[B0ycey]

This is absurdly easy to compensate for. China is famous for this. They simply insist that foreign investors partner with local enterprises - with the implied threat that capital repatriation can be interrupted at their whim. Why is China allowed to openly nationalistic and protectionist, but not their trading partners?.

The difference is the markets and peoples living standards in each country. Because China are an export king, naturally they want to promote globalisation. And no sensible country would allow China free reign in their markets because of their attitude to outside interference in their economy and the fact they could out compete homemade products without barriers in their country too. The US on the otherhand are a consumer based market where people think they have a low standard of living, but in reality to the rest of the world, this is far from true and rely on globalsation for some of their biggest brand names. The China poor are prepared to accept a lower standard of living than their US counterparts because they have never known anything different. Any free money they have tends to go into investments or retirement, not luxuries.

So what should the US do? Well they have some massive global brands. So in my eyes protectionism is suicidal. So they either accept this notion and also accept a lower standard of living and ultimately make these big brands move shores or stop wasting their money on illegal wars, missles, walls and space rockets and put it into welfare and tax credits and keep globalisation. I know which one I'd pick if I was American. And it isn't Trumps plan A of trade embagos and increased tariffs of goods from ally nations.

[quetzalcoatl]

...So they either accept this notion and also accept a lower standard of living and ultimately make these big brands move shores or stop wasting their money on illegal wars, missles, walls and space rockets and put it into welfare and tax credits and keep globalisation...

You are offering a 'choice' which doesn't in fact exist. Both globalism and war are necessary outcomes of hegemonic capitalism, and you cannot arbitrarily choose to accept one and reject the other.

[B0ycey]

You are offering a 'choice' which doesn't in fact exist. Both globalism and war are necessary outcomes of hegemonic capitalism, and you cannot arbitrarily choose to accept one and reject the other.

Explain to me why you think capitalism has to be hegemonic? Money is an IOU. Resources, labour and services can eliminate this IOU. So they are things the US (and other nations) could eliminate over time if they decided to halt the printing of new money. You have been watching too many documentries stating otherwise. The US want to be hegemonic so they can keep their political dominance and globalisation brands paramount. Nothing more. Nothing less. But the US could provide welfare and tax credits without the need to be hegemonic because they have high value resources, infrastucture and ideas. But Instead they decide to steal from other countries rather than use what they have. And the US public think they have get a shit deal with globalisation. Whatever. It makes you rich. But you look at the US elite and think that's what being rich is. False. You are more wealthy than most of the planet. And the US wastes this wealth on bullets. Bullets they actually don't need. But I suppose if you believe in HST then yes be hegemonic. But if you become a protectionist nation, no nation will allow you to be the hegemonic topdog. So in the end, if you accept HST as fact, the US are destined to fail under Trump.

[SueDeNîmes]

And the US public think they have get a shit deal with globalisation. Whatever. It makes you rich. But you look at the US elite and think that's what being rich is. False.

They look at their parents and grandparents who could support a family on a single wage and think that's what being rich is. Their parents and who could count on pensions and healthcare, weren't expected to chase crappy zero-hours service "jobs" from city to city, didn't have the chronic debt and financial insecurity, the bankruptcies, the food stamps despite working, the long commutes, the missed parenting, the divorces. That's what being middle class in a rich country was and the cheap stuff in Walmart doesn't nearly compensate.

Whether or not The Donald can turn that around, he at least isn't on about some alternate reality where globalisation has made them rich.

[Potemkin]

They look at their parents and grandparents who could support a family on a single wage and think that's what being rich is. Their parents and who could count on pensions and healthcare, weren't expected to chase crappy zero-hours service "jobs" from city to city, didn't have the chronic debt and financial insecurity, the bankruptcies, the food stamps despite working, the long commutes, the missed parenting, the divorces. That's what being middle class in a rich country was and the cheap stuff in Walmart doesn't nearly compensate.

Most people, if they're honest with themselves, don't actually want to be rich - they want to be financially secure, so they can live a decent human life. This is what has been taken away from them by the process of globalisation, and they want it back.

