Translation: 'Biden is a Poo Poo Head. I like Trump. We could have gotten a Big Soybean Deal with Trump'.
China, Russia officials in united stand against U.S. and other nations
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Translation: 'Biden is a Poo Poo Head. I like Trump. We could have gotten a Big Soybean Deal with Trump'.
no translation needed jack, just your deflection from the reality that Biden is following the same nonsense
of strategic patience instead of confronting China
but at least he's thinking about it!
roflno translation needed jack, just your deflection from the reality that Biden is following the same nonsense
of strategic patience instead of confronting China
but at least he's thinking about it!
I've given you my opinion. Biden plans on going with a 'United Front', where a bloc of Western Nations take a Single Position on China and it's Trade Policies.
That seems like the smart move to me.
You, on the other hand, have no position. You simply 'parrot' Trump as though he holds The Answer to everything. If Trump would have assembled a Coalition, you would have lauded Trump as a Genius, ... but since it is Biden, your partisanship compels you to ridicule the idea.
no Jack, your fantasies aside Trump understood multi-national orgs. like the WTO are toothless when it comes to enforcing trade agreements.
we frequently win appeals, but no recourse (compensation)...do you understand this much?
so how would yet another multi-national org be any different? It wouldn't + China is good at soft power manipulation to separate any united front.
The answer does not lie with multi-nationals; it lies in a bilateral trade agreement instead
If you had bothered to follow the ( US trade rep.) Lighthizer trade talks instead of yammering about "soybeans" you would have seen extensive areas addressed
Section-by-Section Analysis
One of the most notable provisions of the Phase One agreement is a ban on forced technology transfer – a common practice in China that requires U.S. companies to share their technology with Chinese firms in exchange for market access. The deal also prohibits China from making strategic investments in U.S. firms, not for economic reasons, but for the purpose of acquiring technology.
The chapter on intellectual property is especially comprehensive. China agreed to criminal enforcement against trade secret theft, including corporate espionage, and agreed to reduce counterfeiting by blocking the online distribution of counterfeit goods and increasing inspections at the border. China also agreed to strengthen the protection and increase the availability of patents, including pharmaceutical patents.
In agriculture trade, China agreed to reduce non-tariff barriers that inhibit U.S. exports of beef, poultry, dairy, and other agricultural products. One example is sanitary and phytosanitary measures. While these regulations intend to protect consumers from diseases and contaminants in food, they are akin to trade barriers if they are too restrictive. The Phase One trade deal ensures that any regulations of this kind are non-discriminatory and based on science.
China agreed to be more transparent in its enforcement of tariff rate quotas (TRQs) – a trade barrier that applies lower tariffs to a certain quantity of imports and higher tariffs to imports above the quota. Previously, China did not allow fair imports under TRQs; instead it artificially limited its imports so that the quotas were never reached. For this reason, the United States brought a lawsuit against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2017, a case that China lost. The new trade agreement requires China to uphold its WTO commitments by being transparent and fair in its management of TRQs.
China also agreed to be transparent about its subsidies to the agricultural sector, essentially agreeing to adhere to a separate WTO ruling. It is worth noting, however, that due to steps taken by the Trump Administration, the WTO will no longer be able to enforce rulings like this moving forward.
The financial services chapter includes Chinese commitments to lower barriers to U.S. financial services providers such as banks, insurance companies, and electronic payment providers, opening its financial industry to foreign ownership. These market-oriented provisions are undoubtedly positive, but many of these Chinese reforms were in the works before the trade agreement was signed.
Up to this point, the Phase One agreement takes great steps to institute much needed market-oriented reforms in China. The chapter on currency manipulation, a new feature of trade agreements under the Trump Administration, is not as valuable. This chapter states that neither the United States nor China may competitively devalue its currencies to gain an advantage in global trade and both must respect each other’s independent monetary policy decisions. Separately, the Trump Administration reversed China’s formal designation as a currency manipulator, a designation it made just five months ago.
