What exactly is Trump's Policy toward China?

[Cordelier]

I'm observing a pattern with President Trump that seems counter-intuitive to me.

In his first term, one of President Trump's first actions was to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Alright, sure, it may have been a sweetheart deal for a lot of the small Asian nations in China's neighborhood - they would have gotten more out of the deal than the US did... but wasn't that the point? If we strengthen their economies by giving them more access to the US market, then it keeps them out of China's orbit. By not going down that road, it's not like they're going to stop trying to build their economies, is it? They're going to turn to someone else to trade with... and if that means China, that's what it means. Trading with China may not have been their first choice, but it was the only one we gave them by pulling out of TPP.

Now in his second term, he's making noises about the Panama Canal and bullying Colombia around because he claims to want to counter growing Chinese influence in Latin America. Hokay. But does he figure being bullied by the US is going to make the more or less willing to strike deals with China? It seems to me that China saw the strategic mistake we made by not increasing trade in their backyard... so now they've decided to not make the same one in our's.

We're also slapping excessive tariffs on Taiwan that will cripple their economy. Okay, so we throw them under the bus to strengthen us. Do you know how I read that if I'm Xi Jinping? That the US has no intention of defending Taiwan if it is invaded, now sees that as being inevitable, and is torpedoing their chip manufacturing industry and moving it to the US to be ready when it happens.

We're also putting a freeze on foreign aid. I can guarantee to you that China is doing no such thing... if anything, they're expanding their foreign aid in leaps and bounds. If you're a small country in Africa and the US cuts it's aid to you while China is helping you build up your transportation infrastructure, which side are you going to see as declining power and which side as the rising power?

When I look at this pattern, what I'm seeing is a willingness to encourage China's geopolitical weight, not contain it. Okay, sure, there's an argument that some of these policies will strengthen the US economy in the long-term... but it's going to come with a steep economic price in short-term - not only in reduced trade and the higher prices that come with it. There's a reason why economics is called the "dismal science" there's no long-term gain without some short-term pain.

But there's also a heavy cost to be paid in geo-political influence as well, that I don't think we've all been cognizant of. As we cede the ground to China by not taking on the burdens that go with being a Superpower, they will continue to get stronger while we get weaker. That's the natural order of things. They become the new Global Superpower.

In short, we have to decide whether we want to continue to be a Superpower or not, or if we want to decline into a 2nd-rank economically focused power. Think Japan. Back in the 1600's, England and the Netherlands were at a similar crossroads. England focused on becoming a Superpower and the Netherland focused on becoming an economic power. So which example do you want to follow?

 

[Ishm]

As you point out, Trumps attitude to trade is a mess. He sells the tariffs and exit from the TPP negotiations as being all about American jobs, but America doesn't have a jobs problem. It has a lack of workers problem. Most of the unemployed we do have are those that are unemployable in anything but basic manual labour type work, or living in areas where we won't be building new manufacturing plants regardless of what Trump does with tariffs. So now Trump is deporting millions of workers. Yes they are illegal migrants so deporting is fair, but where do we get the replacement workers? Maybe those suddenly free jobs suck up a little of the unemployed, but that makes using tariffs to create more US jobs look even sillier because we can't fill the jobs without robbing people from other jobs. Leads to wage driven inflation.

So while telling us he is creating more jobs, that we can't fill, via tariffs, Trump is abandoning US ability to influence other countries via trade, while China is signing free trade deals and building influence as fast as they can. The whole Trump attitude to trade is a muddled mess. What has happened is that Trump has learned that if he talks about bullying other countries with tariffs, and says that it is all about US jobs, the maga trained seals will clap with joy because they seem incapable of processing the wider picture. Since all Trump is after is the clapping, he is happy while doing huge damage to Americas position in the world

 

[Cordelier]

As you point out, Trumps attitude to trade is a mess. He sells the tariffs and exit from the TPP negotiations as being all about American jobs, but America doesn't have a jobs problem. It has a lack of workers problem. Most of the unemployed we do have are those that are unemployable in anything but basic manual labour type work, or living in areas where we won't be building new manufacturing plants regardless of what Trump does with tariffs. So now Trump is deporting millions of workers. Yes they are illegal migrants so deporting is fair, but where do we get the replacement workers? Maybe those suddenly free jobs suck up a little of the unemployed, but that makes using tariffs to create more US jobs look even sillier because we can't fill the jobs without robbing people from other jobs. Leads to wage driven inflation.

