China cancels 12,000 metric tons of US pork shipments (1 Viewer)

[anatta]

I read it.

You don't seem to understand what is meant by "Biden kept trump's tariffs against China".

Or you simply don't want to accept that bashing Biden for doing what trump did leaves egg on your face.

you could at least get the idea and text correct.

Biden kept in some tariffs, but not the agreement itself.

 

[ElChupacabra]

but it doesn't matter anymore then Trump's rhetoric. Both sides know exactly what is at take. both sides have negotiated before and both understand the stakes

I think China does more than this administration, and mainly because these actions reinforce the idea of continuing to reduce dependency on the US.

again the agreement did have provisions for agri purchases.Some soybeans and the like. I'm as certain as can be possible China had a lab leak for COVID. No it wasn't on purpose, but their reckless disregard of WTO ruling, COVID, and malign trade make them a powerful adversary.
Not to harp on Biden but he never got that - always calling China a "competitor" like relations had a rules based order. They didn't

It did and China never bought the amount it said it would.

We are doing the same, but are late to the game. Biden's “managed competition.” fell flat. Im not out to trash Biden but to put in context just how difficult is is to manage US/China trade relations,, Never mind the militaries

Yeah, it's a tricky thing to navigate because I don't think China's been a good actor either, and the question for both is whether in the long term, which country suffers more. Where this doesn't look great for the US is when we compare the changes in trading partners between both countries:

This is one of the reasons I think Trump's isolationist tendencies are going to be horrible for the US in the long run.

 

[anatta]

I think China does more than this administration, and mainly because these actions reinforce the idea of continuing to reduce dependency on the US.

China has a significant head start while we were content to continue cheap goods as the main trading metric.

It did and China never bought the amount it said it would.

It fell apart. their were provisions for trade disputes..If Biden had listen to US Trade Rep Katherine Tai, China would not have simply abandoned the agreement. Not that Biden was bound, but his managed competition was the SOS

Yeah, it's a tricky thing to navigate because I don't think China's been a good actor either, and the question for both is whether in the long term, which country suffers more. Where this doesn't look great for the US is when we compare the changes in trading partners between both countries:

It's a daunting task. Neither side can abandon each other long term. It's the short term squeeze that China is betting it can make Trump capitulate. Again though -do we just sit back and take it? we could but that's a long term bad deal too

This is one of the reasons I think Trump's isolationist tendencies are going to be horrible for the US in the long run.

Trump is not isolationist on trade. if you mean foreign engagement -that's a different subject, but foreign wars have only hurt the USA blood/treasure

 

[Pyrite]

you could at least get the idea and text correct.

Trump could have tried to restart his trade talks, but he hasn't. Could it be because they were DOA:

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2022/china-bought-none-extra-200-billion-us-exports-trumps-trade-deal

Two years ago, President Donald Trump signed what he called a "historical trade deal" with China that committed China to purchase $200 billion of additional US exports before December 31, 2021. Today the only undisputed "historical" aspect of that agreement is its failure. One lesson is not to make deals that cannot be fulfilled when unforeseen events inevitably occur—in this case, a pandemic and a recession. Another is not to forget the complementary policies needed to give an agreement a chance to succeed.

In the end, China bought only 58 percent of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war.[1] Put differently, China bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump's deal had promised.

Trump's "phase one" agreement with his "very, very good friend" President Xi Jinping was not a total washout. The deal did halt his spiraling trade war. And several of its elements should be kept, notably China's commitments to remove technical barriers to US farm exports, respect intellectual property, and open up its financial services sector.

