Trump Agrees Not To Raise Tariff Levels on Chinese Goods; China Agrees To US Purchases. Two Sides To Start Broader Negotiations. (wsj.com) 322
U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed Saturday to keep their trade war from escalating with a promise to temporarily halt the imposition of new tariffs [the link may be paywalled; alternative source], as the world's two largest economies negotiate a lasting agreement. China also agreed to further market opening, its foreign minister said. In a statement, White House said the U.S. had agreed not to increase tariffs on Chinese goods to 25% on Jan. 1. From a report: The truce between the U.S. and China emerged after a highly anticipated dinner Saturday between Trump and Xi on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Argentina. The leaders agreed to stop the introduction of new tariffs and intensify their trade talks, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters hours later in Buenos Aires. The White House called the meeting "highly successful," saying the U.S. will leave existing tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods at 10 percent and refrain from raising that rate to 25 percent as planned on Jan. 1. In exchange, the U.S. wants an immediate start to talks on Trump's biggest complaints about Chinese trade practices: intellectual property theft, non-tariff barriers and cyber theft. After 90 days, if there's no progress on structural reform, the U.S. will raise those tariffs to 25 percent, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. China also agreed to boost its purchases of agricultural and industrial goods to reduce its trade imbalance with the U.S., she said.
Why would China agree to anything in good faith? (Score:2)
If I were the Chinese, I would stall the process as long as possible. Trump may not make it to the next election and even if he does he may not win. The Chinese leadership is not responsible to the people of China which means they can do things that would get a president impeached or voted out. The Chinese are playing the long game and the USA is playing the short game. I am routing for the USA but it seems to me they may have already lost. I sure hope I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Chinese blinked. Trump got exactly what he wanted out of the tariff war. Trumps bellicose statements forced both Canada and Mexico to update the NAFTA trade pact. He didn't get everything he wanted but the US did get a better deal. One of the least talked about pieces of the agreement was requiring any Mexican worker involved in the manufacture automotive related products exported to the US have to earn a minimum of $15 per hour. The is not only good for the Mexican workers but it also removes the number on
Re: (Score:3)
I like the Mexico 15$ minimum wage but for the rest I'm not sure.
1) The US trade deficit with China is still on a solid increase.
https://www.census.gov/foreign... [census.gov]
2) On Nafta, all I remember is GM closing shop when it might have been put off and US manufactures paying more for steel.
And Trump may talk like China's policies are unjust to the US, but in his personal life he calls that kind of behavior a good business sense.
Re: (Score:2)
"1. Of course it is. Decades of exporting industry isn't going to turn on a dime."
Why it would change as long as US citizens prefer to buy stuff made in China.
"2. GM is a shit company and deserved to die years ago when it was about to keel over. Unlike the banks, taxpayers really didn't make bank on bailing out General Mediocrity."
Not saying it's going to die just redirecting it's energies.
On steel, like years ago for washers and dryers, American suppliers just raised the price of things like rolled steel w
Re:Why would China agree to anything in good faith (Score:4, Informative)
Trump may not make it to the next election...
Short of dying, how would he not make it? The Republicans still control the Senate, and the Senate is where Impeachment starts.
False. Impeachment is what the House does; trial is what the Senate does. The House can impeach President Trump, like they did President Clinton. But unless the Senate votes to convict - it's nothing. A charge, an allegation, a trial - and an acquittal.
This is very good. Double down Mr President.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The White House called the meeting "highly successful," saying the U.S. will leave existing tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods at 10 percent and refrain from raising that rate to 25 percent as planned on Jan. 1. In exchange, the U.S. wants an immediate start to talks on Trump's biggest complaints about Chinese trade practices: intellectual property theft, non-tariff barriers and cyber theft. After 90 days, if there's no progress on structural reform, the U.S. will raise those tariffs to 25 percent, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. China also agreed to boost its purchases of agricultural and industrial goods to reduce its trade imbalance with the U.S., she said.
And with this news, the Democrats will water down this achievement while fuming in their "war rooms" at the same time.
That, I can guarantee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're such idiots, how'd they get China to back down?
But China didn't back down - at least not yet. At the moment it's all words, and even those don't appear to address the most important issues: mandatory Chinese majority ownership [cnn.com] for companies trying to trade in China, mandatory transfer of intellectual property to the Chinese part and complete lack of enforcement of intellectual property laws against copycat Chinese companies. I reserve my judgement on the matter until I see concrete results - especially on those issues.
