First independent report into Xinjiang genocide allegations claims evidence of Beijing's 'intent to destroy' Uyghur people

[TU Curmudgeon]

By your numbers, China's exports are roughly 50% higher than the US but not 5 and half times. But my comment was about trade with each other. I read this over a year ago and it struck me but I do not recall the original article.

Gosh, I guess that those "<SARC>" and "</SARC>" flags are just too damn subtle.

The original statement was that the Chinese economy was five times more reliant on exports than the US economy was.

That statement was ludicrous in light of the fact that the portion of the Chinese economy that relies on exports is 1.448 times as large as the portion of the US economy that does.

Of course, when you look at that number you can clearly see a "1" and a "4" and, <SARC>as evrewunknoz "1 + 4 = 5"</SARC> - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Further data...

"U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $634.8 billion in 2019. Exports were $163.0 billion; imports were $471.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $308.8 billion in 2019."

From...

The People's Republic of China | United States Trade Representative

ustr.gov

So our imports from China in 2019 are 471B and exports are 163B so roughly, they rely on our imports 3 times more than we rely on theirs. Given their economy is about 2/3rd of ours (or was), this is how the 5x number was attained. Also, this was 2019 data whereas the article I read was probably based on earlier information which would have likely been higher as the Trump tariffs had not fully been implemented.

You are moving the goal posts again. Your original statement was that the Chinese economy was five times more reliant on exports than the US economy.

Now you are talking about a specific sector of the Chinese economy.

Yes, the Chinese do export 2.558 times as much to the US as the US does to China. However, the Chinese are more than willing to export those goods ANYWHERE while the US doesn't actually have much of a market for its agricultural goods unless it subsidizes the hell out of them (and US agricultural goods make up a very significant portion of what the US exports to China.

The net result would be that the Chinese would simply find new markets while the US would either be unable to sell its goods or would be faced with an ever increasing flurry of WTC challenges due to the fact that the US was either "subsidizing" or "dumping" its goods.

 

[TimPatriot]

You are moving the goal posts again. Your original statement was that the Chinese economy was five times more reliant on exports than the US economy.

Now you are talking about a specific sector of the Chinese economy.

Yes, the Chinese do export 2.558 times as much to the US as the US does to China. However, the Chinese are more than willing to export those goods ANYWHERE while the US doesn't actually have much of a market for its agricultural goods unless it subsidizes the hell out of them (and US agricultural goods make up a very significant portion of what the US exports to China.

The net result would be that the Chinese would simply find new markets while the US would either be unable to sell its goods or would be faced with an ever increasing flurry of WTC challenges due to the fact that the US was either "subsidizing" or "dumping" its goods.

It's a trade war. It is fundamentally about the effect of tariffs on the two parties engaged in said trade war.

I think you are wrong in thinking they can just sell their stuff elsewhere. Supply and demand means they would be taking a lower price and how much lower is speculation. They also need to source the goods they would have bought from us and that would be at a higher price as well.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's a trade war. It is fundamentally about the effect of tariffs on the two parties engaged in said trade war.

I think you are wrong in thinking they can just sell their stuff elsewhere. Supply and demand means they would be taking a lower price and how much lower is speculation. They also need to source the goods they would have bought from us and that would be at a higher price as well.

There are two schools of thought on how to make profits. One is to make a whole bunch now and not worry about the future and one is to make a lot less right now but to continue making it for a long time. (As a generalization) the first is suited to the way American companies (and governments) operate. (As a generalization) the second is suited to the way that Oriental companies (and governments) operate.

When China could not get American soybeans (and this is just one example) other countries jumped into soybean production (because there was an open market). The results of that were [1] China got the soybeans it wanted, and [2] China paid a lower price for the soybeans it bought. Now the American soybean producers have to figure out some way of getting their price down so that their product is competitive. This means that the American soybean producers are going to be required to shave their profit margin even finer (or, alternatively, the US government is going to have to subsidize the US soybean producers and then deal with a slew of WTC actions claiming violation of international trade regulations and practices).

 

[JANFU]

You think that our politicians gives a shit? It is helping some people half a world away that pretty much nobody knows of and losing all of their shady deals and untold millions and millions of dollars or doing nothing and making a shitload of money... and if you think that the people will vote out these ****ing low life scum politicians for these random people half the world away after then vote in the scum bags and already do not hold them accountable then I got a bridge to sell you.

Yes in this new socially connected world, this and other issues with China are important for many.

Wolf Warrior diplomacy, grab in the SC Sea.

The Genocide ties it all together - I mean who is for genocidal tactics used against a minority.

Industry leaders- are being targeted by the Chinese Govt for stating they will not source cotton from Xinjiang. Now some have a large store footprint in China. And it could bankrupt those stores in China

I mentioned earlier in this thread- the garment industry employs millions of unskilled workers.
Tariff the garment industry, hit the low end, millions end up unemployed. Something that would not sit well with those who lost employment

Industry sees that a new cold war is on, and many will move/decentralize (other country) production from China in a number of industries.

It will also slow investment as these Wolf Warrior tactics makes investors nervous

Nike, H&M, Burberry face China backlash over Xinjiang cotton concerns

The fallout comes after corporate statements about concerns over forced labor in the Xinjiang region resurfaced on Chinese social media following fresh Western sanctions.

www.nbcnews.com

U.S. Condemns Chinese Boycotts of Companies Shunning Xinjiang Cotton

The Biden administration said it stood with businesses that have forsworn cotton produced in the region where Chinese authorities operate internment camps, which Beijing has denied are used for forced labor.

www.wsj.com