10 ms·

My question is what is the point of the trade war. What does trump get from initiating/escalating it, or who is directing him to do it. Seems to be a net negati

My question is what is the point of the trade war. What does trump get from initiating/escalating it, or who is directing him to do it. Seems to be a net negative for all sectors of the economy.

cjrp 7y ago
> What does trump get from initiating/escalating it Kudos from his base, enhances his "tough guy" image, helps his 2020 campaign.
- roymurdock 7y ago
  I've heard that argument but it's wrecking parts of the ag sector, hurting manufacturing (big parts of his base), and will probably push all consumer prices up. I guess if his base can't put 2 and 2 together that prices are rising due to his tariffs it almost makes sense. But I don't think it's that simple, he's clearly a coin operated guy so which coin is operating him to escalate this trade war?
  - magduf 7y ago
    >I guess if his base can't put 2 and 2 together that prices are rising due to his tariffs it almost makes sense. His base really can't put 2 and 2 together. You seem to think it's obvious that tariffs will cause prices to rise, but you seriously underestimate just how stupid these people are.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      If your explanation requires assuming that both very powerful politicians and their supports, constituting tens of millions of people, are all incompetent, then perhaps you need to consider an explanation that doesn't require such assumptions.
      - magduf 7y ago
        I'm not assuming the politicians are incompetent. Usually, they aren't, they're just working towards different goals then their constituents or what they promised them. If you really think the average voter is competent at economic matters, I have a bridge to sell you...
      - papito 7y ago
        The explanation is much worse. Guess one single issue that matters to his base, no matter what.
      - tomp 7y ago
        I agree with both your reasoning and your sentiment, but I just want to point out, that it's not quite that obvious... https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739... > 1 In 4 Americans Thinks The Sun Goes Around The Earth, Survey Says i.e. about as much as voted for each of Trump/Clinton in the last election (which also taught us, amongst other things, that surveys are not to be trusted...)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - cure 7y ago
      > His base really can't put 2 and 2 together. You seem to think it's obvious that tariffs will cause prices to rise, but you seriously underestimate just how stupid these people are. I don't think they are stupid. But they are gullible and have been brainwashed. Their world view has been warped into something that just is not based in reality anymore ("invasions", "climate change doesn't exist", etc). This is not unlike what happens to people who get suckered into joining a cult... So when Trump keeps saying that "China pays for the tariffs" - which is an obvious and outright lie because American consumers pay for them, it is a straight up tax on consumption - his base believes it. And somehow they don't - won't - put 2 and 2 together and connect the rising prices with the tariffs, because that would invalidate their worldview.
      - opwieurposiu 7y ago
        All the money in the world will not help you if you have no secure homeland for your children and grandchildren. You can not have security when the means of production of a state is located outside of the control the citizens of that state. Tariffs are a small step towards re-establishing local control over the means of production.
        magduf 7y ago
        No country in the world is self-sufficient; that's why we invented something called "trade" thousands of years ago. There's plenty of countries (small ones) that make almost nothing, and rely on a few key industries to hold up the economy, while getting the rest through trade.
      - magduf 7y ago
        >I don't think they are stupid. But they are gullible and have been brainwashed. Isn't that just another way of saying someone is stupid? I'd say a serious lack of critical thinking skills qualifies as "stupidity".
        filoleg 7y ago
        My personal take on this: if a person claims to be too smart to be brainwashed themselves, then they are probably not as smart as they think they are. Kinda reminds me of the people who say that they aren't susceptible to advertisement.
    - kyralis 7y ago
      They're not stupid, for the most part. They just have a different set of priorities. Many of the individuals supporting the trade war and tariffs know that it's causing them problems, but as far as they're concerned it's worth it to stop China from "screwing them over" or "taking advantage of them". This is not, in fact, an unusual thing- people are are frequently willing to take some personal pain to punish what they believe is wrongdoing or failure to adhere to social norms. I happen to be on the side that believes the tariffs and trade war are doing more harm than good, but labeling those who disagree as stupid is exactly the sort of thing that leads to resentment, failure to communicate, and polarization, none of which are valuable.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        "Having a different set of priorities" is just another way of saying someone is stupid or irrational. This base is supporting someone who is not acting in their best interests, because yes, their best interests are not a priority. There's even a term for this in economics, called Animosity, which leads to economic imbalance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animos...
