7 ms·

This is largely the same story as can be read here: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3010456/what-killed-us-china-trade-talks-tale-two-texts h

by chvid 7y ago

This is largely the same story as can be read here: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3010456/what-killed-us-china-trade-talks-tale-two-texts https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3010456/wh... I find it amazing that this deal appearantly was close to coming through.

m0zg 7y ago
Why is it so "amazing"? They're between a rock and a hard place. Their economy is guaranteed to collapse if the US keeps erecting trade barriers. The US is much less dependent on them than they are on the US. It will hurt here (with a nice side-effect of import diversification), but it will be totally unbearable over there. They know this perfectly well. The US has a tremendous leverage in this negotiation. China's main sticking point is they want to remove this leverage and make the deal unenforceable. Yeah, that might have worked with Obama (who was, IMO, too eager to please), but the current administration knows better than to sign something like that.
- chvid 7y ago
  The article really explains it well. It is USA, a foreign power, dictating detailed law in China; that digs deep.
  - dionian 7y ago
    The US is right to try to seek some reasonable guarantees that the terms of the deal will be adhered to
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Um, yeah, trade deals tend to "dictate law" in other countries. TPP would have done a lot of that. What's so bad about not forcing industrial espionage on US companies if they want to operate in China? No one is forcing China at gunpoint to take the deal. If they have another market they can sell to, they should consider doing that.
    - chvid 7y ago
      "No one is forcing them at gunpoint to take the deal." The Trump administration did choose the "nuclear option" just one day later. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/trump-s-huawei-threat-is-the-nuclear-option-to-halt-china-s-rise?srnd=technology-vp https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/trump-s-h... I think the above bloomberg article explains just how extreme an action it is; and also sprinkle it with comments from american politicians which seem to reveal that this is about more than "reasonable guarantees".
      - m0zg 7y ago
        Try rooting for the US for a change. I can guarantee you nobody is rooting for the US on the other end of this negotiation. It is criminally naive to believe that a country will give up $500B in trade imbalance without kicking up some dust and engaging in hardball negotiation tactics to mitigate the damage. I also happen to think that Trump is 100% right in barring Huawei from dominating the US telecom for the same reason why you wouldn't want e.g. Russia to build US voting systems.
        Tomte 7y ago
        "$500B in trade imbalance" You make it sound like it's a bad thing. Trade imbalance simply is, there is no moral value statement involved. For consumers a trade deficit is actually pretty sweet. You can also see it this way: America gets 500B worth of goods from China, in exchange for currency it can simply print.
        rchaud 7y ago
        > For consumers a trade deficit is actually pretty sweet. That's textbook economics. It's called "textbook" because it is theoretical, and even then it assumes that all other things remain the same. Deficits don't impact every country the same way. In any case, no economics textbook will claim that decades-long deficits are good for the consumer. > You can also see it this way: America gets 500B worth of goods from China, in exchange for currency it can simply print. Another way to look at it would be in the slow deindustrialization of America and the bleeding out of hundreds of thousands of once middle-class jobs that kept the American economy ticking. Those jobs have moved abroad because it looked better for C-level execs whose compensation is tied to their stock price, not because of any BS about comparative advantage. People making textiles or auto parts can't switch to data science jobs overnight, even though the economics textbook says that's what should happen, all other things remaining equal.
  - yumraj 7y ago
    US is the aggrieved party. It has full right to make sure that the wrongs do not continue.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  You obviously haven't read the article of this thread and do not know about the so-called Unequal Treaties China was subjected to in the 19th and early 20th century...
