9 ms·

Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly? Russia's economy is the size of NYC so that is even stranger point especially given

by qaq 10y ago

Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly? Russia's economy is the size of NYC so that is even stranger point especially given Trumps position on " I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal"

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly? China's actively seeking trade deals all over the world. The US taking a strongly antitrade position could improve their relative position. The devil is really in the details, though.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Actively is putting it lightly. They are aggressively seeking trade deals and investment opportunities. Especially since they use those to further their foreign policy aims. The geopolitical implications of Trump's isolationist position is going to be significant.
  - qaq 10y ago
    Do you have an example where China implemented a trade agreements that resulted in significant trade balance surplus for the trading partner? (aside from energy)
    - jobu 10y ago
      China has been doing some pretty complex deals with countries all across Africa - financing and building hydroelectric dams and other massive infrastructure buildouts. These are long-term deals that often include concessions for oil or other natural resources, so it's difficult to pin them down to a clear surplus/deficit.
      - qaq 10y ago
        Generally in such deals Chinese companies are the contractors doing the work and suppliers of goods, so again outside of energy I don't think China implemented any agreements that provided surplus for the trading partner.
    - jpollock 10y ago
      New Zealand has a trade surplus with China. NZ was in the TPPA, but already have a FTA with China. They were trying for one with the US, but the US preferred the TPPA. [1][2] Since the China FTA came into effect, China has replaced the US as NZ's number 1 trading partner. The US is 4th on that list.[3] Actual graph showing surplus: [1]http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/feeding-the-dragon-lessons-of-the-new-zealand-china-fta/ http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/feeding-the-dragon-lessons-of... [2] http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/imports_and_exports/trade-china-tripled-decade.aspx http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/i... [3] http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-in-profile-2015/trading-partners.aspx http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz...
      - qaq 10y ago
        OK I stand corrected Energy and Food but New Zealand is definitely more an exception then a norm. We are running close to 400b trade deficit with China.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
mywittyname 10y ago
The TPP (and other trade agreements) is largely about establishing key US companies into foreign markets. The US can, unsurprisingly, command the upper-hand in most negotiations due to our massive economic influence. These laws include protections for IP rights, financial regulation, and food/drug safety standards that allow US companies to operate and establish dominance in foreign markets. If the US refuses to build trade relations, or becomes known for breaking agreements, then that gives China the opportunity to come in and instead establish their entertainment, technology, banking, and consumer goods companies. This would be clearly at the expense of the US and would gradually erode our economic influence around the world. People around the world drink Coke, eat McDonalds, search on Google, get loans from Wells Fargo, buy stuff on their Visas, etc, largely due to these agreements. This money funnels back to the US to pay salaries, taxes and dividends. So, short-term, US sheep farmers benefit from not having to compete on fair terms with New Zealand wool. But long-term, all other Americans lose as the income streams from established American companies are transferred to their non-US counterparts.
- qaq 10y ago
  In particular case of China given the trade imbalance and the currency peg doesn't really look like US has a net gain from current setup. US position in most categories in China is very modest.
  - mywittyname 10y ago
    Because China wants a piece of this amazing pie the US has cooked up. The US gave up the hard-to-automate, labor intensive industries while keeping a lot of the high-margin, highly-automated industries. So while Chinese companies compete for razor thin margins on smart phone components, American companies sell flavored sugar water all over the world for 500% markup (and gobble up any competition). That's why the TPP is so important, it specifically excludes China because the goal is to further entrench US companies in SE Asia/Oceania. If the US backs out, then that gives China the opportunity to come in and sell the low-cost smart phones AND overpriced sugar water. We are competing with China for trade partners and it seems backwards to me to forfeit.
azernik 10y ago
The TPP had very specific political goals - it created a common market for the US, a couple of Latin American countries, and most of the major East Asian and South Pacific economies... but NOT China. The idea being to both bind American allies in Asia more closely to it, and to ensure that if/when China wanted expanded trade with TPP members it would have to deal with rules that had originally been set by the US and its allies.