This is a pattern for Trump. He co
We got talks (Score:3)
Meanwhile the outsourcing continues, with GM moving 14,000 jobs to Mexico (and rather cleverly blaming it on declining demand for cars vs SUVs while ignoring the new SUV & Truck factories in Mexico).
Nothing change. Everything continues apace. Well, except we borrowed another $1 trillion as a giveaway to Trump's wealthy friends in the top 1%.
They didn't get anything (Score:2, Informative)
they got us to back down on tariffs.M
You really don't understand what is going on, do you?
There were never going to be tariffs that high. Trump laid them out as a gamut knowing China had a weaker position then the U,S. if those tariffs were actually implemented. So just as Trump knew would happen, China backed down and is now roughly doing what we want.
This the part of the world Trump knows cold, he knows how to work positive and negative sides of a deal to make the other party do what he wants. That has
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China backed down from what? All they committed to was pausing their retaliatory tariffs.
Re:They didn't get anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They didn't get anything (Score:5, Informative)
Right, but they bought less US agricultural products in response to the tariff. So, we're back to zero on agriculture as opposed to being in the negative.
Fentanyl was already a controlled substance. in China. In fact, it's just straight up illegal in China. It's legal in the US with a prescription. So they agreed to... not change their laws?
Ooh, they agreed to discuss things. I mean, yes that's progress. But they did the same discuss the exact same issue under Clinton, W. and Obama. It's what comes out of those talks that matters. And so far we've seen nothing (from any president from Clinton on).
Yeah. So far China's given up nothing other than holding off on their retaliation to our tariffs. In return, they made Trump blink. I'd call that winning.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree all those are issues. But this doesn't solve any of them. All Trump got was the agreement to talk about those issues. Which Clinton got, W. got and Obama got. Nothing came out of those talks then, and nothing has come out of Trump's policies either.
TL;DR this isn't a solution. Call me when he actually solves a problem.
Re:We got talks (Score:4, Informative)
they got us to back down on tariffs.
Nope. The 10% in place stays in place. China agreed (finally) to talk about IP theft, trade balance, and drug controls. And for that they get a 90 day stay against an INCREASE from 10% to 25%.
OTOH Trump probably couldn't have done those tariffs anyway. Not without wrecking the economy.
No sign that the tariffs in place since September have done much to the economy or country, so what makes you think you'd have bigger impacts from the additional tariffs on $200 billion in trade? We're talking about tariffs going from $20 billion to $50 billion.
Meanwhile the outsourcing continues, with GM moving 14,000 jobs to Mexico (and rather cleverly blaming it on declining demand for cars vs SUVs while ignoring the new SUV & Truck factories in Mexico).
Yep! And thanks to the President, when GM does move those jobs, they have to pay at least $16/hour for the labor in Mexico [vox.com], meaning there is a LOT less incentive to move the jobs in the first place - and it will rapidly build up the Mexican economy too.
Nothing change. Everything continues apace. Well, except we borrowed another $1 trillion as a giveaway to Trump's wealthy friends in the top 1%.
Yeah, he's got another $9 trillion to go before he equals his predecessor, who also gave away 17% of the economy to his friends in Big Pharma and Big Healthcare...
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't war rooms, they're Starbucks.
Re: (Score:2)
What was achieved is that China has learned the value of a country throwing its economic weight around, just as Russia learned the value of nuclear weapons in 1945.
Are these really the lessons we want to be teaching the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh for fucks sake, the damage is done. How many jobs were lost already because of this bullshit tradewar.
Unemployment rate [bls.gov] doesn't seem affected... so I'd say - none?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, the percent of the civilization population employed is still less than the two decades between 1987 and 2008. So, is the unemployment rate really that low, are are the chronically unemployed just no longer counted as in the labor force. Hint, you have to go back to the mid-1970's to get a population with less participation in the l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you were being snide about the unemployment rate, and using that as an argument. And when I pointed out the flaws in that one number, you shifted the goalpost.
You mean other than basic economics?
Re: (Score:2)
Unemployment rate [bls.gov] doesn't seem affected... so I'd say - none?
The unemployment rate measures employment, not specific jobs. It also measures into the past not taking into account anything in the future. All those GM plants that are closing? Yeah they aren't in your unemployment rate. That Harley Davidson plant that won't be built in the USA? That's not in the unemployment rate. Desperate people taking jobs as janitors after they lost their better paying jobs in manufacturing? That's not in your unemployment rate.
