PDA

View Full Version : Tariff Wars- Round Three: Now Trump wants another $100 billion




Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 06:45 PM
Retaliating to their retaliation. It is going to be ugly folks. There are no winners in trade wars. Trump thinks he can win. “Trade wars are good and easy to win,”

Round One was $3 billion in aluminum and steel tariffs. Round two it was expanded to cover $50 billion more. Now he wants twice that again.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/trump-asks-us-trade-representative-to-consider-100-billion-in-additional-tariffs-on-chinese-products.html


Trump proposes $100 billion in additional tariffs on Chinese products

President Donald Trump on Thursday said he has instructed the United States Trade Representative to consider $100 billion in additional tariffs against China.

"In light of China's unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs," Trump said in a statement.

As of 8:25 p.m. ET, the implied open for the Dow Jones industrial average was more than 350 points lower, after earlier tanking more than 400 points.

"POTUS is sending a message to China about consequences," a White House official told CNBC.

China on Wednesday announced it would introduce tariffs on 106 U.S. products, including soybeans, cars and whiskey.

The tariffs were introduced as a retaliatory measure against President Trump, who, just 24 hours prior, had unveiled a list of Chinese imports he planned to target with tariffs.

Trump's proposed tariffs include products used for robotics, information technology, communication technology and aerospace, areas in which Trump feels China could unfairly advance with the help of U.S. intellectual property.

Despite the severity of Trump's threats on Thursday, he emphasized that the U.S. is still open to negotiation concerning China's trade practices.

"The United States is still prepared to have discussions in further support of our commitment to achieving free, fair, and reciprocal trade and to protect the technology and intellectual property of American companies and American people," Trump said in a statement.

Shortly after Trump's announcement, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed support for the move, calling Trump's response "appropriate."

"President Trump is proposing an appropriate response to China's recent threat of new tariffs. After a detailed investigation, USTR found overwhelming evidence that China's unreasonable actions are harming the U.S. economy," Lighthizer said in a statement.

He also condemned China's retaliation and the harm it could cause American workers, farmers and businesses.

"The appropriate response from China should be to change its behavior, as China's government has pledged to do many times," he said in a statement.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 06:49 PM
In a trade war whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, China will die, we will win.

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 06:58 PM
In a trade war whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, China will die we will win.

Committing suicide to try to kill an enemy isn't "winning". Trump tends to see things as "zero sum games"- if my opponent is hurt, I am helped. If it cost them $100 billion, I gained $100 billion. That is not the case in trade wars. We get higher prices and fewer jobs. The following was written before this latest threat from Trump:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-unwinnable-trade-war-with-china-2018-04-03


Trump’s unwinnable trade war with China

A tit-for-tat escalation in tariffs would leave everybody worse off

China’s imposition this week of tariffs on 128 U.S. export products could be just the beginning of a prolonged and destructive trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

Despite President Donald Trump’s boast that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” this one could impose heavy casualties on both nations and the global economy.

A trade war is a tit-for-tat escalation of tariffs, aimed more at punishing the other country than protecting domestic producers. The Chinese tariffs announced so far are a direct retaliation for tariffs on imported steel that the Trump administration imposed last month on dubious “national security” grounds. If the Trump administration follows through on a threat to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports based on a dispute over intellectual property, the Chinese retaliation could be exponentially greater.

Nobody wins from a trade war. When a nation seeks to punish another country with tariffs on its goods, exporters in the target country suffer, but so do consumers and import-consuming industries in the country imposing the tariffs. In fact, they may suffer more economic damage than the targeted country. If the targeted country retaliates, the damage is compounded further in both countries.

This is exactly what is unfolding with the Trump administration’s aggressive trade actions against China, and the stakes are high. China is America’s third largest export market for goods. The Chinese tariffs announced this week hit $3 billion worth of U.S. exports, from nuts, fruits, and wine, to steel pipe. The next round could take aim at the $12 billion in soybeans, $16 billion in civilian aircraft, and $30 billion in industrial supplies that U.S. producers exported to China in 2017.

U.S. tariffs aimed at punishing China for its IP policies will cause collateral damage across the US economic landscape. Almost half of the $505 billion Americans imported from China last year were household goods that are staples of a working family’s budget, such as cell phones, toys, furniture, apparel and footwear. Tariffs on those items will hit tens of millions of Americans right in their pocketbooks.

Tariffs on other major categories of imports from China, such as computers, machinery, and industrial supplies, will hit the bottom line of American companies, raising their costs and reducing their competitiveness in the global marketplace. Hundreds of thousands of American workers could be displaced from their jobs.

U.S. tariffs will do nothing to reduce the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China. If those tariffs succeed in reducing imports from China, the Chinese will have fewer dollars to buy U.S. exports or to invest in U.S. Treasury bills or U.S. affiliate companies. Both imports from China and exports to China will decline, leaving the trade balance unaffected but reducing overall trade flows and the lower prices and gains from specialization that trade delivers.

The bilateral deficit with China has always been a misleading measure of the trade relationship. The deficit is not driven by differing trade policies, but by such underlying factors as national rates of saving and investment, and the normal demand of consumers.

In China, national savings exceed total investment, so its surplus savings flow across the Pacific to invest in the United States. When the Chinese purchase U.S. Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, -0.71% , it helps our federal government fund its military and other operations with lower borrowing costs. It also prevents the federal government’s insatiable appetite for debt from crowding out private domestic investment.

The bilateral deficit is also misleading because a large share of the value of goods we import from China actually originate in places other than China.

High-tech items such as the iPhone are assembled in China, but much of its total value is represented by components made in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Yet under the U.S. government’s trade accounting system, the full value of the iPhone is classified as an “import” from China. When the components of imports from China are assigned to the country where the value was actually added, the bilateral trade deficit drops by an estimated 40%.

One other way the goods deficit is misleading is that it ignores trade in services.

In 2016, the United States ran a bilateral surplus with China in services trade of almost $40 billion. U.S. companies also sell their branded goods and services in China through their affiliate companies. According to the most recent figures from the U.S. Commerce Department, U.S.-owned affiliates in China sold $294 billion in goods and $59 billion in services in 2015. When combined with the lower goods deficit in value-added, the total bilateral deficit with China shrinks considerably.

The right way to approach trade with China is not to provoke an unwinnable trade war, but to seek international cooperation to address issues of mutual interest. In cooperation with other advanced economies, the United States should seek to encourage reform in China to address issues of intellectual property and steel overcapacity.

Such cooperation can yield beneficial results without the mutually destructive effects of a trade war.

juleswin
04-05-2018, 07:00 PM
In a trade war whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, China will die we will win.

So it will make the US stronger but China weaker? Right

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 07:22 PM
So it will make the US stronger but China weaker? Right

China has more to lose and less room to maneuver, they are also weaker and more corrupt, it will kill them so it won't make them stronger.
We will live and be stronger.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 07:23 PM
Committing suicide to try to kill an enemy isn't "winning". Trump tends to see things as "zero sum games"- if my opponent is hurt, I am helped. If it cost them $100 billion, I gained $100 billion. That is not the case in trade wars. We get higher prices and fewer jobs. The following was written before this latest threat from Trump:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-unwinnable-trade-war-with-china-2018-04-03

Fake news.

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 07:31 PM
China has more to lose and less room to maneuver, they are also weaker and more corrupt, it will kill them so it won't make them stronger.
We will live and be stronger.

How do you figure?

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 07:47 PM
How do you figure?
They had higher trade barriers to start and they are the ones profiting off the status quo, they are a communist country with extreme government intervention in the market and rampant corruption, they are a house of cards and they are trying to bluff us into backing down before they collapse.

AuH20
04-05-2018, 07:48 PM
Chinese can't win, unless they follow through with the petroyuan full court press. Trump can shut down entire regions in China if he wants to take this to the limit.

spudea
04-05-2018, 07:48 PM
How do you figure?

from your link:

In cooperation with other advanced economies, the United States should seek to encourage reform in China to address issues of intellectual property and steel overcapacity.

China ignores the WTO. Prior administrations have tried asking nicely, Pretty please Mr. China won't you please reform your economy and open your markets like we have done for you?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN7KHWdyrbI

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 07:51 PM
Chinese can't win, unless they follow through with the petroyuan full court press. Trump can shut down entire regions in China if he wants to take this to the limit.

How so? Military invasion?

brushfire
04-05-2018, 07:55 PM
Eat your heart out, Mt Rushmore


https://sprottmoney.com/media/magpleasure/mpblog/post_thumbnail_file/6/0/cache/2/119bdf99710d9a86013f24c82ab9b2da/602f1c4144fa3f2b7d5c998e1669b558.jpg

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 07:56 PM
How so? Military invasion?

China's centrally planned economy has resulted in entire region being excessively dependent on certain industries, If those industries are tariffed they will collapse.

AuH20
04-05-2018, 07:57 PM
How so? Military invasion?