        ep103 7y ago
        There's also a term for it, called Reciprocal altruism, which is in many ways, the basis and foundation of human society.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        bduerst 7y ago
        Economic discrimination, for purposes of animosity, is the opposite of reciprocal altruism.
        ep103 7y ago
        I have heard the term reciprocal altruism to also cover events such as the following scenario: A country exists with a racial divide, let's say blue/green. A blue person abuses a green person. The green person does not fight back, and takes the abuse, knowing they are powerless in the society. A different blue person, blue person #2, attacks the original blue person. This puts bp#2 at legal and physical risk, even though they were never under any threat of subjugation or abuse from the original attacker. Blue person #2 would be said to have acted in a form of reciprocal altruism for the green person. This type of behavior is often seen, even in situations where BP#2 has little or nothing to personally gain, was never at any risk, and could potentially receive large negative consequences personally for their actions. Clearly blue person #2 was also acting in a manner of animosity, that (more generalized) could or not be considered discrimination, economic or otherwise.
  - sangnoir 7y ago
    Maybe his coin? The real estate markets crashed. Now, I don't want to blame the real estate markets, because I always made a lot of money in bad markets. I love bad markets. You can do very well in a bad market
  - cestith 7y ago
    Kopeks and rubles are most likely.
- refurb 7y ago
  So your argument that China has been engaging in free trade with the US up to this point and we have no valid concerns?
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
It seems to be aimed at bringing about a wealth transfer from the investor and management classes to the working classes - if global supply chains are forced to shorten, the value of unskilled labour locally will go up even if the economy as a whole loses.
sxcurry 7y ago
As Paul Krugman says, "What looks like raw ignorance and prejudice is, in fact, raw ignorance and prejudice".
- roymurdock 7y ago
  Come on this guy is the president of the US people need to stop calling him ignorant and dumb just because they don't like aspects of his persona (racist/greedy/cunning/divisive). He is surrounded by aides and business people giving him information and trying to forward their own agendas. He's not just sitting there thinking "wouldn't it be fun to start a trade war to look tough". I respect Krugman as an economist but not as a political pundit, he needs to dig harder than resorting to the age old "don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity". There is already some simple logic (trade war = tough = re elected) behind the decision, I just believe there is more to the story that we don't see.
  - jonny_eh 7y ago
    Would it have been wrong to call King George III mad?
    - roymurdock 7y ago
      We don't live in medieval times. Trump is not a good human being, I don't like him one bit, but he's sane (I would go as far as to call him cunning) and democratically elected. Comparing him to insane kings from the 18th century just gets people to chuckle and move on, sweeping deeper critical thought under the rug. To call him stupid or mad ends any line of further inquiry into why he does the things he does, and that to my mind is very, very dangerous.
      - harimau777 7y ago
        I don't think that sane, cunning, or democratically elected are the same as intelligent.
api 7y ago
You are making the error people always make with personalities like Trump. Assertive alpha signaling and mammalian dominance gestures tell the parts of our brain that haven't changed since we were small tree rats that "this person knows what they're talking about, trust them, follow them." These parts of the brain are primitive and emotional and can easily override the rational mind. This is why charisma tends to beat substance even with audiences that really do know better. Trump is assertiveness and dominance gestures and nothing else. There is no "there" there. He has no special understanding, no strategy other than "assert dominance" which all he knows how to do, and no plan. Our only salvation in this is that many of the leaders of other nations are similarly empty.
- magduf 7y ago
  >This is why charisma tends to beat substance even when the audience really ought to know better. Exactly, and this is why the Democrats keep losing elections. They just can't wrap their heads around this simple fact that you stated here. They keep thinking that if they pick candidates who can go on at length about policy, that voters will love this and not care about charisma, so they pick the most uncharismatic candidates they can find. Obama proved the DNC wrong when he "stole" the nomination from Hillary in the 2008 primaries, and showed that a candidate with a lot of charisma was what was needed to win the election.
- JTbane 7y ago
  This has been known for hundreds of years- "Gorgias" even asserts that an ignorant person who speaks well will always beat an uncharismatic expert in popularity.
- hindsightbias 7y ago
  The only thing less rational than the markets are voters.
xapata 7y ago
Insider trading?
jbay808 7y ago