The only conclusion you can draw is that unemployment is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a number. I only pointed out the fault in using unemployment figures as part of your argument. Just as I will do now in this argument: Different companies are differently exposed various macro-economic changes. Just because Ford and Chrysler aren't laying off people doesn't mean the GM decision wasn't driven by tariffs. May I remind you that you just compared a company that needed a bail out in the USA to a company which didn't? By your same reasoning there was no automotive industry crisis in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's quite possible that there were no jobs lost due to the tariffs.
Except for those where companies have announced plant closures directly citing the tariffs you'd be right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good question, how many jobs were lost? I'd like to see an analysis of that.
Likely near zero. The Chinese retaliatory tariffs were mostly on farm products: soybeans, corn, wheat.
But the tariffs were imposed after the crops were planted in the Spring of 2018, and have now been repealed before next year's spring planting. So they made little practical difference to production or employment.
The steel and aluminum tariffs likely cost more jobs, but those had little to do with China, which exports little steel or aluminum to America (except in finished goods), and mainly affected tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The world does not revolve around you belief system.
Development is a wonderful thing. The Chinese have already decided that Intellectual Property protection is in their best interest, now they have a lot of their own Intellectual Property to protect.
At best, Trump is going to gain credit for the already-happened.
Attem
Fucking idiot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of US companies were being threatened by those tariffs. 25% on the components they need to do manufacturing in the US. 25% on goods they get OEM'd from China.
Sure Apple could withstand it, but plenty of companies operate on smaller margins than that.
Re: (Score:3)
Tariffs are idiotic and Trump is stupid for using them at all.
Permanent tariffs are idiotic. But temporary tariffs to force a trading partner to the bargaining table can sometimes be a smart move.
If the Chinese want to make their own citizens pay more for goods when they could buy cheaper American ones, that's their loss.
It is also America's loss. Trade is win-win. Restraints on trade are lose-lose.
At least, trump needs to rework corp taxes (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see the following:
A 0% corporate income tax on any company domiciled in the US.To be domiciled in the US, you must meet the following criteria:
1. Your headquarters must be located within the 50 States
2. Your primary financial institutions and auditors must be domiciled within the 50 States
3. At least 60% of your VP-or-higher executives must live at least 200 days a year within the 50 States
4. At least 67% of your board of directors must live at least 200 days a year within the 50 St
Re: At least, trump needs to rework corp taxes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what does this mean? (Score:2)
secret leaked information (Score:2)
They agreed to throw in the lead paint coating for free on all their toys. Lead is expensive. It's a really good deal.
Common Problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump blinked in the fight he started (Score:3, Insightful)
How much more evidence is required to conclude Trump is not the brilliant 'deal' strategist he thinks he is. He's failed with North Korea, his attempt to sabotage NAFTA also failed, he failed to intimidate the EU and now he's failed to get a better deal from China, which despite his bluster is pretty much the status quo with tweeks that regular diplomats could achieve in a heartbeat without any drama.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you missed something watching only-CNN but on all those fronts the US is doing pretty well. NK has backed down, the EU has backed down and is even agreeing to the UK exit and now China is backing down.
China and NK know very well that their military strength is still nothing compared to the US, we could bring one or two carrier strike groups and literally disable the entire Chinese navy (1 severely technologically deficient aircraft carrier in the entire country), the US doesn't even have to
Re:Trump caves for peanuts (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't cave. Current tariffs remain in place. Only the increase to 25% in January has been suspended pending further negotiations on IP theft and non-tariff barriers to trade. Overall, this is a pretty good outcome, and hopefully remaining issues can be resolved, and the existing tariffs can be lifted as well.
TFA is paywalled. Here is an alternative article [bloomberg.com].
IP theft doesn't matter to me (Score:2)
All he did was get them to agree to talk. That's not much of an outcome. Also, there's no way in hell Trump could throw an across the board 25% tariff on Chinese goods on the books. We rely on cheap Chinese goods to make up for declining and/or stagnant wages. His base, and indeed the entire country, would notice that big time. It would torpedo his next election.
This whole thing is political theater. Full of sound and f
Re:IP theft doesn't matter to me (Score:4, Insightful)
All he did was get them to agree to talk.
Not true. China agreed to immediately start buying more American goods, especially farm products. Higher soybean prices in America, and cheaper tofu in China. Win-win.
