Mmm… That made me wonder what would happen if Xi decided to “hereby order” that China will not buy any US agricultural products from now on. So, not just a diminished market, but no market.
Putin would love it, I’m sure; more return on his investment in Trump. I’m also sure that some MAGAsses who farm would still support Trump even as they go broke and lose their farms: “China will come around any day now. Y’all will see.”
Okay, I guess this is where I say maybe JohnT was right after all, and maybe Trump really and truly will be single-handedly responsible for the upcoming recession. He certainly would be if he continues to exert this kind of pressure on international trade and the Fed. I mean, we knew that Trump didn’t understand markets, but I thought that since it’s clearly the economy that’s keeping his approval ratings above 40%, he would have the brains to stay out of his own way there, but he is seemingly dangerously obsessed with “winning” against China.
The bottom line is that if/when there’s a recession, Trump will make it much, much worse, possibly turning it into a depression. And the reason I’m confident of this is the fact that Trump simply does not understand how markets work. And there is nobody in his WH who has the ability to stop him.
Trump is a Trump-supremacist. He’s been raised from an early age to believe he has the best genes and is incapable of error. These things have contributed to the creation of a monster.
Now, on the one hand, it’s true that he’s doesn’t really give a shit about most whites. He generally only cares about racist policies and rhetoric because it makes his crowds cheer.
But on the other hand, being white himself, white supremacism is quite consistent with Trump-supremacy. So some of what they say appeals to him on an intellectual level, to the extent he (or they) have one.
It doesn’t even need to come down to “punish”.
Chinese culture is less individualistic, and tends to be more long-term (obviously there are pros and cons to this).
The US looks like a country that does not honor agreements and behaves extremely erratically.
China won’t forget that, and the excuse that it was just Trump may not wash.
Of course, the US is far too big a market to ignore, so deals will still need to be made. But trump’s legacy will affect how easy this will be to do, what terms can be expected and the breadth of such deals, negatively in all 3 senses.
And if you’re only signing the bare minimum trade deals, there’s less potential of quid pro quos on more broad agreements such as relating to security or the environment.
I agree: it’s not so much that China will “punish” the United States as it is the fact that they will never again believe that we’re stable and reliable enough to put so many eggs in the American basket. This is one example of how post-Trump America will have diminished clout. As you say, our market is still big enough to warrant attention, but all countries look at the US now as a country that has badly destabilized politically, and over time, we will become less of a safe haven. And merely being thought of as a safe haven undoubtedly generates a rather substantial amount of capital inflow and generates money and jobs throughout the economy. Losing that will have economic consequences.
I don’t disagree. I just find that it is useful to remember that while the effect is similar, the motivations are not.
which is why we need to show to the world that we find him unacceptable. If we just treat him as another president in a line of presidents, then the world has good reason to not trust us to elect another one. If we kick him out in such a way that shows that future demagogues will not be tolerated, then the world may decide to take us seriously again.
We treat him like he’s just another president every day. He’s “normal” now, which was inevitable when we elected him. America will have scars to show for this era - no getting around that.
I knew that China would be willing to suffer economic problems longer than the US, partially, and as mentioned above, because there is no election coming up. But one thing I did not think of, I don’t think Xi Jinping is going to agree to anything that lets Trump claim some victory over China.
The trade imbalance with China is a problelm. I hope it gets solved. But I am in this horrible position where I hope it doesn’t get done for a few years, after Trump is gone. I’m like those Republican voters continually voting against their own interests, supporing trickle down economics. We are in a position now where I think we have to be like McConnel when Obama got elected, we have to oppose anything Trump does no matter what it is. I’m like Bill Maher last year, it’s either a recession or lose your democracy. I mean I’m not saying we should try and cause a recession but I can’t say I would be heartbroken if it happens.
The trade imbalance is really not the issue, and it never should have been. I won’t disagree that the Chinese government could do more to help American businesses reach Chinese consumers, but American brands have done well in China. And Chinese investors have helped the American economy. If there’s one area where we really had good reason to go after China it’s theft of technology – that was worth at least a small skirmish over.
But taking on China unilaterally while also threatening similar trade wars with allies who could have helped us isolate China was just pure stupidity. In short, we’ve wasted some economic bullets.
I’ve been saying for a while that the only way Americans are going to get rid of the scourge of conservatism is to live with its consequences. Let’s maybe take away social safety nets, including SS and medicare, take away federal stimulus during economic downturns, and then see how Americans like it. They probably won’t.
So I guess Trump does have the right to order companies out of China if it’s a national emergency. I don’t think higher prices qualify, but if he could, I sure Trump would support a military solution.
Obviously, and yet this does not stop you from making conclusive statements about international economics. :rolleyes:
Yeah…I’m sure that’ll go over just fine and dandy with Ford, ExxonMobil, the Koch Group, and pretty much every major American company that does any business overseas.
I didn’t even look to see who wrote that. I’m just saying that that article is now all I know about the trade imbalance. Except for what Asashi said above, and I did know about the “theft of intellectual property” thing.
Oh and I remember many years ago, I think it was Milton Friedman on Donahue or something, basically saying China, and other countries, should make the things they are good at making, and we should make the things we are good at making. If it results in a trade deficit, so be it
I wasn’t trying to make any conclusive statements, unless you count my assumption that the trade imbalance was a big deal. Why do you think I said that? Because I didn’t know the answers