  - kolanos 7y ago
    Because the U.S. doesn't have a similar history with the British Empire?
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      No... That isn't even remotely similar. That's also completely irrelevant here. Are people really that clueless about history? Or is it just bad faith?
      - kolanos 7y ago
        Please point out the provisions of the Treaty of Nanking [0] that are materially worse than terms the U.S. colonies were subject to [1]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United...
        NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        See my previous questions. This is sad to see such behaviour on HN...
        kolanos 7y ago
        Please familiarize yourself on colonial mercantilism [0] and then get back to me on how "irrelevant" U.S. history is... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United...
- moorhosj 7y ago
  ==They know this perfectly well. The US has a tremendous leverage in this negotiation.== You are leaving out how Donald Trump wants to be re-elected in 18 months and Xi has no such pressures. ==China's main sticking point is they want to remove this leverage and make the deal unenforceable. Yeah, that might have worked with Obama (who was, IMO, too eager to please), but the current administration knows better than to sign something like that.== Like that "deal" we signed with North Korea? I think you are giving the administration a little too much credit as they have engaged the same types of tactics with our allies (Canada, Mexico and the EU) who are not in the same position as China.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Which "deal" have we "signed" with North Korea? As far as I'm aware that negotiation is very far from over, although positive movement is evident (for which South Korean government gives credit directly to Trump: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-trump/south-korea-president-says-trump-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-idUSKBN1I10OD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-tru...). There haven't been any nuclear weapons tests either. Do you think the Koreas can be reunited in a year after being separate for 50? Nobody has ever gotten anywhere near as far as Trump in all of this. Give credit where credit is due.
    - moorhosj 7y ago
      ==Which "deal" have we "signed" with North Korea? As far as I'm aware that negotiation is very far from over,== We haven't signed a deal, that was something Trump promised at the second summit, but never delivered. Meanwhile, after the first summit on June 13, 2018, Trump said, “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” [1] Was that ever true? ==although positive movement is evident== Just last week, "North Korea fires two rounds of missiles, 2nd launch in a week, South Korea says" [2]. ==Give credit where credit is due.== What has North Korea signed or taken concrete actions on? [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-trumps-premature-victory-celebration-became-kims-triumph-2019-02-25 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-trumps-premature-victo... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-fires-unidentified-projectile-south-korean-military-official-says-n1003626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-fires-unident...
- baybal2 7y ago
  Less than 3.5% of China's GDP is trade with USA. China can stop trade with USA nearly completely, and not even notice it really Few years ago, the biggest US export to China was plastic and paper (garbage) Now, it changed to agriculture products, airplanes and cars (German American cars...)
  - m0zg 7y ago
    I think it's more like 4.5%, something like 530 billion on the GDP of 12 trillion. And no, they can't stop exporting to the US. The entirety of their economy depends on continued growth, and if, unwisely, they chose to stop exports to the US, China would be deeply fucked for the next decade or more. >> Few years ago, the biggest US export to China was plastic and paper (garbage) From https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peo...: "The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: electrical machinery ($152 billion), machinery ($117 billion), furniture and bedding ($35 billion), toys and sports equipment ($27 billion), and plastics ($19 billion)"