Whether or not The Donald can turn that around, he at least isn't on about some alternate reality where globalisation has made them rich.

But the problem is that globalisation has made some people very rich, Sue - the American ruling elite has become enormously richer and more powerful as a result of globalisation. Why on Earth would they oppose it?

[Negotiator]

Um. A - trade war ? With - the USA, of all countries ? Okay. Soooo - why exactly would I care ? Its not like the USA would produce anything I'm interested in buying in the first place.

Now if Japan would declare a trade war with Europe, that would bother me a lot.

[Beren]

Trump has more important things to do guys. Dealing with transgender people for example.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=168312

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I think people are confusing todays economic environment to a US protectionism economic environment. Sure investors might look at a cheap dollar and buy. But $1.2 trillion? In an environment where the dollar is traded mostly in an internal market? Why? Especially not likely to occur by nations where the US has just fucked them over. As for counteractions to prevent appreciation of your own currency, why buy US assets to halt this? There are other options that you could take. Personally, I'd print more of my own currency and use the cash to invest in my own infrastucture than bailout a nation that has wacked tariffs on my imports. But that's me. Or you could invest in up and coming economic markets like Brazil or India. Not a market that is likely to lose a significant percentage of its GDP as it relied but has suddenly just rejected globalisation.

For it to matter with respect to investment decisions, the policy shift in the US would have to be far more dramatic than has been suggested so far. They are not planning to go down the route of North Korea after all, but as far as I can tell it's at most akin to policies that East Asians economies have had for a long time.

If some countries chose not to invest in the US as a retaliatory measure but in other countries instead, it wouldn't change much, because those other countries would likely turn around and invest in US-denominated assets/debt, not only because these would be cheap but also to depreciate their currency against the USD. If all this happens quickly, some countries might even put temporary barriers in place to prevent "hot money" from entering their country.

What could be a real problem is US interest rates going up and any newly issued debt becoming more expensive for the US, although this would also be temporary unless there is real concern about the US economy.

Having said all this, there are circumstances where the US could become vulnerable to China holding such large USD reserves and hence I never thought that letting a non-allied country do this was a good idea.

[B0ycey]

For it to matter with respect to investment decisions, the policy shift in the US would have to be far more dramatic than has been suggested so far. They are not planning to go down the route of North Korea after all, but as far as I can tell it's at most akin to policies that East Asians economies have had for a long time.

Right, again you aren't reading all previous posts and confusing the hypothetical environment we were discussing with something else. For China to sell Dollars today would be mad. Because of the strength of the US market. But Trump had mentioned Chinese trade embargos, significant hiked in tariffs with goods made outside the US, anti ally rhetoric and breaking away or renegotiating trade agreements. These policies coupled with printing new money to build a wall that has monetary value is not good for the US economy or confidence in the Dollar. And if China did a mass sell off of the Dollar in retaliation of a trade embargo that the US imposed on them, then confidence in the Dollar would reduce further. But this is all hypothetical and hopefully Congress is not as stupid or suicidal as Trump on this issue and prevent this hypotheical scenario becoming a reality.

If some countries chose not to invest in the US as a retaliatory measure but in other countries instead, it wouldn't change much, because those other countries would likely turn around and invest in US-denominated assets/debt, not only because these would be cheap but also to depreciate their currency against the USD. If all this happens quickly, some countries might even put temporary barriers in place to prevent "hot money" from entering their country.

...or they could print more of their own currency and enhance their growth further with new infrastructure. Why invest in a currency that is dying? (In this hypothetical scenario not today obviously)

What could be a real problem is US interest rates going up and any newly issued debt becoming more expensive for the US, although this would also be temporary unless there is real concern about the US economy.

And there would be concerns in US protectionism economic environment. So not temporary.

Having said all this, there are circumstances where the US could become vulnerable to China holding such large USD reserves and hence I never thought that letting a non-allied country do this was a good idea.