However, signing something that was problematic, if not unrealistic, from the start, shows some degree of bad faith on both sides. After two years of escalating tariffs and rhetoric about economic decoupling, the deal did little to reduce the uncertainty discouraging the business investment needed to restart US exports. Most of Trump's tariffs remained in effect, especially on inputs, raising costs to US companies. And by failing to negotiate the removal of China's retaliatory tariffs, the agreement may have funneled any Chinese demand for US exports away from China's private sector toward its state-owned enterprises....

````````````````````

That 45's "trade deal" with China was a non-starter has become apparent.

Back to other matters: have you figured out the definition of "obsequious"?

 

[anatta]

Trump could have tried to restart his trade talks, but he hasn't. Could it be because they were DOA:

how in the hell could Trump restart trade talks after 4 years of abandonment by Biden?
Part of the reason China signed was because they saw Trump likely to be re-elected. Time was on Trumps side until COVID
It's not on Trumps (47) side

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2022/china-bought-none-extra-200-billion-us-exports-trumps-trade-deal

Two years ago, President Donald Trump signed what he called a "historical trade deal" with China that committed China to purchase $200 billion of additional US exports before December 31, 2021. Today the only undisputed "historical" aspect of that agreement is its failure. One lesson is not to make deals that cannot be fulfilled when unforeseen events inevitably occur—in this case, a pandemic and a recession. Another is not to forget the complementary policies needed to give an agreement a chance to succeed.

In the end, China bought only 58 percent of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war.[1] Put differently, China bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump's deal had promised.

Trump's "phase one" agreement with his "very, very good friend" President Xi Jinping was not a total washout. The deal did halt his spiraling trade war. And several of its elements should be kept, notably China's commitments to remove technical barriers to US farm exports, respect intellectual property, and open up its financial services sector.

However, signing something that was problematic, if not unrealistic, from the start, shows some degree of bad faith on both sides. After two years of escalating tariffs and rhetoric about economic decoupling, the deal did little to reduce the uncertainty discouraging the business investment needed to restart US exports. Most of Trump's tariffs remained in effect, especially on inputs, raising costs to US companies. And by failing to negotiate the removal of China's retaliatory tariffs, the agreement may have funneled any Chinese demand for US exports away from China's private sector toward its state-owned enterprises....

````````````````````

That 45's "trade deal" with China was a non-starter has become apparent.

Covid

 

[multivita-man]

So tf what? If it results in lower prices for American consumers, who gives a shit what they do?

Blah! Blah! I have no authentic opinions of my own, just ripping off everything every YouTube libertarian would say.

 

[Pyrite]

how in the hell could Trump restart trade talks after 4 years of abandonment by Biden?
Part of the reason China signed was because hey saw Trump likely to be re-elected. Time was on Trumps side until COVID

Covid

What "abandonment by Biden"? Trump's trade deal had been COMPLETED.

As the Petersen Institute points out: 45's trade deal was "problematic, if not unrealistic, from the start".

And this:

Most of Trump's tariffs remained in effect, especially on inputs, raising costs to US companies. And by failing to negotiate the removal of China's retaliatory tariffs, the agreement may have funneled any Chinese demand for US exports away from China's private sector toward its state-owned enterprises

 

[Pyrite]

What "abandonment by Biden"? Trump's trade deal had been COMPLETED.

As the Petersen Institute points out: 45's trade deal was "problematic, if not unrealistic, from the start".

And this:

Most of Trump's tariffs remained in effect, especially on inputs, raising costs to US companies. And by failing to negotiate the removal of China's retaliatory tariffs, the agreement may have funneled any Chinese demand for US exports away from China's private sector toward its state-owned enterprises

More from the PIIE article:

...Ultimately, China bought only 58 percent of the US exports it committed to purchase over 2020–21. US exports of covered goods and services to China over the two years were $290.8 billion.

The Biden administration was not to blame, as China was never on pace to meet its purchase commitments (figure 2). Trump's deal was agreed on December 13, 2019 and signed on January 15, 2020. By the end of June 2020, China's purchases were at only 55 percent of the pro-rated target; they reached 59 percent of the year-end commitment for 2020. China was never able to catch up, as the agreement was back-loaded, with additional purchase commitments for 2021 that were more than 60 percent higher than 2020....

 

[Serenity]

Here's the crazy shit: the US had every reason, every right to start a purely - and I mean strictly - trade war with China. They cheat on their currency. They rip off our IP. They take advantage of trade and overproduce and then dump supplies around the world.