Re: (Score:2)
China has made that proposal back in June. And if the US insists raising the tariffs after 90 days, you can be sure this agreement is over and China will stop buying US farm products.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work that way. Modern factory farms will have huge die-offs if not well-managed, and well managed livestock won't spread disease at the rate that causes a big problem.
If they are susceptible to biological warfare targeting livestock, they're already experiencing disease epidemics naturally. If they can prevent natural epidemics that are expected when you have that many animals in a small area, they're already preventing the sort of small-scale biological warfare that you envision.
It isn't enough
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Bill,
Nice to see you alive and kicking.
I can't say that this was a Win-Win in a political dimension. While it was in-fact more of a "blinking contest," there is more underlying dynamics to it.
See, Trump is seen as a man to took on to initiate aggression, he took some flak back, but in the end he will be seen as somebody who taught China a lesson, even if he didn't, but Xi will be seen a man who made a big commitment to teach America a lesson, spectacularly failing at that, and at huge price to Chinese in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember Trump destroys everything he touches. And the U.S. is has gained nothing except the animosity of its allies and the contempt of its enemies. Most countries know what Trump is. Any "nice" things they come out with are mere to pump his ego, they will agree to nothing substantially good for the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please do fuck right off with your doom and gloom bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
"We planted Soy this year... no one bought it and the silos can't take it... so we dumped it in a yard next to the silos and got paid"
"Next year, we'll flood the corn or grain market because the tariffs are killing demand for soy today and we'd rather plant stuff with demand"
"Trump has been giving us money so we don't have to worry about losing the farm"
"We'll suffer like this today so that
Re:IP theft doesn't matter to me (Score:4, Insightful)
China's been willing to talk all along. The Trump Administration couldn't find anything like a coherent policy position from themselves. And anything they have floated amounted to telling China to stop advancing to a super-power, which went over very well with the Chinese, as you can expect.
Re: (Score:2)
They're willing to talk, but the trade dispute is about trade, not about willingness to talk. :)
And Trump doesn't really need a coherent position, since the Chinese haven't been willing to "negotiate," only to "talk."
His lack of coherency is what is slowing him down, thankfully, since most of his opponents are just as incoherent.
Wouldn't call this an outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
So far, it's just discussion.
The common theme of President Trump throughout his presidency is this: he's a chaotic leader. You cannot question that he is an effective leader -- just look at the success he has at his rallies. I'm not saying you have to like the guy or his methods, but you have to at least acknowledge that he is successful at inspiring people to follow him. And he does it by being chaotic.
And his approach to China is no different. Just as he tells reporters about meeting Russia at the G20 summit ("Maybe I will, maybe I won't."), or about Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's involvement in Khashoggi's death ("Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't."), Trump is consistently ambiguous and aloof regarding his position with practically anything. What he says to China today can still change tomorrow. There are no guarantees, only promises. And China is as good at keeping their promises as Trump is.
So, while that chaos does give us leverage against China (what little we have), I predict it's still going to get us nowhere in the end. While Trump may momentarily have the upper hand, he has a grievous fault that will work against it: he's narcissistic. It's impossible for him to negotiate for what's good for the United States. He negotiates for himself, aiming for outcomes that give him clout (i.e. USMCA, but don't you dare call it "New NAFTA") and economic gain (i.e. tax cuts). He doesn't give a damn about the soybean farmers and every other working class American suffering while this deal is getting negotiated and worked out. Nor will he care about who benefits or doesn't in the end, so long as he gets his.
Re:Wouldn't call this an outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot question that he is an effective leader -- just look at the success he has at his rallies. I'm not saying you have to like the guy or his methods, but you have to at least acknowledge that he is successful at inspiring people to follow him. And he does it by being chaotic.
I do question many aspects of his effectiveness as a leader. There are some things and policies that I think he's doing right and others that I think are wrong. His rallies only show that the Republican base enthusiastically supports him. However, that base represents less than a majority of Americans. Trump has energized Democrats in a way that not even Obama could do. Trump has failed miserably in getting citizens and political leaders outside of his base (i.e., the majority) to follow him. This is the true measure of leadership, and in this regard, he has failed miserably.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You cannot question that he is an effective leader -- just look at the success he has at his rallies. I'm not saying you have to like the guy or his methods, but you have to at least acknowledge that he is successful at inspiring people to follow him.
That doesn't make him an effective leader, just popular with a certain segment. For example he has failed to reform healthcare, failed to build the wall or make Mexico pay for it, failed to get the Muslim travel ban in place, failed to fight for LGBT rights as he promised to... Not to mention how many staff members he has been through in just a couple of years.