I would have guessed that it's an attempt to make other US-friendly countries (Vietnam, Phillipines, India, etc) relatively more attractive as places to set up factories, to move that manufacturing base out of China and reduce their geopolitical influence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- metamet 7y ago
  The other--more suspicious and dismissed as conspiratorial--benefactor of of this trade war Russia and the bolstering of Russian industries. America is importing a lot of Russian steel [1] and aluminum [2], and Russia is been ready to fill the food gap for China that they used to get from the US [3]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/under-trump-made-in-america-is-losing-out-to-russian-steel https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/under-tru... [2] https://time.com/5651345/rusal-investment-braidy-kentucky/ https://time.com/5651345/rusal-investment-braidy-kentucky/ [3] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3013549/russia-ready-fill-chinas-food-gap-left-us-trade-war-fallout https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3013549/ru...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
blackflame7000 7y ago
You can't import(buy) more than you export(sell) forever and hope to still be rich
- cestith 7y ago
  That's a very simplistic view of economics. The US is the world's largest market for just about everything. It creates enough wealth domestically that its citizens can afford to buy from other countries without bankrupting themselves or the nation. Read up on GDP, fractional banking, stock issuance, sovereign debt, oil as a commodity, and reserve currency.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- notJim 7y ago
  Even if that's true, is a trade war (which seems to be hurting some of our exports anyway…) the way to fix the trade balance?
  - blackflame7000 7y ago
    Tariff money is supposed to subsidize the industries harmed by the tariff. There is an inequality in goods in which the US has a major advantage. To put it simply, it's much easier for us to grow soy than it is for China to replicate our technology. Furthermore, the Chinese economy is not doing nearly as well as the US which means we are in a position of power at the moment. It is extremely important that the US minimizes its trade deficit even if it's a dose of medicine for the consumer that they don't initially like. They will like it when jobs move back to the US or even Mexico that were once overseas. People wonder where all this wealth inequality is coming from when it's as plain as day. The inequality is coming from the fact that large companies are taking jobs that were performed domestically, and shipping them overseas where there are less regulations and cheaper labor. They then sell that same good at the same price to the domestic consumer who no longer has that job. Do that with enough industries and only the people who actually own the company stand to come out on top. That is why the middle class is shrinking.
cestith 7y ago
There are two things China has been doing for years that the WTO hasn't put an end to. The stated goals of the trade war include stopping those, which I can - as anything but a fan of anything to do with Trump - actually agree need to stop. I'm far from certain the scale and breadth of tariffs involved are necessary to stop them, but I agree those two practices need to stop. One of those is outright IP theft. One especially egregious form of that is by OEM manufacturers in China getting specs from foreign firms in the US and Europe then manufacturing knockoffs under their own brand name on the same lines as the ones they're making under contract. China has agreed to curtail this in their industries. Another form of outright IP theft is paying industrial spies to go to other countries and leak government and corporate documents back to China in an elaborate espionage system. Another practice which China has already announced it is ending (and may have ended without the trade war eventually anyway) is forcing foreign companies to form foreign/domestic partnerships with Chinese companies in exchange for access to manufacture or sell goods in China. Often this involved cross-licensing agreements for IP, meaning companies like AMD had to license their patents and copyrights to Chinese companies or but shut out of the market.
- roymurdock 7y ago
  These are good points. Not sure why Trump would care about the first one, but could see how enough businesspeople were leaning on him to get the second point done. This seems like the most likely explanation to me as well (opening China to further foreign investment by accelerating the country's slowdown in growth).
- theandrewbailey 7y ago
  Navarro said it best [0]: Stop stealing our intellectual property Stop forcing technology transfers Stop hacking our computers and steal our trade secrets Stop dumping into our markets and putting our companies out of business Stop their state-owned enterprises from heavy subsidies Stop the fentanyl Stop the currency manipulation [0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trumps-china-tariffs-not-affecting-us-consumer-prices-white-house-trade-adviser https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trumps-china-tariffs-not...
  - 7y ago
flatfilefan 7y ago
I see at least three things: it was his election promise, he preempts the imminent cyclic recession, he gains leverage on federal reserve and transnational corps. Agriculture problem seems to be preceding the trade war. For instance the soybeans sales to China are down because the protein content is down in the US soybeans.