by qaq 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Hmm totally not being a Trump supporter how does this empower China exactly? China's actively seeking trade deals all over the world. The US taking a strongly antitrade position could improve their relative position. The devil is really in the details, though.

threeseed 10y ago
Actively is putting it lightly. They are aggressively seeking trade deals and investment opportunities. Especially since they use those to further their foreign policy aims. The geopolitical implications of Trump's isolationist position is going to be significant.
- qaq 10y ago
  Do you have an example where China implemented a trade agreements that resulted in significant trade balance surplus for the trading partner? (aside from energy)
  - jobu 10y ago
    China has been doing some pretty complex deals with countries all across Africa - financing and building hydroelectric dams and other massive infrastructure buildouts. These are long-term deals that often include concessions for oil or other natural resources, so it's difficult to pin them down to a clear surplus/deficit.
    - qaq 10y ago
      Generally in such deals Chinese companies are the contractors doing the work and suppliers of goods, so again outside of energy I don't think China implemented any agreements that provided surplus for the trading partner.
  - jpollock 10y ago
    New Zealand has a trade surplus with China. NZ was in the TPPA, but already have a FTA with China. They were trying for one with the US, but the US preferred the TPPA. [1][2] Since the China FTA came into effect, China has replaced the US as NZ's number 1 trading partner. The US is 4th on that list.[3] Actual graph showing surplus: [1]http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/feeding-the-dragon-lessons-of-the-new-zealand-china-fta/ http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/feeding-the-dragon-lessons-of... [2] http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/imports_and_exports/trade-china-tripled-decade.aspx http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/i... [3] http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-in-profile-2015/trading-partners.aspx http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz...
    - qaq 10y ago
      OK I stand corrected Energy and Food but New Zealand is definitely more an exception then a norm. We are running close to 400b trade deficit with China.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

mywittyname 10y ago

The TPP (and other trade agreements) is largely about establishing key US companies into foreign markets. The US can, unsurprisingly, command the upper-hand in most negotiations due to our massive economic influence. These laws include protections for IP rights, financial regulation, and food/drug safety standards that allow US companies to operate and establish dominance in foreign markets. If the US refuses to build trade relations, or becomes known for breaking agreements, then that gives China the opportunity to come in and instead establish their entertainment, technology, banking, and consumer goods companies. This would be clearly at the expense of the US and would gradually erode our economic influence around the world. People around the world drink Coke, eat McDonalds, search on Google, get loans from Wells Fargo, buy stuff on their Visas, etc, largely due to these agreements. This money funnels back to the US to pay salaries, taxes and dividends. So, short-term, US sheep farmers benefit from not having to compete on fair terms with New Zealand wool. But long-term, all other Americans lose as the income streams from established American companies are transferred to their non-US counterparts.

qaq 10y ago
In particular case of China given the trade imbalance and the currency peg doesn't really look like US has a net gain from current setup. US position in most categories in China is very modest.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  Because China wants a piece of this amazing pie the US has cooked up. The US gave up the hard-to-automate, labor intensive industries while keeping a lot of the high-margin, highly-automated industries. So while Chinese companies compete for razor thin margins on smart phone components, American companies sell flavored sugar water all over the world for 500% markup (and gobble up any competition). That's why the TPP is so important, it specifically excludes China because the goal is to further entrench US companies in SE Asia/Oceania. If the US backs out, then that gives China the opportunity to come in and sell the low-cost smart phones AND overpriced sugar water. We are competing with China for trade partners and it seems backwards to me to forfeit.

azernik 10y ago

The TPP had very specific political goals - it created a common market for the US, a couple of Latin American countries, and most of the major East Asian and South Pacific economies... but NOT China. The idea being to both bind American allies in Asia more closely to it, and to ensure that if/when China wanted expanded trade with TPP members it would have to deal with rules that had originally been set by the US and its allies.