Trade embargo or more expansive tariffs. There are regional industries that can be targeted and decimated by lack of market access.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 07:58 PM
Chinese can't win, unless they follow through with the petroyuan full court press. Trump can shut down entire regions in China if he wants to take this to the limit.
They don't have what it takes for a full court press on the petroyuan.

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 08:01 PM
Trade embargo or more expansive tariffs. There are regional industries that can be targeted and decimated by lack of market access.

US is 18% of China's exports. Not enough to shut down entire regions (which are more economically diverse than some seem to realize). Then US producers (and consumers) face massive shortages of goods and parts to make goods and hundreds of thousands are laid off. Prices soar. Yeah- winning!

AuH20
04-05-2018, 08:06 PM
World War is coming. Why else would the US want their manufacturing back? It's certainly not about bringing back jobs. It makes absolute sense from a military perspective.

brushfire
04-05-2018, 08:08 PM
Damned history repeating its damned self... What's trump trying to do anyway? Trigger a hostile sell off of T-bills?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv5SiQpG6sg

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 08:08 PM
World War is coming. Why else would the US want their manufacturing back? It's certainly not about bringing back jobs. It makes absolute sense from a military perspective.

This time we need to stay out of it.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 08:09 PM
Damned history repeating its damned self... What's trump trying to do anyway? Trigger a hostile sell off of T-bills?


China can't afford that.

brushfire
04-05-2018, 08:20 PM
China can't afford that.

Maybe not... Why cant they though? Might that be because China cares about its people, and wants them to prosper? If that is the case now, it certainly hasn't always been the case in the past.

What if they would be willing to sacrifice the comfort and well being of several hundred million of their citizens, for the upper hand in the future?

The people of China dont impress me as being in any position to successfully rise up against their government. Seems to me that the reds are in a much better position to survive some civil unrest that the US government is.

Hey, I could be talking out of my a$$ though...

spudea
04-05-2018, 08:23 PM
Damned history repeating its damned self... What's trump trying to do anyway? Trigger a hostile sell off of T-bills?

China should follow Friedman's advice. Currently they produce more than they consume. They keep their currency low. If they allowed their currency to rise the chinese could consume more. And surely Friedman isn't advocating consuming using unlimited DEBT. People should only consume more than they produce when they have SAVINGS!

This isn't Milton's 1970's. The USA needs to save and produce more, not consume and be debt slaves. "the Asian economies are going to figure out that undervaluing their currencies to prop up the dollar, to continue exporting to a customer that can't pay is a losing economic strategy"

Peter Schiff 2012 - Stop spending and consuming, start saving and producing!

https://youtu.be/8CoDF6zwyIs

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 08:24 PM
Maybe not... Why cant they though? Might that be because China cares about its people, and wants them to prosper? If that is the case now, it certainly hasn't always been the case in the past.

What if they would be willing to sacrifice the comfort and well being of several hundred million of their citizens, for the upper hand in the future?

The people of China dont impress me as being in any position to successfully rise up against their government. Seems to me that the reds are in a much better position to survive some civil unrest that the US government is.

Hey, I could be talking out of my a$$ though...

It wouldn't be a popular uprising, it would be a factional/regional revolt with a popular revolt element, China's history is full of them.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 08:27 PM
China should follow Friedman's advice. Currently they produce more than they consume. They keep their currency low. If they allowed their currency to rise the chinese could consume more. And surely Friedman isn't advocating consuming using unlimited DEBT. People should only consume more than they produce when they have SAVINGS!

This isn't Milton's 1970's. The USA needs to save and produce more, not consume and be debt slaves. "the Asian economies are going to figure out that undervaluing their currencies to prop up the dollar, to continue exporting to a customer that can't pay is a losing economic strategy"

Peter Schiff 2012 - Stop spending and consuming, start saving and producing!

https://youtu.be/8CoDF6zwyIs

If you owe a bank $10,000 you have a problem, if you owe a bank $10,000,000 the bank has a problem.

juleswin
04-05-2018, 08:40 PM
Damned history repeating its damned self... What's trump trying to do anyway? Trigger a hostile sell off of T-bills?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv5SiQpG6sg

One article I read talked about the Tariffs decimating family farms forcing em out of the business and making it easier for big ag to buy up the lands at a cheaper rate. After that happens, then Trump or whatever admin is in govt will rescind the tariffs. Dunno know what to make of that theory but I have been surprised so many times that its not too outlandish to believe.

brushfire
04-05-2018, 08:45 PM
It wouldn't be a popular uprising, it would be a factional/regional revolt with a popular revolt element, China's history is full of them.

No dispute there, but I was thinking about more recent times - Maoist China - seems that their government endured despite tremendous suffering by its people.

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 08:47 PM
China should follow Friedman's advice. Currently they produce more than they consume. They keep their currency low. If they allowed their currency to rise the chinese could consume more. And surely Friedman isn't advocating consuming using unlimited DEBT. People should only consume more than they produce when they have SAVINGS!

This isn't Milton's 1970's. The USA needs to save and produce more, not consume and be debt slaves. "the Asian economies are going to figure out that undervaluing their currencies to prop up the dollar, to continue exporting to a customer that can't pay is a losing economic strategy"



If you are saving more, you are buying less. If you are buying less, you will need to produce less, not more. That means fewer workers (jobs) needed.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 08:49 PM
No dispute there, but I was thinking about more recent times - Maoist China - seems that their government endured despite tremendous suffering by its people.

Nothing is certain, but that was also true for stretches of time in China's past between collapses, what would be different now compared to Maoist China is that the elite and the people have tasted the potential for a massive increase in their standard of living which is about to be rudely dashed from their lips and the suffering will be uneven.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 08:51 PM
If you are saving more, you are buying less. If you are buying less, you will need to produce less, not more. That means fewer workers (jobs) needed.
Not if the reduction of your imports is greater than the reduction of your consumption.

brushfire
04-05-2018, 08:53 PM
If you are saving more, you are buying less. If you are buying less, you will need to produce less, not more. That means fewer workers (jobs) needed.

Theres is a sense of stability with that though. More savings/reserves would mean naturally lower interest rates too. Its not a perfect system, but one that naturally seeks equilibrium. The one we have now is completely subject to the whims of government, and its special interests.

The key is to have steady and sustainable growth - not this bubble madness every 10 years that we're seeing today. ...and when sh!t goes down, people have to rely on the government because there's no savings. Kinda like Fannie and Freddie - at least the government is consistent.

r3volution 3.0
04-05-2018, 09:03 PM
Trigger a hostile sell off of T-bills

That might be the big under-reported story in all this.

With or without the Chinese actively shifting out of US debt, this will have to put upward pressure on rates.

brushfire
04-05-2018, 09:03 PM
Nothing is certain, but that was also true for stretches of time in China's past between collapses, what would be different now compared to Maoist China is that the elite and the people have tasted the potential for a massive increase in their standard of living which is about to be rudely dashed from their lips and the suffering will be uneven.

That's a fair point - entirely true. As much as we see overall material wealth in China, they've still been very successful in instilling a fearful respect within their population. At some point though, at the rate things are going, the T-bill will not be worth holding anyway. Regardless of whether trump instigates a selloff, our downward spiral of debt will. I wonder if China still invests in Enron.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 09:06 PM
That's a fair point - entirely true. As much as we see overall material wealth in China, they've still been very successful in instilling a fearful respect within their population. At some point though, at the rate things are going, the T-bill will not be worth holding anyway. Regardless of whether trump instigates a selloff, our downward spiral of debt will. I wonder if China still invests in Enron.
China has indulged in massive amounts of malinvestment, the only thing that is certain is that this won't end well for them.

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 09:11 PM
Theres is a sense of stability with that though. More savings/reserves would mean naturally lower interest rates too. Its not a perfect system, but one that naturally seeks equilibrium. The one we have now is completely subject to the whims of government, and its special interests.

The key is to have steady and sustainable growth - not this bubble madness every 10 years that we're seeing today. ...and when sh!t goes down, people have to rely on the government because there's no savings. Kinda like Fannie and Freddie - at least the government is consistent.

There have always been bubbles. They are unavoidable.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 09:20 PM
There have always been bubbles. They are unavoidable.
But they were smaller and were easier to deal with.

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 09:21 PM
But they were smaller and were easier to deal with.

Kinda like that Great Depression thing.

brushfire
04-05-2018, 09:27 PM
Kinda like that Great Depression thing.

"Tariffic" example Zippy :) Glad we had the fed to take action, and all the government handouts, or we'd not be alive today.

Good thing too that we'll never, ever see another event like that again. Thanks to our current economic system and its table of benevolent banker/dictators.

<wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 09:30 PM
Kinda like that Great Depression thing.
You mean the one that came after the fed overheated the market in the roaring twenties, and then did everything it could to prolong it?