Not a popular opinion on this forum, but I actually will give Donald J. Trump for being the first president to stand up and say that we're getting played and that our inflated asset prices aren't justification for this set-up. Yes, the 2017-18 tariffs were clumsy, haphazard, and a jolt to US exporters, particularly ag producers. But Biden kept the same posture, and he actually increased export controls.

Trump gets credit for being the first to stand up to China, even if not in the most strategic manner. I think Biden gets credit for continuing that posture and taking some meaningful steps toward a gradual repositioning of our global trade. I think the way Biden was doing it was the more effective way.

If he had a problem with China, deal with China directly.

Don't drag your allies into it and go after them too.

**** him.

 

[anatta]

What "abandonment by Biden"? Trump's trade deal had been COMPLETED.

and China failed to live up to it's purchasing agreement. Yes some were "back loaded" so if Biden had continued with trade disputes resolution process....do you follow any of this? appears not

U.S. trade representative Tai vows to enforce 'phase one' trade deal with China

Washington must enforce phase one trade deal with China, and will raise broader policy concerns with Beijing, USTR Katherine Tai is expected to say on Monday.

www.cnbc.com

“China made commitments intended to benefit certain American industries, including agriculture that we must enforce,” Tai is expected to say.

As the Petersen Institute points out: 45's trade deal was "problematic, if not unrealistic, from the start".

And this:

Most of Trump's tariffs remained in effect, especially on inputs, raising costs to US companies. And by failing to negotiate the removal of China's retaliatory tariffs, the agreement may have funneled any Chinese demand for US exports away from China's private sector toward its state-owned enterprises

 

[Pyrite]

and China failed to live up to it's purchasing agreement. Yes some were "back loaded" so if Biden had continued with trade disputes resolution process....do you follow any of this? appears not

U.S. trade representative Tai vows to enforce 'phase one' trade deal with China

Washington must enforce phase one trade deal with China, and will raise broader policy concerns with Beijing, USTR Katherine Tai is expected to say on Monday.

www.cnbc.com

“China made commitments intended to benefit certain American industries, including agriculture that we must enforce,” Tai is expected to say.

Why would the President who succeeded trump CONTINUE trump's losing trade disputes process????

Trump's trade agreement with China didn't work from the start - a year before covid-19. To continue it would have accomplished nothing at all.

 

[Pyrite]

Why would the President who succeeded trump CONTINUE trump's losing trade disputes process????

Trump's trade agreement with China didn't work from the start - a year before covid-19. To continue it would have accomplished nothing at all.

Trump's trade agreement, per the PIIE, was a non-starter.

But you're blaming BIDEN for trump's crappy trade agreement?

And you're saying BIDEN was supposed to try to correct trump's crappy trade agreement?

Geezus christ, blame TRUMP, if you feel the need to blame anyone. TRUMP is the one who negotiated and signed the trade agreement.

God in heaven, TRUMP, not Biden, is accountable for his trade agreement.


AND, of course, TRUMP could now try to renegotiate his trade agreement.....but TRUMP isn't doing that, is he?

Unbelievable, how MAGA members will twist themselves into pretzels to avoid holding TRUMP responsible for his actions - or his lack of actions.

 

[dmpi]

China doesn't get it's feelings hurt. It's been ruthless exploitation of American markets, and keeping all but US agri. out of China markets.
They have a $300 billion annual trade surplus with the USA. @multivita-man just gave some serious Chinese trade abuse practices.
Their SOE are subsidized in key sectors. Thats subsidized marketing = Something has to give - "China is ripping us off"

If Trump had more time he would have continued the Trump 45 trade talks. They fell apart due to COVID.
Xi of course can wait out Trump, and by their tone they are what only be called militaristic in their attitude/spokesperson
Biden kept in some tariffs, but not the agreement itself.