Trump isn't some genius leader or businessman, he's a failure. His life is littered with failures, from Trump Airlines to Trump Steaks to Trump Unive
Bloomberg also has a paywall (Score:2)
TFA is paywalled. Here is an alternative article [bloomberg.com].
Bloomberg also has a (metered) paywall, and I believe Slashdot has linked to enough stories from Bloomberg in the past 30 days to exceed the limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, there's a world of other places for China to get it's soybeans and other agricultural products, and all of Europe, Asia, and the rest of the Americas to ship it's smart devices to. It's US
And a big chunk of that goes to the Chinese (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And a big chunk of that goes to the Chinese (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: And a big chunk of that goes to the Chinese (Score:2)
If Chinese investors do a better job running those farms, are Americans any worse off because they are more productive?
Your definition of "better job" is no doubt the Chinese would use.
However, I'm sure our definition would be rather different.
Re: (Score:2)
What does is matter who owns them? If we ever went to war or something like that, it's pretty easy to seize those assets, since they're in the U.S. and so are the people who actually work on them.
Right up until somebody sues and a court puts an injunction on it. And that will happen faster than you can say "BBQ pork, please".
Re:And a big chunk of that goes to the Chinese (Score:5, Insightful)
since we let them buy up our hog farms. That was just nuts, BTW. Who the hell lets a hostile foreign power buy it's food supply? Seriously, who does that?
Do you think they packed up the hog farms and moved them to China?
China does not control our food supply. We control THEIR food supply. Or at least their pork supply.
Prior to buying the hog farms they were buying up American corn and soybeans, shipping them to China, and using them to raise hogs. Then they bought the hog farms so they could raise the hogs in America, and ship one jin of pork instead of 10 jin of pig food. It is just basic economic efficiency, and benefits both countries.
Smithfield Foods bought by Shuanghui Group [wikipedia.org]
1 jin = 500g
Re: (Score:2)
1 jin = 604.8g
Wrong. The PRC jin is exactly 500 grams [wikipedia.org].
The old standard of 604.8 grams is occasionally used in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but not in mainland China.
Re: (Score:2)
No other civilized country allows non-citizens to own real estate... except for the US
Most countries allow foreign ownership of land.
China does not, but China doesn't allow its own citizens to own land either. All land title is held by the state.
and it is causing rents to spiral out of control.
1. Property values are going up because of an imbalance of supply and demand. Remove restrictions on new construction and the problem is solved.
2. Foreigners buying real estate in America is a GOOD THING. It is wealth coming into America and being invested here. It requires some real mental gymnastics to believe foreign investment is bad for Ame
Re: (Score:2)
No other civilized country allows non-citizens to own real estate... except for the US
Most countries allow foreign ownership of land.
That's insanely derpy. Just go and do a web search on what countries a foreigner can buy land in. I know you're allergic to looking up your claims to check, but just try it. It will be funny.
Re: (Score:2)
If they just rent seek from it, the profits just go overseas and it's a loss.
The Chinese buying American real estate are not repatriating their profits.
The main point of buying property in America is to have a safe bolthole in case of political or financial turmoil in China. China has strict capital controls, so if you finally get your money out, the last thing you would want to do is send it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the lovely part of Baja that is over 50 miles from a coast?
Re: (Score:2)
What did you expect would happen? (Score:2)
Seriously, I mean. Saudis kill a Saudi in Turkey and we walk away from $500b in deals and abandon the upcoming Yemen peace negotiations? Thatâ(TM)d be utterly retarded, and for all his faults, Trump is most certainly not an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Exacty. And this is precisely why we need to impeach and get Hillary in for the last 18 months. Pelosi will nominate her.
LOL.. How many folks will we have to burn though to get to Hillary in the presidential succession rules? Let's see, the VP all of congress, all of the cabinet and a pile of federal employees... I think I'm in line before Hillary...
Re: Trump caves for peanuts (Score:2)
I think I'm in line before Hillary
Well now, when the time comes, you better be ready to step up to the plate. We're counting on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither are Apple keyboards. Your point is...?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he DID cave by limiting his hand, and of course he could not really possibly have already removed the tariffs by now anyway so using that as evidence he didn't cave is typical Shanghai dishonesty again.
It is widely being reported that way, but the details say he actually gave a "cease-fire" as a 90-day ultimatum to meet all his listed demands; no new tariffs if a deal is made within 90 days. Well golly, if a deal was made, at any time, there would not be new tariffs. So it isn't really much of anything except a delay of announced tariffs to see if a deal is really close. Which it probably is not.