My question is what is the point of the trade war. What does trump get from initiating/escalating it, or who is directing him to do it. Seems to be a net negative for all sectors of the economy.

cjrp 7y ago

> What does trump get from initiating/escalating it Kudos from his base, enhances his "tough guy" image, helps his 2020 campaign.

roymurdock 7y ago
I've heard that argument but it's wrecking parts of the ag sector, hurting manufacturing (big parts of his base), and will probably push all consumer prices up. I guess if his base can't put 2 and 2 together that prices are rising due to his tariffs it almost makes sense. But I don't think it's that simple, he's clearly a coin operated guy so which coin is operating him to escalate this trade war?
- magduf 7y ago
  >I guess if his base can't put 2 and 2 together that prices are rising due to his tariffs it almost makes sense. His base really can't put 2 and 2 together. You seem to think it's obvious that tariffs will cause prices to rise, but you seriously underestimate just how stupid these people are.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    If your explanation requires assuming that both very powerful politicians and their supports, constituting tens of millions of people, are all incompetent, then perhaps you need to consider an explanation that doesn't require such assumptions.
    - magduf 7y ago
      I'm not assuming the politicians are incompetent. Usually, they aren't, they're just working towards different goals then their constituents or what they promised them. If you really think the average voter is competent at economic matters, I have a bridge to sell you...
    - papito 7y ago
      The explanation is much worse. Guess one single issue that matters to his base, no matter what.
    - tomp 7y ago
      I agree with both your reasoning and your sentiment, but I just want to point out, that it's not quite that obvious... https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739... > 1 In 4 Americans Thinks The Sun Goes Around The Earth, Survey Says i.e. about as much as voted for each of Trump/Clinton in the last election (which also taught us, amongst other things, that surveys are not to be trusted...)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - cure 7y ago
    > His base really can't put 2 and 2 together. You seem to think it's obvious that tariffs will cause prices to rise, but you seriously underestimate just how stupid these people are. I don't think they are stupid. But they are gullible and have been brainwashed. Their world view has been warped into something that just is not based in reality anymore ("invasions", "climate change doesn't exist", etc). This is not unlike what happens to people who get suckered into joining a cult... So when Trump keeps saying that "China pays for the tariffs" - which is an obvious and outright lie because American consumers pay for them, it is a straight up tax on consumption - his base believes it. And somehow they don't - won't - put 2 and 2 together and connect the rising prices with the tariffs, because that would invalidate their worldview.
    - opwieurposiu 7y ago
      All the money in the world will not help you if you have no secure homeland for your children and grandchildren. You can not have security when the means of production of a state is located outside of the control the citizens of that state. Tariffs are a small step towards re-establishing local control over the means of production.
      - magduf 7y ago
        No country in the world is self-sufficient; that's why we invented something called "trade" thousands of years ago. There's plenty of countries (small ones) that make almost nothing, and rely on a few key industries to hold up the economy, while getting the rest through trade.
    - magduf 7y ago
      >I don't think they are stupid. But they are gullible and have been brainwashed. Isn't that just another way of saying someone is stupid? I'd say a serious lack of critical thinking skills qualifies as "stupidity".
      - filoleg 7y ago
        My personal take on this: if a person claims to be too smart to be brainwashed themselves, then they are probably not as smart as they think they are. Kinda reminds me of the people who say that they aren't susceptible to advertisement.
  - kyralis 7y ago