Provisions against currency manipulation are intended to combat China’s long history of currency manipulation, albeit a phenomenon that hasn’t occurred since China abandoned its dollar peg in 2005. If enforced, however, provisions like these could infringe on the United States’ ability to use monetary policy as a tool against economic downturns, depending on the definition of a “competitive devaluation.”
The penultimate chapter on expanding trade is arguably one of the deal’s most controversial. The chapter contains specific pledges from China to purchase $200 billion of additional goods and services (over 2017 levels) from the United States over the next two years. Reaching this goal would necessitate a 150 percent increase in Chinese purchases over 2017, or a 170 percent increase over a five-year average, an increase that cannot possibly reflect market demand. More likely, this chapter was negotiated in hopes that the Chinese government would exert its central control to force an increase of certain imports from the United States – a trade distorting activity that will likely raise costs for Chinese consumers. The agreed increase will be on U.S. exports such as machinery, vehicles, agricultural products, crude oil and coal, financial services, and even Chinese tourism to the United States.
Read more: https://www.americanactionforum.org...hase-one-trade-deal-with-china/#ixzz6uxXnPPBE
Follow us: @AAF on Twitter
AND THE COMMANDER in CHIEF'S FAMILY HAS TAKEN $$ FROM BOTH....
How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections...including foreign money
https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-f...dens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/
What you posted is from Jan. 2020. What you left out is this part:
"Any trade deal is only as good as its enforcement mechanism. It is questionable whether an enforcement mechanism based entirely on bilateral negotiations will be successful. Traditionally, trade disputes are handled by a neutral panel of experts, not by trade negotiators from countries engaged in the dispute. This structure helps to ensure that trade disputes are resolved and that their outcomes can be effectively enforced. The United States and China instead decided to resolve issues on their own, something they have not been able to do since the trade war began. If either country does not like the actions of the other and is unwilling to come to a compromise, the most likely recourse would be either more tariffs or trade agreement withdrawal."
This is from Feb. 2021.
"Anatomy of a flop: Why Trump's US-China phase one trade deal fell short"
https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-an...why-trumps-us-china-phase-one-trade-deal-fell
"According to evidence from the deal’s first year, China was never on pace to meet that commitment, with the economic devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic only partly to blame. Attempting to manage trade—to meet Trump’s objective of reducing the bilateral trade deficit—was self-defeating from the start. It did not help that neither China nor the United States was willing to deescalate their debilitating tariff war."
"Any trade deal is only as good as its enforcement mechanism. It is questionable whether an enforcement mechanism based entirely on bilateral negotiations will be successful. Traditionally, trade disputes are handled by a neutral panel of experts, not by trade negotiators from countries engaged in the dispute. This structure helps to ensure that trade disputes are resolved and that their outcomes can be effectively enforced. The United States and China instead decided to resolve issues on their own, something they have not been able to do since the trade war began. If either country does not like the actions of the other and is unwilling to come to a compromise, the most likely recourse would be either more tariffs or trade agreement withdrawal."
This is from Feb. 2021.
"Anatomy of a flop: Why Trump's US-China phase one trade deal fell short"
https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-an...why-trumps-us-china-phase-one-trade-deal-fell
"According to evidence from the deal’s first year, China was never on pace to meet that commitment, with the economic devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic only partly to blame. Attempting to manage trade—to meet Trump’s objective of reducing the bilateral trade deficit—was self-defeating from the start. It did not help that neither China nor the United States was willing to deescalate their debilitating tariff war."
i completely agree tryng to reduce the rtgade deficit was a Trump fantasy - and it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a traded deficit
as long as our balance of payments can be made up with other nations.. if not it's the least worrisome part of trade deals.
So I agree Trump's obsession was misplaced - however did you read the rest of it?
those are big deals -much more important then simple trade deficits
as to enforcement on the first article it's clear the WTO is a failure. there is this desire for a neutral 3rd party
according to the first article but that never works ( anotehr reason to stay out of the TPP)
having an ability to use tarriffs is a quick remedy -Biden has not taken them off - but it assumes both parties do not want tariffs and an ensuing trade war
--->"The phase one deal should not be ripped up, however. Several elements are worth keeping and building upon—such as China’s commitment to reduce nontariff barriers related to food safety and open up to foreign investment. China’s agreeing to crack down on intellectual property violations and the forced, insufficiently compensated, transfer of American technology will also prove beneficial if enforced."