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 09:31 PM
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-senator-on-trumps-latest-tariff-threat-this-is-nuts-2018-04-05


Republican senator on Trump’s latest tariff threat: ‘This is nuts’

Ben Sasse calls tariffs ‘the dumbest possible way’ to solve China trade imbalance

One Republican senator was quick to rip President Donald Trump over his plan announced late Thursday to seek an additional $100 billion in tariffs against Chinese goods.

“Hopefully the President is just blowing off steam again but, if he’s even half-serious, this is nuts.”

“China is guilty of many things, but the President has no actual plan to win right now,” Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement.

“He’s threatening to light American agriculture on fire. Let’s absolutely take on Chinese bad behavior, but with a plan that punishes them instead of us. This is the dumbest possible way to do this,” he said.

Sasse’s home state of Nebraska could be particularly hard-hit by retaliatory Chinese tariffs against U.S. agricultural exports.

Earlier Thursday, Trump inflamed fears of a trade war with an announcement that he was seeking $100 billion in tariffs on top of the $50 billion already proposed for certain goods from China. Futures markets immediately slumped on fears that the move will make the already jittery stock market even more volatile.

Sasse wasn’t the only one to speak out Thursday against the new tariffs.

Dean Garfield, chief executive of the tech-industry lobbying group Information Technology Industry Council, called the new proposal “irresponsible and destabilizing.”

“We need the U.S and China to come to the table and identify solutions to these serious problems. We call on both sides to halt unproductive and escalatory rhetoric, recognizing that these words and actions have global consequences,” he said in a statement.

Richard Haass, president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations think tank, said in a series of tweets that Trump’s stance is “incoherent” and will “tank markets.”

“All new US tariffs will do is trigger new Chinese tariffs,” he said.

spudea
04-05-2018, 09:41 PM
Republican senator on Trump’s latest tariff threat: ‘This is nuts’

Dear all GOP losers:

785854588654092290

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 09:42 PM
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-senator-on-trumps-latest-tariff-threat-this-is-nuts-2018-04-05

The only way we might get China to negotiate in good faith is if we finally push back, DJTvsg knows what he is doing.

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 09:46 PM
Dear all GOP losers:

785854588654092290

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/march/12/tariffs-are-not-the-answer/


Tariffs Are Not the Answer

written by ron paul

President Trump’s planned 25 percent tariff on steel imports and 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports may provide a temporary boost for those industries, but the tariffs will do tremendous long-term damage to the American and global economies. Tariffs raise the price of, and reduce demand for, imported goods. Tariffs ensure the preferences of politicians, instead of the preferences of consumers, to determine how resources are allocated. This reduces economic efficiency and living standards.


President Trump’s claim that trade wars can be easily won is as credible as the neoconservative claim that the Iraq War would be a cakewalk. A trade war would likely push the global economy into a recession or worse. Instead of imposing costs on American businesses and consumers and putting those whose livelihoods depend on imports out of s job,

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 09:55 PM
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/march/12/tariffs-are-not-the-answer/

Ron is wrong here, he would be right if China hadn't started a trade war and we had free trade with them but that isn't the case.

spudea
04-05-2018, 09:59 PM
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/march/12/tariffs-are-not-the-answer/

Yes including RP. RP doesn't know how to win. Evidence the elections in 1988, 2008, 2012, 2016

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 10:21 PM
Yes including RP. RP doesn't know how to win. Evidence the elections in 1988, 2008, 2012, 2016

There aren't winners in trade wars- only losers.

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 10:23 PM
There aren't winners in trade wars- only losers.

It's too bad China started one, now the only way to limit the damage is to fight back.

Zippyjuan
04-05-2018, 10:29 PM
It's too bad China started one, now the only way to limit the damage is to fight back.

You are really pushing the idea of a trade war.

https://www.rt.com/business/420476-us-tariffs-china-damage/


Trump’s tariff bombshell could ignite full-blown trade war & Russia could be the winner


<>

Kateb explained that Trump’s policy “goes against the national interest of the United States and this is the most striking feature. We have an American president who is capable of sacrificing the national interests of his country in favor of some domestic political gains. This is completely insane.”



https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201804051063249110-chinese-defense-minister-russia-visit-analysis/


Sanctions, China-US Trade War Driving Moscow, Beijing Closer Together

spudea
04-05-2018, 10:30 PM
There aren't winners in trade wars- only losers.

Tell that to China, we have to teach them as well

981492087328792577

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 10:32 PM
You are really pushing the idea of a trade war.
China started it many years ago.




https://www.rt.com/business/420476-us-tariffs-china-damage/

LOL

Ender
04-05-2018, 10:54 PM
Trade Wars

https://goldswitzerland.com/trade-wars-petroyuan-debts-32000-gold-500-silver/

[/QUOTE]


US WAR DRUMS
Whenever a nation starts fighting with other countries, it is always done from a position of weakness. US debt has been running out of hand for a long time. Federal, state, corporate, personal, mortgage, auto, student etc, etc, they are all escalating exponentially. On top of that the US budget deficit will be in the trillions for the foreseeable future and the trade deficit was $600 billion in 2017 and could soon be one more trillion dollar deficit.

Starting wars is an Indication of the final stages of a troubled empire. The wars and interference in countries like Iran, Libya, Ukraine, Syria and Yemen are all part of that. The appointment of hardliner John Bolton as National Security Advisor as another perilous sign that the US is on the war path again.

So is policing the world’s financial system and so is protectionism and trade wars. These are all desperate measures of a country in a terminal decline. And it is certainly not a coincidence that this trade war started right before the oil trading in Yuan begun. Eventually this will lead to the demise of the dollar and a major power shift from West to East as well as much higher gold prices.

Nor is it a surprise that Silk Road countries have been buying major amounts of gold in this century. As the graph shows, the gold holdings of Russia, Turkey, India and China have increased 7 fold since 2004 from 5,000 tonnes to 35,600 tonnes. The question is how much is actually left in Western Central Banks of the 23,000 tonnes that they allegedly hold.


THE US BLAMES EVERYONE ELSE
The whole world is living above its means but the US is the worst culprit. So what is the US doing about it. Well there is no question of adjusting your spending in line with your expenses. That would be much too simplistic. Instead you blame the whole world that it is their fault and that they must be punished. And this is exactly what Trump is doing now. It is China’s and everybody else’s fault that a major part of US manufacturing has moved to low cost countries. And it is these countries’ fault that the US is living above its means and borrowing and spending more that it earns. Therefore these nasty countries must be punished. And that is the reason the US has started a trade war. Trade wars are almost without exception a desperate measure taken by an ailing economy. A trade war, especially between the two biggest nations in the world will indisputably lead to a downturn in world trade and therefore also a major global economic downturn.

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR AND NIXON’S DOLLAR WAR
The desperate measures the US is currently taking reminds me of Richard Nixon in August 1971 when he blamed the whole world for the dollar being attacked. President de Gaulle of France was clever enough to see what was happening and asked for payment of the US debt to France in gold. Since the dollar was backed by gold, sovereign states could demand payment in gold at that time. With the US currency under pressure, Nixon abandoned the gold backing of the dollar on August 15, 1971. That was the beginning of the end for the US economy and also the world economy. A credit expansion and money printing bonanza started that has continued until this day. This has made a very tiny minority very rich and lumbered the rest of the world with a debt that they neither will nor can repay.

But here is the important point. Trump’s desperate measure to save America will be seen as the nail in the coffin for the US and the world economy. And here we can draw a parallel to 1971. The US was in a similar situation then as it is now. Deficits were increasing and the dollar was falling. So what were the consequences of Nixon’s fatal decision. The dollar collapsed. I was in Switzerland at the time and saw the dollar fall 63% against the Swiss franc between Aug 1971 and January 1980. During that same period gold and silver surged. Gold went from $35 an ounce to $850 or up 24x. Silver went from £1.60 to $50, up 31 times.

Danke
04-05-2018, 11:09 PM
Trade Wars

https://goldswitzerland.com/trade-wars-petroyuan-debts-32000-gold-500-silver/

[/QUOTE]


Post this over here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520975-Economic-Storm-Clouds-Gather-but-Ending-the-Fed-Provides-Hope/page12

oyarde
04-05-2018, 11:15 PM
US is 18% of China's exports. Not enough to shut down entire regions (which are more economically diverse than some seem to realize). Then US producers (and consumers) face massive shortages of goods and parts to make goods and hundreds of thousands are laid off. Prices soar. Yeah- winning!

It will have no effect on me .

Danke
04-05-2018, 11:17 PM
It will have no effect on me .


Aren't you getting a little too old to keep picking up stealing from others?

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 11:17 PM
Trade Wars

https://goldswitzerland.com/trade-wars-petroyuan-debts-32000-gold-500-silver/


Yeah we know: "AMERICA IS EVIL AND EVERYBODY ELSE ARE INNOCENT VICTIMS, ESPECIALLY COMMUNISTS". :rolleyes:

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 11:19 PM
Aren't you getting a little too old to keep picking up stealing from others?