    They're not stupid, for the most part. They just have a different set of priorities. Many of the individuals supporting the trade war and tariffs know that it's causing them problems, but as far as they're concerned it's worth it to stop China from "screwing them over" or "taking advantage of them". This is not, in fact, an unusual thing- people are are frequently willing to take some personal pain to punish what they believe is wrongdoing or failure to adhere to social norms. I happen to be on the side that believes the tariffs and trade war are doing more harm than good, but labeling those who disagree as stupid is exactly the sort of thing that leads to resentment, failure to communicate, and polarization, none of which are valuable.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      "Having a different set of priorities" is just another way of saying someone is stupid or irrational. This base is supporting someone who is not acting in their best interests, because yes, their best interests are not a priority. There's even a term for this in economics, called Animosity, which leads to economic imbalance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_discrimination#Animos...
      - ep103 7y ago
        There's also a term for it, called Reciprocal altruism, which is in many ways, the basis and foundation of human society.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        bduerst 7y ago
        Economic discrimination, for purposes of animosity, is the opposite of reciprocal altruism.
        ep103 7y ago
        I have heard the term reciprocal altruism to also cover events such as the following scenario: A country exists with a racial divide, let's say blue/green. A blue person abuses a green person. The green person does not fight back, and takes the abuse, knowing they are powerless in the society. A different blue person, blue person #2, attacks the original blue person. This puts bp#2 at legal and physical risk, even though they were never under any threat of subjugation or abuse from the original attacker. Blue person #2 would be said to have acted in a form of reciprocal altruism for the green person. This type of behavior is often seen, even in situations where BP#2 has little or nothing to personally gain, was never at any risk, and could potentially receive large negative consequences personally for their actions. Clearly blue person #2 was also acting in a manner of animosity, that (more generalized) could or not be considered discrimination, economic or otherwise.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  Maybe his coin? The real estate markets crashed. Now, I don't want to blame the real estate markets, because I always made a lot of money in bad markets. I love bad markets. You can do very well in a bad market
- cestith 7y ago
  Kopeks and rubles are most likely.
refurb 7y ago
So your argument that China has been engaging in free trade with the US up to this point and we have no valid concerns?

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

It seems to be aimed at bringing about a wealth transfer from the investor and management classes to the working classes - if global supply chains are forced to shorten, the value of unskilled labour locally will go up even if the economy as a whole loses.

sxcurry 7y ago

As Paul Krugman says, "What looks like raw ignorance and prejudice is, in fact, raw ignorance and prejudice".

roymurdock 7y ago
Come on this guy is the president of the US people need to stop calling him ignorant and dumb just because they don't like aspects of his persona (racist/greedy/cunning/divisive). He is surrounded by aides and business people giving him information and trying to forward their own agendas. He's not just sitting there thinking "wouldn't it be fun to start a trade war to look tough". I respect Krugman as an economist but not as a political pundit, he needs to dig harder than resorting to the age old "don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity". There is already some simple logic (trade war = tough = re elected) behind the decision, I just believe there is more to the story that we don't see.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  Would it have been wrong to call King George III mad?
  - roymurdock 7y ago
    We don't live in medieval times. Trump is not a good human being, I don't like him one bit, but he's sane (I would go as far as to call him cunning) and democratically elected. Comparing him to insane kings from the 18th century just gets people to chuckle and move on, sweeping deeper critical thought under the rug. To call him stupid or mad ends any line of further inquiry into why he does the things he does, and that to my mind is very, very dangerous.
    - harimau777 7y ago
      I don't think that sane, cunning, or democratically elected are the same as intelligent.

