Reefer2 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:31 pm
I will say the positives about Trump and that is his stance against China and adding China to the reduction of specific missile types. China has slowly influenced countries and that needs to be managed.
I respectfully disagree.
Not that the China situation does not need to be managed, but I think he has been very ineffective in doing so and gone about it in a very incompetent manner.
1)
Walking out of the TPP. The Trans Pacific Partnership was all about strengthening the US economic influence and presence in the Pacific region, as a counterweight to the looming presence of China. Thus the concept of a free trade agreement between 12 countries
not including China. Trump couldn't stand it because it was negotiated by Obama, but walking out of it pretty much meant ceding the Pacific to China by forfeiting the game.
The original TPP would have boosted U.S. exports and economic growth. This should create more jobs and prosperity for the 12 countries involved. It will increase exports by $305 billion per year by 2025. U.S. exports would increase by $123.5 billion. It would benefit the machinery, auto, plastics, and agriculture industries.
It would have increased exports by removing 18,000 tariffs placed on U.S. exports to the other countries. The United States has already withdrawn 80% of these tariffs on imports. The TPP would have evened the playing field.
The agreement would have added $223 billion a year to incomes of workers in all the countries, with $77 billion going to U.S. workers.
Notably, the TPP excluded China. That was deliberate. It was meant to balance the trade dominance of both China and India in East Asia. The TPP would have given the United States an excuse to intervene in trade disputes in the oil-rich South China Sea. China has been beefing up its military to back its incursions in that area.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the- ... ip-3305581
2)
The steel tariffs. The European Union has been equally concerned about Chinese price-dumping when it comes to steel, and the US could easily have made a joint protest with the EU to the WTO and then the two could have worked out anti-dumping measures against China that would have been in accordance with international law and accepted practice. Instead Trump went all rogue and imposed steel and aluminium tariffs on everyone, including close friends and allies such as Canada, Norway, South Korea, etc, citing national security reasons. This was completely unfair, as neither the EU nor Canada was dumping steel prices. And there is no way buying steel and/or aluminium from Canada or Norway in any reasonable way could be considered a threat to US national security. That was just bullshit, as everyone also pointed out, and no genuine concern. By throwing the metal industries of his friends and allies under the bus, Trump also created a two front war instead of focusing on China. Of course the EU would not take this lying down, so they quickly imposed countermeasures calculated to cause maximal damage to US industries. Thus instead of engaging the EU to create a united front against China, Trump pissed the EU off and created two trade wars instead of one.
“We have a problem: China is dumping the market, China is subsidizing their industry, this creates global distortions. We can agree on that. So what is the solution? Well, we think it is to cooperate on China,” Malmstrom told Bloomberg News in an interview in Washington. “The solution to these problems is not imposing tariffs on the European Union. Why is that so hard to understand?”
Trump last month received a Commerce Department report on the national-security risks of automobile and car part imports and has until mid-May to make a decision on whether to impose tariffs. He’s repeatedly threatened to hit EU vehicles with tariffs of as much as 25 percent.
The EU would retaliate against 20 billion euros ($22.4 billion) in American goods, Malmstrom said in the interview. A broad list of products is being drawn up, and among those targets could be segments of the U.S. auto industry, she said.
“I would do that with a very heavy heart,” she said. “We should work on common threats and common challenges and not impose tariffs on each other.”
The EU was “deeply offended” by the fact that the U.S. has designated it a national-security risk when the Trump administration imposed tariffs on EU steel and aluminum exports, Malmstrom said at an event earlier Thursday. She said those duties, the threat of even more tariffs targeting European autos and the “very harsh rhetoric” have led to a lack of trust in the transatlantic relationship.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-on-china
3.
Recent additional tariffs on Chinese products. No one wins a trade war. It hurts everyone. But rather than trying to negotiate a solution that could resolve matters, Trump resorts to what he knows best - bullying. He hopes the US financial muscle can outlast China in a war of attrition, so he doubles down and raises the stakes. But he needs to remember that his adversary this time is not some mom and dad subcontractor that he can run into the ground without much effort. The Chinese outnumber Americans four to one, and in an autocracy they do not need to worry about public opinions or being reelected. They can play hardball. The Chinese have responded this week by lowering the value of the yuan, thus undercutting prices, and deciding to stop buying soybeans from the USA. Bear in mind, soy beans is the most important agricultural export product of the USA and the backbone of Iowa's economy. And China is their main export market. As a result the stock markets are falling. Dow Jones fell 2.9% yesterday and Nasdaq 3.5%. And it's not just a local effect in the US. Stock markets are falling throughout the world.
The weak yuan ignited fear on Wall Street that a currency war has begun or that the United States would respond with even higher tariffs, prolonging the standoff with China and potentially weakening the global economy. Investors are particularly concerned that the Trump administration could try to devalue the dollar, sparking a currency war that could weaken Americans' purchasing power.
"Risks of Trump intervening in foreign exchange markets have increased with China letting the yuan go," wrote Viraj Patel, FX and global macro strategist at Arkera, on Twitter. "If this was an all out currency war - the US would hands down lose. Beijing [is] far more advanced in playing the currency game [and has] bigger firepower."
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/05/inve ... index.html
All in all - it's a mess.
Yes, the US needs to address rising Chinese influence, if they want to stay on top, but Trump is doing it all wrong.
He should build alliances with others to counter Chinese expansion. Instead he backs out of the TPP, alienates Europe and let's the American consumers foot the bill for his ineffective posturing. Because in the end it is the American consumer that pays the tariffs on imports.
And it is the farmers in Iowa that will go bankrupt when they cannot sell their soy beans.
‘the smaller Aegean islands’ means any islands in the Aegean Sea except the islands of Crete and Evia.