He doesn't grow old.

oyarde
04-05-2018, 11:19 PM
If chinamen were stupid you could maybe get them to just hurt themselves with stuff like daylight saving time , decaf coffee , emissions controls etc .

Danke
04-05-2018, 11:20 PM
Yeah we know: "AMERICA IS EVIL AND EVERYBODY ELSE ARE INNOCENT VICTIMS ESPECIALLY COMMUNISTS". :rolleyes:


I didn't get that from the article. If anything, you could dismiss it as a "goldbug" article trying to promote their business.

oyarde
04-05-2018, 11:22 PM
Aren't you getting a little too old to keep picking up stealing from others?

I am the best example of free trade .

Danke
04-05-2018, 11:22 PM
If chinamen were stupid you could maybe get them to just hurt themselves with stuff like daylight saving time , decaf coffee , emissions controls etc .


Your ancestors are implementing emission controls, going all electric vehicles soon.

oyarde
04-05-2018, 11:23 PM
I didn't get that from the article. If anything, you could dismiss it as a "goldbug" article trying to promote their business.

I am holding out for 54K gold .

Danke
04-05-2018, 11:23 PM
I am the best example of free trade .


Some people are paying for that.

oyarde
04-05-2018, 11:24 PM
Your ancestors are implementing emission controls, going all electric vehicles soon.

Good news for americans . china will kill themselves with stupid .

Swordsmyth
04-05-2018, 11:27 PM
If chinamen were stupid you could maybe get them to just hurt themselves with stuff like daylight saving time , decaf coffee , emissions controls etc .

Sort of like their soy tariff.

nikcers
04-05-2018, 11:30 PM
Some people are paying for that.
Those bastards took my boner pill money




Cheaper Chinese versions of erectile dysfunction (ED) treatments Viagra and Cialis are threatening to eat into the market share of the Western-made drugs as some of the 127 million Chinese men suffering from ED turn to domestic alternatives.

Swordsmyth
04-06-2018, 01:18 AM
China is less stable and less powerful than it appears on the surface. Its apparent stability is more of a mask concealing internal divisions. And it is afraid that its hold on power is weaker than many in the West suspect.
Remember Tiananmen Square?
Rather than showing the power and unity of the Chinese government, Beijing took a different lesson from Tiananmen Square.
As my colleague Kevin Massengill has pointed out, it revealed China’s political fragility.
We all know about the massacre. But what is not widely known is that several army officers refused orders to crush protests throughout China.
Seven retired generals, including a former defense minister, signed a letter opposing the use of force against the people of Beijing:
“Due to the exigent circumstances, we as old soldiers, make the following request: Since the People’s Army belongs to the people, it cannot stand against the people, much less kill the people, and must not be permitted to fire on the people and cause bloodshed; to prevent the situation from escalating, the Army must not enter the city.”

“I’d rather be beheaded than be a criminal in the eyes of history,” said one general commanding forces in the Beijing military district.
They were not the only one who felt that way. As Kevin has noted, armored divisions of 10,000 soldiers allowed themselves to be stopped for days by crowds of students and ordinary citizens who brought them food and water while explaining why their cause was just.

An estimated 3,500 PLA officers disobeyed orders to crush protests. Many Chinese army officers were reportedly executed. Others were demoted, or faced court martial and imprisonment.
The Tiananmen Square Massacre, Kevin says, is an example of why and proves that the position of the Chinese Communist Party is more precarious than is widely understood, even now, almost 30 years later.
Here’s something else not widely known about the protests…
The Tiananmen Square protests and massacre of 1989 did not start out as a liberty movement, although that’s how they are remembered in the West. It started out as an anti-inflation protest, and that’s how the Communists remember it.
And given China’s current economic problem, Beijing’s challenge is becoming more difficult every day. Consider what’s happening in China right now…
Growth in GDP is conventionally defined as the sum of consumer spending, investment, government spending (excluding transfer payments) and net exports.
Most large economies other than oil-producing nations get most of their growth from consumption, followed by investment, with relatively small contributions from government spending and net exports.
A typical composition would show a 65% contribution from consumption plus a 15% contribution from investment. China is nearly the opposite, with about 35% from consumption and 45% from investment.
That might be fine in a fast-growing emerging-market economy like China if the investment component were carefully designed to produce growth in the future as well as short-term jobs and inputs.
But that’s not the case.
Up to half of China’s investment is a complete waste. It does produce jobs and utilize inputs like cement, steel, copper and glass. But the finished product, whether a city, train station or sports arena, is often a white elephant that will remain unused.
What’s worse is that these white elephants are being financed with debt that can never be repaid. And no allowance has been made for the maintenance that will be needed to keep these white elephants in usable form if demand does rise in the future, which is doubtful.
Chinese growth has been reported in recent years as 6.5–10% but is actually closer to 5% or lower once an adjustment is made for the waste. The Chinese landscape is littered with “ghost cities” that have resulted from China’s wasted investment and flawed development model.
This wasted infrastructure spending is the beginning of the debt disaster that is coming soon. China is on the horns of a dilemma with no good way out.
On the one hand, China has driven growth for the past eight years with excessive credit, wasted infrastructure investment and Ponzi schemes. The Chinese leadership knows this, but they had to keep the growth machine in high gear to create jobs for millions of migrants coming from the countryside to the city and to maintain jobs for the millions more already in the cities.
The Communist Chinese leadership knew that a day of reckoning would come. The two ways to get rid of debt are deflation (which results in write-offs, bankruptcies and unemployment) or inflation (which results in theft of purchasing power, similar to a tax increase).
Both alternatives are unacceptable to the Communists because they lack the political legitimacy to endure either unemployment or inflation. Either policy would cause social unrest and unleash revolutionary potential.
Instead of these unpalatable extremes, the Chinese leadership is trying to steer a middle course with gradual financial reform and gradual limits on shadow banking. I’ve previously predicted that this gradual policy would not work because the credit situation is so extreme that even modest reform would slow the economy too fast for comfort.
That’s exactly what has happened. China has already flip-flopped and is easing up on financial reform. That works in the short run but just makes the credit bubble worse in the long run. China may soon resort to a combination of a debt cleanup and a maxi-devaluation of their currency to export the resulting deflation to the rest of the world.

It is probably the best way to avoid the social unrest that terrifies China.
When that happens, possibly later this year in response to Trump’s trade war, the effects will not be confined to China. A shock yuan maxi-devaluation will be the shot heard round the world as it was in August and December 2015 (both times, U.S. stocks fell over 10% in a matter of weeks).

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-05/trade-matter-survival-china

TheCount
04-06-2018, 06:17 AM
In a trade war whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, China will die, we will win.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/051/601/579.png

TheCount
04-06-2018, 06:18 AM
Sort of like their soy tariff.
Yeah, I can't imagine why a foreign country might want to tank the economy in Iowa, of all places, just in time for 2020. Sounds completely stupid!

AuH20
04-06-2018, 06:38 AM
Ron is wrong here, he would be right if China hadn't started a trade war and we had free trade with them but that isn't the case.

China didn't start the trade war per se. It was given license by the American elite to pursue such a course.

Ender
04-06-2018, 07:24 AM
China didn't start the trade war per se. It was given license by the American elite to pursue such a course.

Exactly.

Ender
04-06-2018, 07:32 AM
'A US Trade War With China Will End US Monopoly on Global Financial System’

RT News

September 22, 2017

If the Trump administration puts sanctions on China, this would hurt America more because it just forces China and Russia and other countries to cooperate, says investor and financial commentator Jim Rogers.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin warned on Tuesday that the US could impose economic sanctions on China if it does not implement the new sanctions regime against North Korea, saying that the restrictions could involve cutting off Beijing’s access to the US financial system.

“If China doesn’t follow these sanctions, we will put additional sanctions on them and prevent them from accessing the US and international dollar system, and that’s quite meaningful,” Mnuchin said at the Delivering Alpha Conference in New York City.

The UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution banning North Korea’s textile exports and capping its oil imports following Pyongyang’s sixth nuclear test conducted last week.

RT spoke to famous investor, author, and financial commentator Jim Rogers to discuss global perspectives in the case of the US imposing sanctions on China.

RT: What is the likelihood that the US will go through with and actually impose economic sanctions on China if it does not implement the new sanctions regime against North Korea?

Jim Rogers: Sanctions are sanctions. They could do sanctions which are not very important or don’t do much damage. And then they will have good public relations which says they have sanctions, but it is meaningless. I would suspect if anything, that is what they will start with. If they put sanctions on China in a big way, it brings the whole world economy down. And in the end, it hurts America more than it hurts China because it just forces China and Russia and other countries closer together. Russia and China and other countries are already trying to come up with a new financial system. If America puts sanctions on them, they would have to do it that much faster and in the end America will lose its monopoly on the financial system, which will hurt America more than anybody.

