[Victoribus Spolia]

Is it possible that Trump's tough talk is bringing the Chi-coms to the table?

Are we seeing the art of the deal?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

Speaking to Chinese and foreign businesspeople, Xi didn't mention Trump or their dispute. He pledged progress on areas that are U.S. priorities including opening China's banking industry but gave no direct response to Trump's demands such as ending requirements for foreign companies to work through joint ventures that require them to give technology to potential Chinese competitors.

Paid Post WHAT'S THIS?

Verizon Prepaid
Sponsored by Verizon Wireless

Treat yourself with your tax refund and get the best network with no annual contract.

See More
Private sector analysts saw Xi's speech as an overture to help resolve the standoff that has fueled fears the global economy may suffer a setback if other governments raise their own import barriers.

Trump has threatened to raise tariffs on Chinese goods worth $50 billion. Beijing fired back with its own $50 billion list of U.S. goods for possible retaliation.

In his speech, Xi tried to position China as a defender of free trade, despite its status as the most-closed major economy, in response to Trump's "America first" calls for import restrictions and trade deals that are more favorable to the United States. The speech was free of the nationalist bluster that increasingly marks Chinese official statements and repeatedly called for international cooperation.

"China's door of opening up will not be closed and will only open wider," said Xi at the Boao Forum for Asia.

Xi, the country's most dominant leader since at least the 1980s, said Beijing will "significantly lower" tariffs on auto imports this year and ease restrictions on foreign ownership in the auto industry "as soon as possible."

He also promised to encourage "normal technological exchange" and to "protect the lawful ownership rights of foreign enterprises."

"President Xi's speech could create a very good platform to launch U.S.-China dialogue at the WTO to find a deal on intellectual property rights," said economist Rajiv Biswas of IHS Markit in a report. "This would be a victory for the world trading system and an important step away from the abyss of rising global protectionism."

The dispute is likely to end "with a concession from China," said Larry Hu of Macquarie Group in a report.

[Sivad]

China will fold, they can't afford a trade war. The real concern is economic sabotage by globalist banksters. That's who this current bullshit arrangement really benefits so I'm sure they're hard at scheming up some way to tank the American economy that can plausibly be pinned on fair trade.

[Oxymandias]

@Sivad

I don't think China is folding. They can, in fact, afford a trade war. Many don't seem to understand that China is not tied to America's manufacturing consumption, it's tied to global manufacturing consumption so while China may be hurt by this trade war, it won't severely damage their economy. The US on the other hand cannot afford a trade war. The US is simply too dependent on Chinese manufacturing and by engaging in economic warfare, they are effectively lowering the living standards for Americans. Electronics and infrastructure materials are going to become increasingly more expensive in America if this trade war occurs.

What China is doing now is propaganda. They are pretending to be a global defender of free trade and implying that America is a threat to that. By doing this he appears to be on morally right while depicting the US as amoral. Furthermore, in the article itself most of the policies China say their implementing seemed to have been in the works for ages now. China has been progressively opening their trade and trying to fit in with global politics for ages now given that global politics is where they have the most power.

[One Degree]

I am hesitant to believe China intends to make much of a change in foreign ownership. This seems more a ploy to get the global capitalist to pressure Trump to ease off. Holding out that stick would really make the dogs salivate.

[Albert]

China through centralized planning of state capitalism has took advantage of a free trade approach with no government intervention that west practices. In this what has been established is an unbalance and unfair trade relations. On top of that Chinese government has purposely been acquiring technology from the west with disregard for "intellectual property" regulations. This is also an unfair practice within parameters of the rules established in international relations.

The only people in the west that have profited from the current trade relations are the big business corporations that profit from cheap labour that China provides for them. These are limited number of businesses yet very influential in American and western politics that China has allowed to enter their market. The rest of the west loses though. Especially the working class people who's jobs have been shipped overseas.

On top of that the country as a whole like America stands to lose in this scenario. As capital that otherwise would be paid to the workers as wages would have stayed in the America economy and benefit all of us. I'm not just talking about factory workers, but engineers, transport personal, educators who train engineers, and so on. This in turn will be spend on local business and the American economy as a whole.

Instead what has happened is that China through state capitalism apparatus has collected tremendous amount of wealth, with this wealth Chinese state run companies are going around the world buying western companies. This is the same capital that otherwise would have been in American, is being used to buy American companies now.

Trump for what he was voted in is actually trying to remedy this.

China has also been promising for a long time to liberalize their market for western countries and give them the same liberty that Chinese companies have abroad. This promise however is well over due, so there is yet again another chance that they will play another president for a fool if he concede to them on this. As they might as well just continue with business as usual.

[Zamuel]

I am hesitant to believe China intends to make much of a change in foreign ownership. This seems more a ploy to get the global capitalist to pressure Trump to ease off.

I agree, it's a predictable manipulation. The question is will Trump grab the bone they've tossed him in hopes of restoring some semblance of competency?

