imposing 25 percent extra tariffs against Chinese products.
    • Open government procurement to Chinese technology products and services.
    • Give equal treatment to Chinese companies in national security review.
    • Adjust the export ban on ZTE. Corp.
    • Drop surrogate-country approach in anti-dumping, anti-remedy cases.
    • Not to initiate any Section 301 investigation against China in the future.
    • Open its e-payment market to Chinese companies.
    • Approve China International Capital Corp.’s application for a financial license.
    • Open the e-payment market to Chinese companies
That list is so ridiculous I would have deported them on the spot just for presenting me with the papers LOL.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
Demographics and economics, with some history added in.

Beijing has been loathed to encourage the consolidation of China’s post revolution small family plot centric farming model for a number of reasons, chief of which is social harmony and stability.

With the family plot, all the hundreds of millions of migrant works have that as a fall back option. After they have made enough money, they can go home to invest and make an easy living running small business; and/or as times get though, as it did after the 2008 crash, they can always buy a one-way ticket home and have a means of feeding themselves and their families pretty much indefinitely.

Without this easy fallback option, after 2008 you would have had millions of unemployed migrant workers hanging around the cities for lack of a better alternative, with no state safety net, which would have inevitably lead to increased crime, inequality, social friction, exploitation and all the other bad stuff.

Keeping this alternative form of social safety net has is costs, with inefficiency the chief one.

Also, with the bulk of the young workers having gone to the cities, the older people left on the farms have tended to favour less labour intensive crops like fruits, vegetables and anminals etc.

Fruit and veg are quick to perish, so shipping costs are prohibitively high for long distance imports from countries with highly efficiency large scale mechanised farming like the US and EU; perishability and trade barriers protect much of the meat market. But grains are exposed to market forces, making it economically unattractive for Chinese farmers to grow them on top of the high labour investment needed.

But I see an obvious flaw with the arguments made in that AT article. It seems to be ignoring economic basics.

It seems to be assuming that prices for soya beans are supposed to stay static even after 25% tarriffs on US beans kick in.

That’s pure nonsense for all the reasons they listed.

Thing is, soyabeans is hardly an essential and hard to replace commodity.

As prices for them increase, demand will naturally fall until an equilibrium point is naturally reached.

China did not start this trade war, so the Chinese populous is going to be far more understanding and willing to tolerant any economic hardships that result than the US public will be.

You are not going to see anyone starving to death or rioting in the street for a lack of tofu or soyabean milk. As prices increase, people will switch to alternatives and/or simply change their consumption patterns.

What China is doing is starting to make supply and demand side policy changes to try and minimise any hardship from such a transition.

That’s just plain basic common sense and a clear signal that China isn’t bluffing or planning to back down in this standoff. So the adjustment between supply and demand is going to be quicker and smoother than a pure market driven adjustment. That is pretty much the fundamental essence of capitalism with Chinese characteristics.

Beijing decides the overall strategic direction the economic should be heading in, and uses market forces as a tool (among many) to achieve that and work out the finer details so they can focus on the big picture instead of getting bogged down with all the details like how the Soviets failed.

The fundamental problem the Americans are facing is that so long as Beijing keep getting the big calls right in identifying the key economic and scientific strategic areas to focus on, as it has been, China’s state directed capitalism model is fundamentally more efficient and effective than America’s market driven model at achieving breakthrough and consolidated gains.

If America wasn’t so blinded by its own dogma and rhetoric about the divine supremacy of the Holy Market, and critically analysed its own recent history, they will find that their own zenith was also achieved under similar strategic state planning. Which was done in the name of winning the Cold War. And done through the vast sums America and the west invested in defence R&D and procurement.

Most of the western, and especially American, 80-90s commercial economic golden age had its roots in government funded R&D programmes, the fruits from which were subsequently made available to Corporate America for nearly free afterwards. Just look at the iPhone as a case in point. Every one of the 10 key technologies that made it possible started off as government funded military programmes.

And those technologies were made available for pretty much all American companies, and at laughably cheap prices.

Since the end of the Cold War, western government R&D spending was slashed, and worse, what was being spent lacked the coherent planning and direction of the Cold War years.

To very crudely summarise, without the threat of the soviets to focus their efforts, US and western government funded R&D projects started to become more and more abstract and about pure theoretics, and lacked the hard edged practicality consideration that made Cold War government R&D so useful and valuable for corporate America.

Think the ISS, LHC, Hubble even. While those did produce interesting theoretical findings, there was very little practical use for their results or technologies. I call them vanity programmes because they are more about winning Nobel prizes than trying to produce practically useful and commercially viable fruits (which are considered low brow considerations by the lofty minded scientists without a government task master keeping them in check).

When corporate America does dig into its own pockets to develop new tech, they go to great lengths of keep the fruits for themselves. Just look at the endless petty lawsuits between Apple and Samsung for example. Although America’s ludicrous patent system is a monster of a mess in its own right.

Those are the key reasons why corporate America has been largely treading water since the mid to late 2000s, after all the gains from Cold War era government R&D have all been exhausted and the rest of the world started to catch with with America in terms of commercial tech levels.

When American goods are no longer technologically unrivalled, the world stopped being willing to pay the massive premiums that allowed blue collar America to live the lavish lifestyles they have grown accustomed to. That was a core reason for the long slow decline of American manufacturing.

But American dogma about the absolutely divine supremacy of the almighty Market makes it impossible for them to acknowledge and accept this. And without such a watershed moment of epiphany, there is little hope of a fundamental change of course needed to arrest, never mind reverse the overall trend of China’s relentless gains in America’s now slender lead.

That is a secret unspoken reason for why so many of America’s leaders and strategists secretly or even openly wish for a new Cold War.

They hope that with a new bogeyman to scare people with, they can again backdoor a version of China’s government directed market economic model (which to be fair, China first learnt from the Americans themselves) in America.

The people pushing and cheering on Trump to start this trade war has this exact objective in mind, even if they deny it to even themselves.

They want to at one end do as much damage to China as possible to delay China’s rise; while at the same time start getting the American people used to the idea of seeing China as the enemy.

Nice story but a bit of background research revealed the real rationale which is a lot more prosaic, till 2016 the Chinese government subsidised corn (maize) production so everyone grew corn, this caused a massive glut, the 2016 5 year plan sought to rebalance production substituting soybeans for corn in the NE provinces increasing acreage and production.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


If you don't believe the lying western banking cabal's report it's also in the actual 13th 5 year plan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So the reason why soybeans wasn't grown in its home range was that the Chinese government subsidised corn production and those "poor peasant farmers" took full advantage of the subsidies!

But hey nice story.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top