RT: What do you think, is it an empty rhetoric and saber-rattling from Donald Trump because he said “those [UN] sanctions are nothing compared to what ultimately will have to happen” without specifying what he meant by that. Do you think this is just mere bluff on the part of the US, or would it really use the ‘nuclear option’?

JR: If it uses a nuclear option for sanctions, it will hurt America much more than will hurt North Korea, it will hurt America much more than it will hurt China, Russia and everybody else. It will force the rest of the world to find an alternative to the US financial system. If he does that, it is going to cause a lot of turmoil in the world financial economy and in the end it is going to hurt America more than it is going to hurt anybody else.

I would give you an example, if you look at Russian agriculture right now – America put sanctions on Russian agriculture trying to hurt Russia, but it has helped Russian agriculture. Russian agriculture is booming now. In the end, America has hurt itself more than it has hurt anybody else.

There's a world of opportunities for investors in Russia's agriculture commodities market with farming in the country flourishing under international sanctions.

RT: If that happens, what would the consequences be for the global economy? Could this end up becoming a global economic crisis?

JR: We are probably going to have a global economic problem, maybe even crisis, in the next couple of years. This may be one of the things that start it. There is always something which starts a crisis. If America does something like this, this could be the thing that did it. In 1929, it started when America started a huge trade war with the rest of the world and the economists said, “please, this is a mistake,” but America did that anyway. And then we had a great collapse and The Great Depression of the 1930s.

RT: Washington runs a $350 billion annual trade deficit with Beijing. China also holds more than $1 trillion in US debt. How could the US actually threaten China in such circumstances?

JR: Mr. Trump has been saying for over a year, two years, that he was going to start a trade war with China. He was going to put very high tariffs on Chinese goods. In his mind, he wants to do it, he is ready to do it. Some of his advisors are very much in favor of a trade war. It may very well happen. If it happens, it is going to be very bad for the world and it is going to be worse for America than for other people.

RT: How significant is Chinese trade with North Korea?

JR: For North Korea, it is extremely important – that is really the only trade partner. They don’t trade with many people except China. But it is not very important for China. China has got gigantic trade all over the world and North Korea is a very small economy.

RT: What impact will this have on North Korea itself? From an economic perspective, would they be able to keep up their military development under harsh sanctions regime?

JR: If China actually cuts off their oil or something, no, then North Korea cannot do much of anything. North Korea would have troubles surviving if they do something like that. It depends on the sanctions, so far China has not done anything which would destroy North Korea. But they could destroy North Korea if they cut off all trade.

Tatiana Klimova, RT


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/no_author/a-us-trade-war-with-china/

goldenequity
04-06-2018, 07:50 AM
Exactly.


'A US Trade War With China Will End US Monopoly on Global Financial System’

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/no_author/a-us-trade-war-with-china/

+++ post

juleswin
04-06-2018, 07:58 AM
'A US Trade War With China Will End US Monopoly on Global Financial System’

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/no_author/a-us-trade-war-with-china/

Just so everyone knows, this interview was done by Russia Today (RT) and was just posted on Lewrockwell. I am going to try and find the link to the original article and post it here.

Just saying

Ender
04-06-2018, 08:02 AM
Just so everyone knows, this interview was done by Russia Today (RT) and was just posted on Lewrockwell. I am going to try and find the link to the original article and post it here.

Just saying

Thanks!

I go to Rockwell's site to find current timely articles- saves me a lot of time. And Lew has woken up a lot on his Trump POV.

juleswin
04-06-2018, 08:24 AM
Thanks!

I go to Rockwell's site to find current timely articles- saves me a lot of time. And Lew has woken up a lot on his Trump POV.

Talk about closing the barn door after the cows have escaped. Sorry, this is a time when "better late than never" doesn't apply. The Trump con was about the easiest con by the establishment to detect. If someone at the point in time was not able to call this before the election, then it is safe to say that said person lacks the ability to detect new
and more sophisticated political cons in the future.

Ender
04-06-2018, 08:42 AM
Talk about closing the barn door after the cows have escaped. Sorry, this is a time when "better late than never" doesn't apply. The Trump con was about the easiest con by the establishment to detect. If someone at the point in time was not able to call this before the election, then it is safe to say that said person lacks the ability to detect new
and more sophisticated political cons in the future.

I was never taken in by the Trump Con.

What I am saying is that there are decent articles being posted on the site that are showing what's really going on. Just a convenient short cut for me.

nikcers
04-06-2018, 08:48 AM
Talk about closing the barn door after the cows have escaped. Sorry, this is a time when "better late than never" doesn't apply. The Trump con was about the easiest con by the establishment to detect. If someone at the point in time was not able to call this before the election, then it is safe to say that said person lacks the ability to detect new
and more sophisticated political cons in the future.
Not really- Trumps con was a long con, he had been building up political connections and buying politicians and digging up dirt on news anchors. I don't think that there is anyone in recent history that put in as much legwork as he did politically except maybe Clinton. Thats why its funny that Rand said in the first debate that they were hedging their bets.

This election spent so much political capital that they have almost destroyed both of their fake political parties. All of that to stop Ron and Rand Paul. To this day the biggest names in politcs, the so called leaders of the political parties, the Obama, the Mccain, the Mitt Romney, the Clinton, the Trump, the Bush- they are all hated and despised so much so because of all the political fallout.

Whether or not we understand what comes next, we have to understand that the establishment had to empty their entire clip to win- and now they will use a new cold war and an invasion of barbarians as a political excuse to grab more power, unless we can rise up to the occasion and oppose the authoritarians who won the last few elections by stealing them from us.

juleswin
04-06-2018, 08:52 AM
I was never taken in by the Trump Con.

What I am saying is that there are decent articles being posted on the site that are showing what's really going on. Just a convenient short cut for me.

I wasn't talking about YOU in particular. Just talking about Lew Rockwell the man, the former editor of Ron Paul; newsletter and the current editor in chief of Lewrockwell.com. His credit took a big hit in my book when he fell hook, line and sinker for the Trump con. The rate he is going(age wise), he would more likely for the upcoming cons by TPTB.

And that is why I wouldn't go there for anything or share their links(albeit a link they shared via their website). I will find the original source and post it. Just sayin

Ender
04-06-2018, 08:56 AM
I wasn't talking about YOU in particular. Just talking about Lew Rockwell the man, the former editor of Ron Paul; newsletter and the current editor in chief of Lewrockwell.com. His credit took a big hit in my book when he fell hook, line and sinker for the Trump con. The rate he is going(age wise), he would more likely for the upcoming cons by TPTB.

And that is why I wouldn't go there for anything or share their links(albeit a link they shared via their website). I will find the original source and post it. Just sayin

Understand- it's cool.

nikcers
04-06-2018, 09:00 AM
I wasn't talking about YOU in particular. Just talking about Lew Rockwell the man, the former editor of Ron Paul; newsletter and the current editor in chief of Lewrockwell.com. His credit took a big hit in my book when he fell hook, line and sinker for the Trump con. The rate he is going(age wise), he would more likely for the upcoming cons by TPTB.

And that is why I wouldn't go there for anything or share their links(albeit a link they shared via their website). I will find the original source and post it. Just sayin

You gotta wonder why he did it I always did. I was never a big Lew Rockwell fan, but I always had a little respect for him because of his work with Ron Paul until the last election. I don't really think he was bought with money but that doesn't mean that he wasn't persuaded. I just think back to the election and how when Trump got attacked by news anchors the news anchors got destroyed. Trump was able to do what normal political candidates couldn't do, he had a super power, he was kryptonite to the MSM. He got the opposite treatment of Ron Paul during republican primaries. He was teflon don!

juleswin
04-06-2018, 09:36 AM
Not really- Trumps con was a long con, he had been building up political connections and buying politicians and digging up dirt on news anchors. I don't think that there is anyone in recent history that put in as much legwork as he did politically except maybe Clinton. Thats why its funny that Rand said in the first debate that they were hedging their bets.

This election spent so much political capital that they have almost destroyed both of their fake political parties. All of that to stop Ron and Rand Paul. To this day the biggest names in politcs, the so called leaders of the political parties, the Obama, the Mccain, the Mitt Romney, the Clinton, the Trump, the Bush- they are all hated and despised so much so because of all the political fallout.

Whether or not we understand what comes next, we have to understand that the establishment had to empty their entire clip to win- and now they will use a new cold war and an invasion of barbarians as a political excuse to grab more power, unless we can rise up to the occasion and oppose the authoritarians who won the last few elections by stealing them from us.

Some people say that Obama was groomed right out of college to be president. I think it is very possible that it happened that way. So if you believe that, why do you think they only groomed Trump and Obama? Maybe they have a dozen more people to spring up on us. More people for people like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods to fall for. These people think ahead, way ahead of people in the liberty movement and I have no doubt that they have something prepared for life under Trump. My guess is just a blue(dem) wave of people in the likes of Sanders.