by chvid 7y ago

m0zg 7y ago

Why is it so "amazing"? They're between a rock and a hard place. Their economy is guaranteed to collapse if the US keeps erecting trade barriers. The US is much less dependent on them than they are on the US. It will hurt here (with a nice side-effect of import diversification), but it will be totally unbearable over there. They know this perfectly well. The US has a tremendous leverage in this negotiation. China's main sticking point is they want to remove this leverage and make the deal unenforceable. Yeah, that might have worked with Obama (who was, IMO, too eager to please), but the current administration knows better than to sign something like that.

chvid 7y ago
The article really explains it well. It is USA, a foreign power, dictating detailed law in China; that digs deep.
- dionian 7y ago
  The US is right to try to seek some reasonable guarantees that the terms of the deal will be adhered to
- m0zg 7y ago
  Um, yeah, trade deals tend to "dictate law" in other countries. TPP would have done a lot of that. What's so bad about not forcing industrial espionage on US companies if they want to operate in China? No one is forcing China at gunpoint to take the deal. If they have another market they can sell to, they should consider doing that.
  - chvid 7y ago
    "No one is forcing them at gunpoint to take the deal." The Trump administration did choose the "nuclear option" just one day later. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/trump-s-huawei-threat-is-the-nuclear-option-to-halt-china-s-rise?srnd=technology-vp https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/trump-s-h... I think the above bloomberg article explains just how extreme an action it is; and also sprinkle it with comments from american politicians which seem to reveal that this is about more than "reasonable guarantees".
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Try rooting for the US for a change. I can guarantee you nobody is rooting for the US on the other end of this negotiation. It is criminally naive to believe that a country will give up $500B in trade imbalance without kicking up some dust and engaging in hardball negotiation tactics to mitigate the damage. I also happen to think that Trump is 100% right in barring Huawei from dominating the US telecom for the same reason why you wouldn't want e.g. Russia to build US voting systems.
      - Tomte 7y ago
        "$500B in trade imbalance" You make it sound like it's a bad thing. Trade imbalance simply is, there is no moral value statement involved. For consumers a trade deficit is actually pretty sweet. You can also see it this way: America gets 500B worth of goods from China, in exchange for currency it can simply print.
        rchaud 7y ago
        > For consumers a trade deficit is actually pretty sweet. That's textbook economics. It's called "textbook" because it is theoretical, and even then it assumes that all other things remain the same. Deficits don't impact every country the same way. In any case, no economics textbook will claim that decades-long deficits are good for the consumer. > You can also see it this way: America gets 500B worth of goods from China, in exchange for currency it can simply print. Another way to look at it would be in the slow deindustrialization of America and the bleeding out of hundreds of thousands of once middle-class jobs that kept the American economy ticking. Those jobs have moved abroad because it looked better for C-level execs whose compensation is tied to their stock price, not because of any BS about comparative advantage. People making textiles or auto parts can't switch to data science jobs overnight, even though the economics textbook says that's what should happen, all other things remaining equal.
- yumraj 7y ago
  US is the aggrieved party. It has full right to make sure that the wrongs do not continue.
NotPaidToPost 7y ago
You obviously haven't read the article of this thread and do not know about the so-called Unequal Treaties China was subjected to in the 19th and early 20th century...
- kolanos 7y ago
  Because the U.S. doesn't have a similar history with the British Empire?
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    No... That isn't even remotely similar. That's also completely irrelevant here. Are people really that clueless about history? Or is it just bad faith?
    - kolanos 7y ago
      Please point out the provisions of the Treaty of Nanking [0] that are materially worse than terms the U.S. colonies were subject to [1]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United...
      - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        See my previous questions. This is sad to see such behaviour on HN...
        kolanos 7y ago
        Please familiarize yourself on colonial mercantilism [0] and then get back to me on how "irrelevant" U.S. history is... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States#Mercantilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United...
moorhosj 7y ago
==They know this perfectly well. The US has a tremendous leverage in this negotiation.== You are leaving out how Donald Trump wants to be re-elected in 18 months and Xi has no such pressures. ==China's main sticking point is they want to remove this leverage and make the deal unenforceable. Yeah, that might have worked with Obama (who was, IMO, too eager to please), but the current administration knows better than to sign something like that.== Like that "deal" we signed with North Korea? I think you are giving the administration a little too much credit as they have engaged the same types of tactics with our allies (Canada, Mexico and the EU) who are not in the same position as China.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Which "deal" have we "signed" with North Korea? As far as I'm aware that negotiation is very far from over, although positive movement is evident (for which South Korean government gives credit directly to Trump: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-trump/south-korea-president-says-trump-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-idUSKBN1I10OD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-tru...). There haven't been any nuclear weapons tests either. Do you think the Koreas can be reunited in a year after being separate for 50? Nobody has ever gotten anywhere near as far as Trump in all of this. Give credit where credit is due.
  - moorhosj 7y ago
    ==Which "deal" have we "signed" with North Korea? As far as I'm aware that negotiation is very far from over,== We haven't signed a deal, that was something Trump promised at the second summit, but never delivered. Meanwhile, after the first summit on June 13, 2018, Trump said, “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” [1] Was that ever true? ==although positive movement is evident== Just last week, "North Korea fires two rounds of missiles, 2nd launch in a week, South Korea says" [2]. ==Give credit where credit is due.== What has North Korea signed or taken concrete actions on? [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-trumps-premature-victory-celebration-became-kims-triumph-2019-02-25 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-trumps-premature-victo... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-fires-unidentified-projectile-south-korean-military-official-says-n1003626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-fires-unident...
baybal2 7y ago
Less than 3.5% of China's GDP is trade with USA. China can stop trade with USA nearly completely, and not even notice it really Few years ago, the biggest US export to China was plastic and paper (garbage) Now, it changed to agriculture products, airplanes and cars (German American cars...)
- m0zg 7y ago
  I think it's more like 4.5%, something like 530 billion on the GDP of 12 trillion. And no, they can't stop exporting to the US. The entirety of their economy depends on continued growth, and if, unwisely, they chose to stop exports to the US, China would be deeply fucked for the next decade or more. >> Few years ago, the biggest US export to China was plastic and paper (garbage) From https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peo...: "The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2018 were: electrical machinery ($152 billion), machinery ($117 billion), furniture and bedding ($35 billion), toys and sports equipment ($27 billion), and plastics ($19 billion)"