Everybody is running in circles trying to figure out what their "side" is supposed to echo, and few even seem t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Peanuts are still better than bugger all. Trump fights the world when he goes against globalism, any tiny step he makes in the process compares favourably against the steps of every administration before him for the last 5 odd decades.
He killed the TPP, he's in the process of massively increasing the requirements for H-1B's, he's trying to renegotiate NAFTA with ISDS removed for most industries.
Do you think any other presidential candidate would have done or will do anything close to that? He's not very com
Re: (Score:3)
I particularly like how he put some of the worst stuff from the TPP into NAFTA2, knowing his base would be fine with it. Other then that, well he did delay GM closing a bunch of plants until the CUSMA was sure to be signed. Note that GM isn't closing any Mexican plants, instead they'll ramp up production down there and pay the small penalties for under paying the Mexican workers.
And considering how well America has done on the ISDS shit, why would you or Trump want it removed?
Re: (Score:2)
any tiny step he makes in the process compares favourably against the steps of every administration before him for the last 5 odd decades.
Wow. Just wow. I know people are sometimes blind to the past but this is some next level shit right here. Put on your blinders and turned in so far you can't even see the road in front of you let alone the one you've left in the past.
Enjoy America while it lasts. This will not end the way you think. Hell it already isn't working the way you think.
Re: (Score:2)
A vote for anyone else is a vote for the temporary collaboration between open border idealists and neo-feudalists towards a globalist future. Even politicians who are in their heart nationalist progressives like Sanders and Corbyn get bullied by the media into toeing the globalist line.
Globalism or Trump, those are the options ... and if you vote globalism, don't be surprised if the neo-feudalists come out on top.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Had to be done (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why?? The rest of the West has made it quite clear they despise America in general and Trump specifically. Why should we do anything for you ungrateful jerks? You've been very ugly about it, like an ex-wife trashing her former husband. Really hateful and nobody doubts that you were dead serious.
Make your own deals; stand on your own two feet. Daddy Trump is kicking you out of the basement and into the real world. It's for your own good. Learn to do things on your own.
Re: (Score:3)
- Chinese tariff levels and ownership restriction are WTO deals they reached with the US and the other developed countries some 20 years ago, in exchange China agreed to things like processing American trash which pollute its environment heavily. If the US didn't like the deal, why did it sign it. One thing I totally agree with President Trump: if we want to blame, we should blame the past US presidents. But why is that China's fault?
- Chinese currency manipulation is a myth: if you actually live in China f
Re:Had to be done (Score:5, Informative)
Itâ(TM)s the 16th time that the Obama administration has taken complaints about China to the WTO. Of the seven cases that have been decided, the U.S. has won all seven.
yeah Obama did nothing...
How this bullshit gets uprated i'll never understand.
Obama has done NOTHING ? None of you moronic moderators could spend 2 minutes searching to verify that he did NOTHING ?
https://www.washingtontimes.co... [washingtontimes.com]
And that article came from the Washington Times. Run by a right wing lunatic. Don't believe me check out the headlines at the bottom of the page. So much for fake news.
The democrats will praise this when they figure out if it really helps or not, since Trump and many of the members of his administration lie often and with impunity.
Also too, those tariffs the Trumpbots are rallying around are being paid by you, not by China.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama did nothing and I doubt Clinton would have either.
Obama did something. He allowed Americans to go on enjoying cheap products from China rather than forcing them to pay for the made in America prices that no one was very fond of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop spreading lies. The nazis had less socialised healthcare than in the monarchy days, the economy regulation was a war thing and their personal firearm laws were far more lenient than most European firearm laws nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes he is! And now you are stuck with a begreived dictator for live ruling world's second largest economy till he dies! Excellent!
This should be the ONE thing he does well (Score:2)
Putting big deal together is the one thing Trump has done well. He changes my stomach, so I'd hope we'd at least get some good dealsfrom his presidency.
Actually one other thing he does well - drumming up publicity, getting press.
I should have used preview. Horrible typing (Score:2)
Let's try that again:
Putting big deals together is the one thing Trump has done well in his life. He churns my stomach, so I'd hope we'd at least get some good deals from his presidency.
Actually one other thing he does well - drumming up publicity, getting press. Being President comes with automatic press, though, so his penchant for getting attention isn't something I'd expect the country to benefit from.