My disgust is with the idea that cuddling these people who refuse to wake up will turn our situation around. I am not really sure if there is a path to "victory" but what I know in my heart is that this path will lead to nowhere.

Superfluous Man
04-06-2018, 09:55 AM
With all Trump's tax increases, the net effect is that his total tax cut is now pretty small. If not for these tax hikes, it would have been a significant cut.

Swordsmyth
04-06-2018, 11:50 AM
Yeah, I can't imagine why a foreign country might want to tank the economy in Iowa, of all places, just in time for 2020. Sounds completely stupid!
The soy tariff is poorly chosen, it will do more harm to them than us and they will end up buying almost as much of our soy as they do now.

Swordsmyth
04-06-2018, 11:51 AM
China didn't start the trade war per se. It was given license by the American elite to pursue such a course.


Exactly.

That means they started it with the permission of traitors in our society.

juleswin
04-06-2018, 12:09 PM
The soy tariff is poorly chosen, it will do more harm to them than us and they will end up buying almost as much of our soy as they do now.

Its not poorly chosen and it not going to be without some pain from both sides. This move will only open up the market for some other soy producer(real winner) and the US and China will take some loss.

I don't know why you keep insisting that the US will come out on top and China will lose. Maybe at the end of the day one side or both develops their respective tariffed industry to the point where they can produce enough at the same price point to cover their needs

Swordsmyth
04-06-2018, 02:05 PM
China’s Running Out of U.S. Imports to Targethttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-06/china-s-running-out-of-u-s-imports-to-target

phill4paul
04-06-2018, 03:45 PM
China’s Running Out of U.S. Imports to Targethttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-06/china-s-running-out-of-u-s-imports-to-target

It's kinda funny, but with all the doom and gloom by some on these forums, these tariffs haven't effected me at all. I've yet to see massive layoffs and any industry decline in companies that already weren't running themselves into the ground. The sun came up today, and I imagine it will tomorrow.

Swordsmyth
04-06-2018, 03:51 PM
It's kinda funny, but with all the doom and gloom by some on these forums, these tariffs haven't effected me at all. I've yet to see massive layoffs and any industry decline in companies that already weren't running themselves into the ground. The sun came up today, and I imagine it will tomorrow.

Many here actually would prefer to see China destroy the US, they look for any opportunity to believe it will happen.

juleswin
04-06-2018, 04:35 PM
It's kinda funny, but with all the doom and gloom by some on these forums, these tariffs haven't effected me at all. I've yet to see massive layoffs and any industry decline in companies that already weren't running themselves into the ground. The sun came up today, and I imagine it will tomorrow.

Well, I mean, maybe its because the tariffs haven't been implemented? it is only a proposal right now. Neither side has actually implemented the tariffs. Talk about strawmaning the opposition. Nobody is saying the sky would fall if Trump implemented the proposed sanctions with China. It would just makes a few things more expensive. Its just like the way some people complain when liberal raise the minimum wage by a few dollars. Its not like the sky would fall and the sun wouldn't rise when poor people are given more money.

Its just that a lot of people will suffer(a little) because of it

Swordsmyth
04-06-2018, 04:43 PM
U.S. aluminum prices are dropping, despite a 10% tariff imposed by President Donald Trump on the metal in early March intended to protect U.S. companies and allow for the creation of new manufacturing plants, one of his main promises during the 2016 presidential election.
The president touted the falling aluminum costs — down 4% from when the White House first announced the tariffs — on Twitter early Friday morning.

Despite the Aluminum Tariffs, Aluminum prices are DOWN 4%. People are surprised, I’m not! Lots of money coming into U.S. coffers and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 6, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/982214297160839173?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
“Despite the Aluminum Tariffs, Aluminum prices are DOWN 4%. People are surprised, I’m not!” he wrote. “Lots of money coming into U.S. coffers and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!”

More at: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-touts-falling-aluminum-prices-after-tariffs

phill4paul
04-06-2018, 05:05 PM
Well, I mean, maybe its because the tariffs haven't been implemented? it is only a proposal right now. Neither side has actually implemented the tariffs. Talk about strawmaning the opposition. Nobody is saying the sky would fall if Trump implemented the proposed sanctions with China. It would just makes a few things more expensive. Its just like the way some people complain when liberal raise the minimum wage by a few dollars. Its not like the sky would fall and the sun wouldn't rise when poor people are given more money.

Its just that a lot of people will suffer(a little) because of it

Solar panels were on sale at Harbor Freight when I stopped in. Made in China. MAGA.

spudea
04-06-2018, 05:29 PM
U.S. aluminum prices are dropping, despite a 10% tariff imposed by President Donald Trump on the metal in early March intended to protect U.S. companies and allow for the creation of new manufacturing plants, one of his main promises during the 2016 presidential election.
The president touted the falling aluminum costs — down 4% from when the White House first announced the tariffs — on Twitter early Friday morning.

Despite the Aluminum Tariffs, Aluminum prices are DOWN 4%. People are surprised, I’m not! Lots of money coming into U.S. coffers and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 6, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/982214297160839173?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
“Despite the Aluminum Tariffs, Aluminum prices are DOWN 4%. People are surprised, I’m not!” he wrote. “Lots of money coming into U.S. coffers and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!”

More at: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-touts-falling-aluminum-prices-after-tariffs

This deserves its own thread and please tag people from the old thread on these tariffs.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-bracing-for-tariffs-impact-aluminum-products-makers-breathe-a-sigh-of-relief-1522920600?

Zippyjuan
04-06-2018, 05:33 PM
U.S. aluminum prices are dropping, despite a 10% tariff imposed by President Donald Trump on the metal in early March intended to protect U.S. companies and allow for the creation of new manufacturing plants, one of his main promises during the 2016 presidential election.
The president touted the falling aluminum costs — down 4% from when the White House first announced the tariffs — on Twitter early Friday morning.

Despite the Aluminum Tariffs, Aluminum prices are DOWN 4%. People are surprised, I’m not! Lots of money coming into U.S. coffers and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 6, 2018 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/982214297160839173?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
“Despite the Aluminum Tariffs, Aluminum prices are DOWN 4%. People are surprised, I’m not!” he wrote. “Lots of money coming into U.S. coffers and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!”

More at: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-touts-falling-aluminum-prices-after-tariffs

Companies stockpiled what they could before the tariffs went into effect. "Delivered" prices are actually up 11% for the year. There was also a big run-up in price in anticipation of the tariffs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-06/trump-s-aluminum-victory-may-baffle-buyers-as-u-s-premium-jumps


And when the cost of delivering the light-weight metal to American buyers is included, the all-in price is about 11 percent higher than a year ago. The Midwest premium has doubled in 2018 amid fears that tariffs will curtail imports, leaving domestic metal makers struggling to meet demand.

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ihqAGcTK1jUE/v4/800x-1.png


“The global aluminum market was certainly substantially overbought on fears of Chinese supply constraints and cutbacks in production, which was exacerbated by tariff fears,” Tai Wong, the director of metals trading at BMO Capital Markets Corp., said by telephone.

“Aluminum prices have dropped materially since the tariffs were announced due more to the fact that industrial metals overall have corrected, and aluminum specifically was solidly overbought for the past six to nine months on Chinese supply constraint fears in terms of the winter shutdowns,” he said.

Swordsmyth
04-06-2018, 05:40 PM
Companies stockpiled what they could before the tariffs went into effect. "Delivered" prices are actually up 11% for the year. There was also a big run-up in price in anticipation of the tariffs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-06/trump-s-aluminum-victory-may-baffle-buyers-as-u-s-premium-jumps



https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ihqAGcTK1jUE/v4/800x-1.png

Panic buying drove up the price and now it will drop back down.

juleswin
04-06-2018, 05:43 PM
Companies stockpiled what they could before the tariffs went into effect. "Delivered" prices are actually up 11% for the year. There was also a big run-up in price in anticipation of the tariffs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-06/trump-s-aluminum-victory-may-baffle-buyers-as-u-s-premium-jumps



https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ihqAGcTK1jUE/v4/800x-1.png

You mean to tell me that increasing taxes on a product doesnt lead to a price decline? Next thing zippy will school u guys on the fact that water is wet.:rolleyes:

Seriously guys, u need to question the stuff u read on the internet especially when it contradicts economics 101. Its one thing if an article said the tariffs spurred job creation and investment in US aluminium and steel industry.

phill4paul
04-06-2018, 05:49 PM
You mean to tell me that increasing taxes on a product doesnt lead to a price decline? Next thing zippy will school u guys on the fact that water is wet.:rolleyes:

Seriously guys, u need to question the stuff u read on the internet especially when it contradicts economics 101. Its one thing if an article said the tariffs spurred job creation and investment in US aluminium and steel industry.

When we are on a 1-1 trade ratio get back to me. Every little thing, gonna be alright.

juleswin
04-06-2018, 05:54 PM
When we are on a 1-1 trade ratio get back to me. Every little thing, gonna be alright.