Zam

[Rugoz]

As if the US doesn't protect its companies from Chinese takeovers.

The only people in the west that have profited from the current trade relations are the big business corporations that profit from cheap labour that China provides for them. These are limited number of businesses yet very influential in American and western politics that China has allowed to enter their market. The rest of the west loses though. Especially the working class people who's jobs have been shipped overseas.

There is strong empirical evidence that trade with China boosted economic growth in the West (for example here). America just fails at distributing the benefits fairly.

[Albert]

Trading with China : Productivity Gains, Job Losses

That title is an oxymoron at first glance.

What seems the title says is that while we losing jobs to China we are working are people harder. Profits for big business all around.

[Rugoz]

That title is an oxymoron at first glance.

What seems the title says is that while we losing jobs to China we are working are people harder. Profits for big business all around.

Only politicians and their dumb voters think capitalism is about creating jobs, it has always been about destroying jobs.

[Albert]

What are you a communist?

[Rugoz]

What are you a communist?

I was being polemical.

Fact is, firms always want to reduce labor costs, for example by making workers more productive (or outsourcing them). It drives productivity growth. On a macro level that doesn't imply job losses, or only temporarily so. But it cannot be ruled out. It depends on the characteristics of the labor market. Jobs losses are associated with recession and low growth because of the business cycle, but that's fundamentally a different issue.

[One Degree]

I was being polemical.

Fact is, firms always want to reduce labor costs, for example by making workers more productive (or outsourcing them). It drives productivity growth. On a macro level that doesn't imply job losses, or only temporarily so. But it cannot be ruled out. It depends on the characteristics of the labor market. Jobs losses are associated with recession and low growth because of the business cycle, but that's fundamentally a different issue.

That is a very polite way of saying, “let’s call everyone a manager and require them to work 80 hours. We can cut our staff in half with no loss of productivity.”

[Sivad]

@Sivad

I don't think China is folding. They can, in fact, afford a trade war.

The Chinese economy is slowing down, their total debt is over 300% of GDP, trade is almost half of their economy, and their US exports are close to $500 billion vs the $150 billion in US exports to China. China will definitely lose a trade war with the US.

[Oxymandias]

@Sivad

I would like to know where you got such information in the first place.

[Sivad]

the info is from what I've read in the mainstream financial press, CNC, Bloomberg, WSJ. I imagine they're getting the numbers from analysts and official sources.

[Albert]

I was being polemical.

Fact is, firms always want to reduce labor costs, for example by making workers more productive (or outsourcing them). It drives productivity growth. On a macro level that doesn't imply job losses, or only temporarily so. But it cannot be ruled out. It depends on the characteristics of the labor market. Jobs losses are associated with recession and low growth because of the business cycle, but that's fundamentally a different issue.

I'm personally of persuasion that economy needs to be regulated by the government, so the narrow minded mentality of businessman like you exhibit does not damage overall economic well being.

The trouble that US has run into, is that its government failed to act when its big corporation started to ship production to China. It could be even argued that US government allowed willingly this to happen. US economy as a whole did not benefit from the loss of its manufacturing sector. Corporations like Apple and Nike gain tremendously in this, yet the general population suffered.

So in the end I agree it is not the business side that is at fault, but people in government who failed to act accordingly.

[Hong Wu]

China is only giving in if you believed in the media's fictitious trade war. Basically, Xi is not beholden to what western media conjures up at all. So you can't "give in" if there's no conflict. Media just put their foot in their mouths and made Trump look like he won a fight that wasn't happening.

[Crantag]

Essentially every thing said in the article was about normal Chinese economic policy, and the contents of the speech could have been given in any context with respect to China lately.

The article ends with a random quote from some dude named Larry Wu.

Yeah, I wasn't impressed by the article either.

[Oxymandias]

@Sivad

Most major news publications do not have sizable enough in-house analysts to make such claims that are backed up evidence. Most major news publications rely on accompanying studies which corroborate the information the article expresses. That is what I want, the accompanying studies because I often don't think that researchers are capable of critically analyzing the studies.

[Rugoz]

That is a very polite way of saying, “let’s call everyone a manager and require them to work 80 hours. We can cut our staff in half with no loss of productivity.”

Or you can give them excavators instead of shovels.

I'm personally of persuasion that economy needs to be regulated by the government, so the narrow minded mentality of businessman like you exhibit does not damage overall economic well being.

The trouble that US has run into, is that its government failed to act when its big corporation started to ship production to China. It could be even argued that US government allowed willingly this to happen. US economy as a whole did not benefit from the loss of its manufacturing sector. Corporations like Apple and Nike gain tremendously in this, yet the general population suffered.

So in the end I agree it is not the business side that is at fault, but people in government who failed to act accordingly.

LoL, I'm not a business man. I just described the obvious incentives they have. If they don't want to, the competition will force them to.