So while telling us he is creating more jobs, that we can't fill, via tariffs, Trump is abandoning US ability to influence other countries via trade, while China is signing free trade deals and building influence as fast as they can. The whole Trump attitude to trade is a muddled mess. What has happened is that Trump has learned that if he talks about bullying other countries with tariffs, and says that it is all about US jobs, the maga trained seals will clap with joy because they seem incapable of processing the wider picture. Since all Trump is after is the clapping, he is happy while doing huge damage to Americas position in the world

Good points. To go back to my 17th Century English/Dutch reference... don't forget that they were both up-and-coming powers at the time - one geo-political, the other economic. They were both examples of well-run countries who made the right decisions, but just had different priorities... don't forget, though, there is also a third example from the time - the declining Superpower that was ill-run and consistently made the wrong decisions and was consistantly protectionist- Spain.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm observing a pattern with President Trump that seems counter-intuitive to me.

In his first term, one of President Trump's first actions was to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Alright, sure, it may have been a sweetheart deal for a lot of the small Asian nations in China's neighborhood - they would have gotten more out of the deal than the US did... but wasn't that the point? If we strengthen their economies by giving them more access to the US market, then it keeps them out of China's orbit. By not going down that road, it's not like they're going to stop trying to build their economies, is it? They're going to turn to someone else to trade with... and if that means China, that's what it means. Trading with China may not have been their first choice, but it was the only one we gave them by pulling out of TPP.

Now in his second term, he's making noises about the Panama Canal and bullying Colombia around because he claims to want to counter growing Chinese influence in Latin America. Hokay. But does he figure being bullied by the US is going to make the more or less willing to strike deals with China? It seems to me that China saw the strategic mistake we made by not increasing trade in their backyard... so now they've decided to not make the same one in our's.

We're also slapping excessive tariffs on Taiwan that will cripple their economy. Okay, so we throw them under the bus to strengthen us. Do you know how I read that if I'm Xi Jinping? That the US has no intention of defending Taiwan if it is invaded, now sees that as being inevitable, and is torpedoing their chip manufacturing industry and moving it to the US to be ready when it happens.

We're also putting a freeze on foreign aid. I can guarantee to you that China is doing no such thing... if anything, they're expanding their foreign aid in leaps and bounds. If you're a small country in Africa and the US cuts it's aid to you while China is helping you build up your transportation infrastructure, which side are you going to see as declining power and which side as the rising power?

When I look at this pattern, what I'm seeing is a willingness to encourage China's geopolitical weight, not contain it. Okay, sure, there's an argument that some of these policies will strengthen the US economy in the long-term... but it's going to come with a steep economic price in short-term - not only in reduced trade and the higher prices that come with it. There's a reason why economics is called the "dismal science" there's no long-term gain without some short-term pain.

But there's also a heavy cost to be paid in geo-political influence as well, that I don't think we've all been cognizant of. As we cede the ground to China by not taking on the burdens that go with being a Superpower, they will continue to get stronger while we get weaker. That's the natural order of things. They become the new Global Superpower.

In short, we have to decide whether we want to continue to be a Superpower or not, or if we want to decline into a 2nd-rank economically focused power. Think Japan. Back in the 1600's, England and the Netherlands were at a similar crossroads. England focused on becoming a Superpower and the Netherland focused on becoming an economic power. So which example do you want to follow?

Very thoughtful analysis, and some thoughts.

The US bases its "superpower" status on our ability to project military strength around the world.

Military power has become less important in a global economy.

China's strength is her export power and her willingness to invest in countries that the US has neglected, and that includes Latin America. Sure, China invested a bunch of money into Panama, after we kind of gave up on the place after we gave them the Canal back. So Rubio (there must be a man who hates his job) goes down to Panama and bullies the Panamanian President into not renewing his Belt and Road contract.

A key point about Chinese foreign aid, though. Most of it comes in the form of loans that the Chinese know that the recipiants can never pay back, but gives them influence in those countries. For instance, Panama owes China about 14 Billion in debt in an economy of only 83 Billion. Yikes! Is the US going to step up and assume some of that debt?

I doubt Trump is going to think about this long term, he's probably already moved on to the next shiny thing.

 

[Luce]

Apparently, Xi isn't available for Trump's bullshit any more than Canada or Mexico is.

MSN