What ratio are we on now? You know what would better for Trump to do. He can maybe put a flat rate 5% tariff on every chinese import and then demand that China do the same within a month or else cos at the point I doubt the tariffs are imbalanced as the MAGA/you ppl would like us to believe.

phill4paul
04-06-2018, 05:57 PM
What ratio are we on now?

Come back to me when you can at least talk about trade imbalance.

juleswin
04-06-2018, 06:06 PM
Come back to me when you can at least talk about trade imbalance.

Trade as in tariff imbalance? Or trade imbalance as they have the industrial ingenuity to create more stuff and subsequently sell it to us than we can sell back to them. Please clarify

spudea
04-06-2018, 06:17 PM
Next thing zippy will school u guys on the fact that water is wet.

His misleading excepts are literally comparing different things. His linked source says the price of aluminum is down 7%. The "all in" cost including delivery isn't the same because of NON aluminum costs that have nothing to do with the tariffs. Then he shows another misleading graph of the "Midwest premium" which is a subset of aluminum prices and actually is included in the aluminum price quote where you get the DOWN 7% number.

juleswin
04-06-2018, 06:25 PM
His misleading excepts are literally comparing different things. His linked source says the price of aluminum is down 7%. The "all in" cost including delivery isn't the same because of NON aluminum costs that have nothing to do with the tariffs. Then he shows another misleading graph of the "Midwest premium" which is a subset of aluminum prices and actually is included in the aluminum price quote where you get the DOWN 7% number.

I am on my cell phone right now. But I googled aluminium price and got this. It seems like the price was already in a downtrend but it seems like something(who knows what) made it to spike up.

https://www.fastmarkets.com/base-metals/aluminium-prices-and-charts/

Forget what zippy said. Look at the chart for yourself. I have always associated tax raises to price increase and if prices happen to come down then it is inspite of the tariffs and most likely would have decreased even more without it

nikcers
04-06-2018, 08:13 PM
I can't believe the forum dedicated to Ron Paul doesn't know what the fuck is going on with commodities. What do you guys think would happen to the price of gold if the fiat dollars tanked? What do you think would happen to aluminum pricing if the Chinese currency tanked? Right now western countries are divesting from China- anyone who doesn't is getting punished, even the Russian oligarchs. The only reason why Washington is even talking about tarrifs is because they are trying to stabilize the prices of commodities so that they can pick winners and losers.

Swordsmyth
04-08-2018, 07:56 PM
Escalating tensions between the United States and China have triggered a flurry of U.S. soybean purchases by European buyers, in one of the first signs that trade tariff threats lobbed between the world's top two economies are disrupting global commodity trade flows.News of the sales, confirmed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Friday, helped to underpin benchmark Chicago Board of Trade soybean prices <0#S:> after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to slap tariffs on an additional $100 billion of Chinese goods.
The USDA said 458,000 tonnes of U.S. soybeans were sold to undisclosed destinations, which traders and grains analysts said included EU soybean processors such as the Netherlands and Germany.
If the entire volume is confirmed to be going to the European Union, it would be the largest one-off sale to the bloc in more than 15 years, according to USDA data. The USDA could not immediately be reached for comment.
"We're seeing a realignment of trade," largely because the politics is driving up Brazilian soybean prices, said Jack Scoville, analyst with the Price Futures Group.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-china-trade-tariff-barbs-120814218.html

Swordsmyth
04-09-2018, 05:03 PM
But in spite of signs of renewed economic activity in March (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-31/china-factory-gauge-jumps-in-march-services-remain-robust), the country’s debt build-up has provoked increasing concern amongst Beijing’s policy makers, as it points to an underlying long-term financial fragility, particularly if trade war pressures intensify. Just last October during the Communist Party Plenary, Zhou Xiaochuan, then head of the country’s central bank, warned of a “Minsky moment (https://www.ft.com/content/4bcb14c8-b4d2-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399)“:

“When there are too many pro-cyclical factors in an economy, cyclical fluctuations will be amplified. If we are too optimistic when things go smoothly, tensions build up, which could lead to a sharp correction, what we call a ‘Minsky Moment’. That’s what we should particularly defend against.”
To elaborate on Zhou’s statement, the economist Hyman Minsky described how once the debt “disease” goes metastatic, there will come a “Minsky moment” (a term originally coined by economist Paul McCulley (https://www.pimco.com/en-us/insights/economic-and-market-commentary/global-central-bank-focus/the-shadow-banking-system-and-hyman-minskys-economic-journey/)) when euphoria gives way to concern and then to panic liquidation and credit revulsion. When that dynamic is in full flower, policy makers are powerless to avert it, no matter how much they want to bring the punchbowl back. Governor Zhou’s public warning was no doubt in response to recent rapid increase of debt which, according to Professor L. Randall Wray (https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_18_1.pdf), “increased from 162 percent to 260 percent of GDP between 2008 and 2016,” and remains “a topic of discussion, if not deep concern.”
It may seem odd to warn of a Chinese slowdown, given the recent renewed surge in exports and the corresponding rise in both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing purchasing managing indices (both the manufacturing and service gauges remain above 50, and therefore indicative of robust economic activity (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-31/china-factory-gauge-jumps-in-march-services-remain-robust)). But these gains ought to be viewed against the backdrop of a more hostile external environment for Chinese manufactured goods. Discussing the recently imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, the New York Times reported (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/business/us-eu-tariffs-steel-aluminum.html) that Trump has already provided brief exemptions to “Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and South Korea” (countries that “account for more than half of the $29 billion in steel sold to the United States in 2017”), which reinforces the idea that it is largely China that remains the major target of Trump’s economic nationalists.
In that context, China’s ramped-up production in March could well be interpreted as an effort to evade the tariffs by exporting products into the U.S. under the wire, suggested economist Raymond Yeung (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-31/china-factory-gauge-jumps-in-march-services-remain-robust) of the ANZ group. If so, that could provoke further aggressive responses from Trump’s trade hawks, especially if it results in an expansion of the bilateral trade surplus with the U.S. Adding to the pressures, Reuters reports (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/u-s-seeks-china-trade-moves-on-autos-financials-chips-source-idUSKBN1H22QK) that “Top Trump administration officials are asking China to cut tariffs on imported cars, allow foreign majority ownership of financial services firms and buy more U.S.-made semiconductors in negotiations to avoid plans to slap tariffs on a host of Chinese goods and a potential trade war.”
But how serious are these threats? Are they simply a case of “smoke and mirrors,” as the economist Dani Rodrik has suggested (https://twitter.com/rodrikdani/status/976861895411068928)? China itself appears to be taking the risk of a trade war seriously, imposing retaliatory tariffs of up to 25 percent on 128 food imports from the U.S. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/world/asia/china-tariffs-united-states.html), an understandable negotiating posture given its position as a major creditor nation. But the very fact of its creditor status might presage problems for Beijing. If anything, history has shown that it is trade surplus nations, not debtors, that tend to be the biggest casualties of trade wars, as this account of America’s ill-fated Smoot-Hawley tariff imposition illustrates (https://fee.org/articles/the-smoot-hawley-tariff-and-the-great-depression/):

“World War I… made America the world’s creditor. The center of the financial world moved from London to New York, and billions of dollars were owed to large U.S. banks. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff threw inter-allied war-debt repayment relations into limbo by shutting down world trade. An international moratorium on debtor repayments to the United States froze billions in foreign assets, thus weakening the financial solvency of the American banks. Specifically, over $2 billion worth of German loans were obstructed by Germany’s inability to acquire dollars through trade to repay its debts. This same scenario played out in many other countries as well.”
China today occupies a creditor position comparable to the U.S. in the 1930s. Trump was certainly exaggerating when he suggested that (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/trump-trade-wars-are-good-and-easy-to-win.html) “trade wars are good and easy to win.” But the U.S. is a largely self-sufficient economy; China is not—which is what Trump was implicitly highlighting when he made his comments (albeit, typically oversimplified and ignoring the fact that the U.S. itself still has quasi-bubbleized assets and very high levels of indebtedness).
Even if the trade war threat turns out to be more talk than action, there are other ways in which Beijing might risk a Minsky-style deflation. There is a very old idea from business cycle theory prior to the Second World War that private sector over-investment can become so unsustainably high that even without a fiscal/monetary shock, there could be a fall in autonomous investment. Once that begins, accelerator multiplier dynamics can lead to a cumulative economic contraction even if interest rates plummet and monetary conditions ease.
There are grounds for thinking this is an idea whose time has come again. Though fixed investment is very low in the U.S., it is not so globally, especially in China, which has a condition of over-investment that is historically unprecedented. A decline in global autonomous investment that threatens accelerator and multiplier dynamics should follow.
Some would argue that the global capex overinvestment problem is purely a product of low interest rates, but in China’s case, it is also a product of their economic model. Although the reforms undertaken over the past few decades have given China the appearance of a market economy, it is not in many important aspects, notably in regards to the allocation of capital, which is not market-determined.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...s-domestically (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-08/forget-trade-war-china-has-even-bigger-problems-domestically)

Swordsmyth
04-09-2018, 10:16 PM
Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday promised to open the country's economy further and lower import tariffs on products including cars, in a speech that comes amid rising trade tensions between China and the United States.Xi also said China would raise the foreign ownership limit in the automobile sector "as soon as possible" and push previously announced measures to open the financial sector.
"This year, we will considerably reduce auto import tariffs, and at the same time reduce import tariffs on some other products," Xi said at the Chinese Boao Forum for Asia in Hainan province.