I dont know what else Trump can do. Just let the WTO govern US/China trade?? that's a loser.
Too bad Trump had his 8 years interrupted by an administration that was obsequious in their approach to China

Still we have our own leverage, so see how it goes

China also exploited its own people making them work for slave labor wages to run the factories. The CPP also stole their land to build factories and infrastructure. It's no secret why they can undercut any competitor. You think wealth discrepancy is big in the USA, you should look at China.

 

[radioman]

...And he [trump] complimented President Xi Jinping of China, of whom he said, “He’s like Central Casting. There’s nobody in Hollywood that can play the role of President Xi — the look, the strength, the voice.”

Well....this sort of laudatory language towards Xi must have hurt Vladimir.
I'm sure Putin thought he and Donald were in an exclusive relationship.
No wonder Putin is ignoring Trump's "Vladimir, STOP!" plea.
A jilted paramour can sometimes cause problems.

 

[Juin]

Don't worry Trump will try to sell the pork to Pakistan

Lol

 

[ElChupacabra]

China has a significant head start while we were content to continue cheap goods as the main trading metric.

It's not just cheap goods though, it's also green tech and other tech as well. Not to mention the rare earth minerals.

It fell apart. their were provisions for trade disputes..If Biden had listen to US Trade Rep Katherine Tai, China would not have simply abandoned the agreement. Not that Biden was bound, but his managed competition was the SOS

In terms of the agricultural aspect of it, that happened before Biden.

It's a daunting task. Neither side can abandon each other long term. It's the short term squeeze that China is betting it can make Trump capitulate. Again though -do we just sit back and take it? we could but that's a long term bad deal too

China's put itself in the position it sought to after the first Trump administration and the continuation of tariffs under Biden, and they have managed to gain leverage by filling the gaps in the parts of the world the US has paid less attention to over the years: Africa and Latin America.

Trump is not isolationist on trade. if you mean foreign engagement -that's a different subject, but foreign wars have only hurt the USA blood/treasure

He kind of is in that he's pushing for a more mercantilist form of trade and moving the US towards more self reliance, which is going to spook other countries and force them to adjust how dependent they are on the US. What's interesting here is the US is largely a services economy, so moving back to manufacturing is a long shot with a lot of barriers given how the world has changed.

 

[Callen]

Here's the crazy shit: the US had every reason, every right to start a purely - and I mean strictly - trade war with China. They cheat on their currency. They rip off our IP. They take advantage of trade and overproduce and then dump supplies around the world.

Not a popular opinion on this forum, but I actually will give Donald J. Trump for being the first president to stand up and say that we're getting played and that our inflated asset prices aren't justification for this set-up. Yes, the 2017-18 tariffs were clumsy, haphazard, and a jolt to US exporters, particularly ag producers. But Biden kept the same posture, and he actually increased export controls.

Trump gets credit for being the first to stand up to China, even if not in the most strategic manner. I think Biden gets credit for continuing that posture and taking some meaningful steps toward a gradual repositioning of our global trade. I think the way Biden was doing it was the more effective way.

China is a bad actor and needs to be dealt with but Trump's approach is a disaster for the American people. Seriously hurting your own economy and citizenry ia a high price to pay for an undefined end result Just think how powerful a strategic alliance of large countries headed by the US could be in dealing in a unified manner against China. Instead he has alienated every country and opened up the door for China to make new trade alliances.

 

[CaughtInThe]

China is a bad actor and needs to be dealt with but Trump's approach is a disaster for the American people. Seriously hurting your own economy and citizenry ia a high price to pay for an undefined end result Just think how powerful a strategic alliance of large countries headed by the US could be in dealing in a unified manner against China. Instead he has alienated every country and opened up the door for China to make new trade alliances.

THAT is the perfect post and is EXACTLY what is happening.



And as I've posted before, when someone punches you in the mouth (with Trump he extorts everyone which is the same thing) the HUMAN reaction is to grab a knife, cut the guy who punched you and then plan and scheme to get the guy fired, divorced and bankrupted.

Now, the knife thing is not a REAL knife. It's just to prove a point.