Yes. Everyone agrees on this.
The WTO is the third party.
--->"The US auto sector provides an excellent illustration of how even temporary trade war tariffs can inflict long-term damage.[3] By 2017, China had become the second largest export market for American vehicles. Then, in July 2018, China retaliated with a 25 percent tariff on US autos. (In a savvy economic maneuver, it simultaneously lowered its auto tariff on imports from the rest of the world.)"
This is why a 'United Front' (rather than bi-lateral) needs to happen.
China stops buying American, and just starts buying European.
The ONLY nation hurt here ... is America.
You claim you want a check on growing Chinese hegemony.
From the USA's 21st century perspective, that check is more likely to run through New Delhi, than it is to be achieved by puckering up and kissing Putin's ass.
The Kremlin is even less likely to be a willing partner to help preserve American geopolitical power than New Delhi is.
Way less likely.
At least with India we have a starting point of two powerful democratic nations, sharing a tradition of English common law, and both of which see downsides to increasing Chinese hegemony
triangulation doesnt require a willing partner.
It only requires realpolitik - it' s very EZ from here. stop the endless sanctions, reverse those that prohibit Moscow from getting into the west banking, and for the cherry on the top put them back in the G-8.
Nobody has to be wiling to do anything in terms of a relationship; realpolitik means Russia will serve it's own best interest and shift a bit to the west..given these circumstances
It's a long way back -it may never happen completely given the nasty nature of Cold War 2 -but nations will follow their own best intersts
I still stand by my judgement that Russia is a fading global economic and military power and that MAGAs were fools for hollering that we had to kiss Putin's ass and beg him to be our friend to counter balance Chinese power.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Russia is the largest country on earth. Your judgement is clouded by your support for Ukrainian neo-Nazism, bugler.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
China's Wang Yi and Russia's Sergei Lavrov?
Come on man, you actually listen to these two used car salesmen?
Please!
Wang and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken talked by phone late last week. The State Department said that Blinken discussed the need to manage the U.S.-China relationship responsibly and raised concerns about Russia’s war against Ukraine and the threats it poses to global security and economic stability.
Wang accused the U.S. of “unilateral bullying” and said that China would continue to play a constructive role in resolving the Ukraine crisis in its own way.
Yes, right, and what way is that Mr. WANG DANG DOODLE? By acting as if you have their moral support?
Wang said, "It is necessary to step up consultations on the guiding principles of China-U.S. relations, promote dialogue at all levels, and resolve specific issues between the two countries through joint working groups".
So which country do you think means more to China, their relationship with Russia, their neighbor who is embarrassing them with their war in Ukraine, or the United States who happens to be their number one customer of foreign goods?
I think you know the answer!
Come on man, you actually listen to these two used car salesmen?
Please!
Wang and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken talked by phone late last week. The State Department said that Blinken discussed the need to manage the U.S.-China relationship responsibly and raised concerns about Russia’s war against Ukraine and the threats it poses to global security and economic stability.
Wang accused the U.S. of “unilateral bullying” and said that China would continue to play a constructive role in resolving the Ukraine crisis in its own way.
Yes, right, and what way is that Mr. WANG DANG DOODLE? By acting as if you have their moral support?
Wang said, "It is necessary to step up consultations on the guiding principles of China-U.S. relations, promote dialogue at all levels, and resolve specific issues between the two countries through joint working groups".
So which country do you think means more to China, their relationship with Russia, their neighbor who is embarrassing them with their war in Ukraine, or the United States who happens to be their number one customer of foreign goods?
I think you know the answer!
Last edited:
evince
Truthmatters
Russia is the largest country on earth. Your judgement is clouded by your support for Ukrainian neo-Nazism, bugler.
Land doesn’t fight idiot
moon
Satire for Sanity
Your simian grasp of language is nobody's fault but your own.