The comments sent U.S. stock futures, the dollar and Asian shares higher.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chinas-xi-says-opening-brings-progress-closure-backwardness-020730314--sector.html

TheCount
04-13-2018, 12:32 AM
Sort of like their soy tariff.

Rut roh, maybe those genetically socialist chinamen aren't so stupid after all:

http://fortune.com/2018/04/12/white-house-explains-trumps-reversal-on-tpp/



...

Earlier in the day, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse had told reporters that Trump was reconsidering the withdrawal from the trade agreement, which Obama Administration had negotiated with 11 other Pacific Rim countries to promote free trade by reducing barriers between them. “The President multiple times reaffirmed in general to all of us, and looked at Larry Kudlow, and said Larry go get it done,” Sasse said after exiting a White House meeting with the President about trade and agriculture that he attended with several governors and congressional leaders who represent states that they say will be adversely impacted by the President’s recently announced tariffs.

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, who also attended the meeting, said afterwards that she had urged the President to reconsider negotiating the TPP because of concerns by constituents about the tariffs.

Swordsmyth
04-13-2018, 12:38 AM
Rut roh, maybe those genetically socialist chinamen aren't so stupid after all:

http://fortune.com/2018/04/12/white-house-explains-trumps-reversal-on-tpp/



The soy tariff will hurt them more than us, anything they do will since they run a giant trade surplus with us but the soy tariff will be worse than the rest.

Swordsmyth
04-16-2018, 04:59 PM
Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is preparing a fresh trade complaint - again under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 - the same section of the trade act under which the US filed its complaint about China's intellectual property abuses, aka the first salvo (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-03/trump-launch-trade-war-china-friday-beijing-vows-retaliation) in the US's trade war. This time, Lighthizer is aiming at China's unfair restrictions on US companies trying to establish a foothold in China in high-tech industries like cloud computing. As a general rule, China requires foreign firms to partner with a domestic firm in a "revenue-sharing agreement" before they can gain entry to the Chinese market. By comparison, the US allows Chinese firms like Alibaba to function almost totally unfettered.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-16/us-planning-open-third-front-china-trade-spat

Swordsmyth
04-18-2018, 02:53 PM
The tit-for-tat trade spat between the US and China continued late Tuesday when the US revealed that it is starting a new investigation into whether steel wheels produced in China are illegally dumped in the US - an investigation that's being carried out at the behest of Accuride and Maxion Wheels, two US vehicle components suppliers, Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-steel-wheels/u-s-commerce-department-to-probe-imports-of-steel-wheels-from-china-statement-idUSKBN1HP07N) reported.
In addition to the investigation, the Department of Commerce also revealed on Tuesday that producers of common alloy aluminum sheet imported from China enjoy anticompetitive state subsidies as high as 113.3%, based on findings from an investigation launched in November.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018.04.18wheels.JPG
The news comes a day after China's Ministry of Commerce announced that it would impose a massive 178.6% anti-dumping tariff on imported sorghum, a grain used to feed Chinese pigs and other livestock, which in turn was in response to the US banning exports (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-17/china-slaps-179-tariff-us-sorghum-imports)to Chinese telecom giant ZTE.
The two companies initially petitioned the Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission earlier this month, according to Tire Business (http://www.tirebusiness.com/article/20180405/NEWS/180409971/accuride-maxion-seek-duties-on-chinese-steel-wheels) - a trade publication that covers the tire production and other segments of the auto parts industry.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-18/us-launches-anti-dumping-probe-steel-wheels-china

r3volution 3.0
04-18-2018, 03:39 PM
will hurt them more than us

I'm sure that Falkenhayn said the same on the eve of Verdun.

Swordsmyth
04-18-2018, 05:10 PM
I'm sure that Falkenhayn said the same on the eve of Verdun.

And Hannibal at Cannae.

r3volution 3.0
04-18-2018, 05:13 PM
And Hannibal at Cannae.

And they were both right, but it didn't work out well in the end for either, did it?

Swordsmyth
04-18-2018, 05:17 PM
And they were both right, but it didn't work out well in the end for either, did it?
War is complex and trying to use at as a metaphor for a trade war only muddles things further, but one thing is clear if someone else starts the war you are better off defending yourself and trying to get them to come to the peace table than you are if you just surrender.

r3volution 3.0
04-18-2018, 05:25 PM
War is complex and trying to use at as a metaphor for a trade war only muddles things further, but one thing is clear if someone else starts the war you are better off defending yourself and trying to get them to come to the peace table than you are if you just surrender.

http://rs1180.pbsrc.com/albums/x410/waltzmatildah/Random%20TV%2001/barneyshotinthehead.gif?w=280&h=210&fit=crop

Swordsmyth
04-18-2018, 05:31 PM
http://rs1180.pbsrc.com/albums/x410/waltzmatildah/Random%20TV%2001/barneyshotinthehead.gif?w=280&h=210&fit=crop

If you prefer suicide to surrender or defending yourself that is your business.

r3volution 3.0
04-18-2018, 05:38 PM
If you prefer suicide to surrender or defending yourself that is your business.

No, I'm saying that the protectionist is committing suicide.

Or, perhaps more on point, cutting off his nose to spite his face.

There is no question that Chinese peasants will be poorer as a result of these higher taxes, but so will American peasants.

It would be nice if politicians weren't demagogues, playing to popular ignorance, and tried rather to do what was best for the people.

Swordsmyth
04-18-2018, 05:47 PM
No, I'm saying that the protectionist is committing suicide.

Or, perhaps more on point, cutting off his nose to spite his face.

There is no question that Chinese peasants will be poorer as a result of these higher taxes, but so will American peasants.

It would be nice if politicians weren't demagogues, playing to popular ignorance, and tried rather to do what was best for the people.
It's not suicide, we got along fine while China was still in the stone age and we will get along fine without them now if we have to, if China disappeared tomorrow it would cause short term problems but it would stop the death by a thousand cuts that they have been inflicting on our economy.
Letting them continue to destroy us is suicide.

r3volution 3.0
04-18-2018, 05:56 PM
It's not suicide, we got along fine while China was still in the stone age and we will get along fine without them now if we have to, if China disappeared tomorrow it would cause short term problems but it would stop the death by a thousand cuts that they have been inflicting on our economy.
Letting them continue to destroy us is suicide.

Back when China was in the stone age (i.e. communism, excessive state control of the economy), what did our government spend?

What was our debt?

What was the regulatory burden?

...how's it now thirty years later?

Without major and politically impossible reforms, the standard of living of Americans would/will dramatically decline without cheap imports.

This is now the land of the indebted and the home of the foot stamp recipient.

And that is not the fault of any foreigner, dear Brutus.

Swordsmyth
04-18-2018, 05:59 PM
Back when China was in the stone age (i.e. communism, excessive state control of the economy), what did our government spend?

What was our debt?

What was the regulatory burden?

...how's it now thirty years later?

Without major and politically impossible reforms, the standard of living of Americans would/will dramatically decline without cheap imports.

This is now the land of the indebted and the home of the foot stamp recipient.

And that is not the fault of any foreigner, dear Brutus.
Then you are arguing that we should continue to enable our drug habit with the second more dangerous drug, it will make you feel great...........until you OD.

r3volution 3.0
04-18-2018, 06:06 PM
Then you are arguing that we should continue to enable our drug habit with the second more dangerous drug, it will make you feel great...........until you OD.

Free-ish trade ain't the drug Huckleberry

;)

Swordsmyth
04-18-2018, 06:24 PM
Free-ish trade ain't the drug Huckleberry

;)

Subsidized trade is and China is a pusher.

r3volution 3.0
04-18-2018, 06:48 PM
Subsidized trade is and China is a pusher.

Hogwash, the drug is:

1. Moral-hazard-creating and subsequently bust-creating (and "fixing") cheap money policy by the central bank

2. $4 trillion budgets devoted overwhelmingly to popular and corporate welfare (including DoD spending).

3. $3 trillion in pure dead-weight loss from regulatory compliance.

Our problems aren't in China; they're in Washington D.C. (or, everywhere Boobus gets to vote).

Lee Kuan Yew (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew), whose infant Singapore was (and is) vastly more exposed to Chinese competition did just fine, didn't it?

He didn't mind elections; he acted for, not through, the people.