Short answer greed. The fact that China/Japan have so much US debt with high unemployment they have means in my opinion today the Dollar is actually over valued. There are two currencies today that are really under valued. One is the Yuan, the other is UK sterling (I am biased of course). Why? Because of the size of the Chinese economy and because of size of UK growth since Sterling dropped. The only sector that is failing in the UK (and not massively either) is retail and that is because of the drop of Sterling. And this sector would grow again if Sterling rose in value. The Euro is technically undervalued too, but only because it has Germany within the Eurozone. So overall it's about right when you consider they have markets such as Greece in the Eurozone too.

[SueDeNîmes]

Most people, if they're honest with themselves, don't actually want to be rich - they want to be financially secure, so they can live a decent human life. This is what has been taken away from them by the process of globalisation, and they want it back.

Yep and the mainstream parties, having bought into neoliberalism, can't offer them a coherent narrative or policies. Hence neo-nationalism on the march everywhere.

But the problem is that globalisation has made some people very rich, Sue - the American ruling elite has become enormously richer and more powerful as a result of globalisation.

Yes and their gain has been working peoples' loss in their own countries. That's not the capitalism the losers were sold. They're hoping The Donald might still deliver it. He almost certainly won't for reasons quetzalcoatl points out, but the US is big, diverse and productive enough to get away with some protectionism.

Why on Earth would they oppose it?

They mostly wouldn't. Opportunists looking to replace them by exploiting the resulting discontent are a different matter. And, given power, they usually have rather more direct methods of keeping the proles in line.

[Potemkin]

Yes and their gain has been working peoples' loss in their own countries. That's not the capitalism the losers were sold.

When are they going to wake up to the fact that they've been sold a lemon, Sue?

They're hoping The Donald might still deliver it. He almost certainly won't for reasons quetzalcoatl points out, but the US is big, diverse and productive enough to get away with some protectionism.

In other words, at best The Donald can merely delay the inevitable.

Why on Earth would they oppose it?
They mostly wouldn't. Opportunists looking to replace them by exploiting the resulting discontent are a different matter. And, given power, they usually have rather more direct methods of keeping the proles in line.

Indeed. Steve Bannon has talked about "the exciting 1930s". I guess we're going to get to see first-hand just how 'exciting' that decade actually was....

[noemon]

Donald Trump has described the European Union as “wonderful” and said he is “totally in favour of it”, despite having in the past praised Britain as “smart” for pursuing Brexit.

The US President, who has made no secret of his dislike of the Brussels bloc, said he had “very good relations with the EU, but I thought that the UK would pull out of Brexit and I was right”.

“The EU, I’m totally in favour of it. I think it’s wonderful, if they’re happy. If they’re happy – I’m in favour of it,” he said.

Mr Trump’s about-turn follows previous criticisms levelled at the 28-member bloc for acting as a “vehicle for Germany”.

He has also predicted that other member states would leave the EU.

Mr Trump said during an interview in January: “You look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany. That’s why I thought the UK was so smart in getting out.”

White House chief strategist and close aide to Mr Trump Steve Bannon is also understood to be an ardent Eurosceptic, reportedly telling one German diplomat during a recent meeting that the EU was a flawed concept.

He also suggested the US under Mr Trump favoured conducting bilateral negotiations.

But Vice President Mike Pence has attempted to strike a different tone, saying during a recent visit to Europe that he and the President looked forward to working with the EU to “deepen our political and economic partnership”.

Leaders of the EU have raised their own concerns about Mr Trump’s suspicion of Brussels, with Martin Schulz, the former president of the European Parliament, describing his election victory as a “very difficult moment” for the continent.

Independent

[Beren]

Mr Trump said during an interview in January: “You look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany."

Many Germans wouldn't believe that.

White House chief strategist and close aide to Mr Trump Steve Bannon is also understood to be an ardent Eurosceptic, reportedly telling one German diplomat during a recent meeting that the EU was a flawed concept.

He also suggested the US under Mr Trump favoured conducting bilateral negotiations.

But Vice President Mike Pence has attempted to strike a different tone, saying during a recent visit to Europe that he and the President looked forward to working with the EU to “deepen our political and economic partnership”.

It all depends on whether to whom Trump listens. Now it seems like Bannon's influence is limited to domestic affairs and politics. Pence is also not a great friend of Russia I think.