api 7y ago

You are making the error people always make with personalities like Trump. Assertive alpha signaling and mammalian dominance gestures tell the parts of our brain that haven't changed since we were small tree rats that "this person knows what they're talking about, trust them, follow them." These parts of the brain are primitive and emotional and can easily override the rational mind. This is why charisma tends to beat substance even with audiences that really do know better. Trump is assertiveness and dominance gestures and nothing else. There is no "there" there. He has no special understanding, no strategy other than "assert dominance" which all he knows how to do, and no plan. Our only salvation in this is that many of the leaders of other nations are similarly empty.

magduf 7y ago
>This is why charisma tends to beat substance even when the audience really ought to know better. Exactly, and this is why the Democrats keep losing elections. They just can't wrap their heads around this simple fact that you stated here. They keep thinking that if they pick candidates who can go on at length about policy, that voters will love this and not care about charisma, so they pick the most uncharismatic candidates they can find. Obama proved the DNC wrong when he "stole" the nomination from Hillary in the 2008 primaries, and showed that a candidate with a lot of charisma was what was needed to win the election.
JTbane 7y ago
This has been known for hundreds of years- "Gorgias" even asserts that an ignorant person who speaks well will always beat an uncharismatic expert in popularity.
hindsightbias 7y ago
The only thing less rational than the markets are voters.

xapata 7y ago

Insider trading?

jbay808 7y ago

I would have guessed that it's an attempt to make other US-friendly countries (Vietnam, Phillipines, India, etc) relatively more attractive as places to set up factories, to move that manufacturing base out of China and reduce their geopolitical influence.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
metamet 7y ago
The other--more suspicious and dismissed as conspiratorial--benefactor of of this trade war Russia and the bolstering of Russian industries. America is importing a lot of Russian steel [1] and aluminum [2], and Russia is been ready to fill the food gap for China that they used to get from the US [3]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/under-trump-made-in-america-is-losing-out-to-russian-steel https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/under-tru... [2] https://time.com/5651345/rusal-investment-braidy-kentucky/ https://time.com/5651345/rusal-investment-braidy-kentucky/ [3] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3013549/russia-ready-fill-chinas-food-gap-left-us-trade-war-fallout https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3013549/ru...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

blackflame7000 7y ago

You can't import(buy) more than you export(sell) forever and hope to still be rich

cestith 7y ago
That's a very simplistic view of economics. The US is the world's largest market for just about everything. It creates enough wealth domestically that its citizens can afford to buy from other countries without bankrupting themselves or the nation. Read up on GDP, fractional banking, stock issuance, sovereign debt, oil as a commodity, and reserve currency.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
notJim 7y ago
Even if that's true, is a trade war (which seems to be hurting some of our exports anyway…) the way to fix the trade balance?
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  Tariff money is supposed to subsidize the industries harmed by the tariff. There is an inequality in goods in which the US has a major advantage. To put it simply, it's much easier for us to grow soy than it is for China to replicate our technology. Furthermore, the Chinese economy is not doing nearly as well as the US which means we are in a position of power at the moment. It is extremely important that the US minimizes its trade deficit even if it's a dose of medicine for the consumer that they don't initially like. They will like it when jobs move back to the US or even Mexico that were once overseas. People wonder where all this wealth inequality is coming from when it's as plain as day. The inequality is coming from the fact that large companies are taking jobs that were performed domestically, and shipping them overseas where there are less regulations and cheaper labor. They then sell that same good at the same price to the domestic consumer who no longer has that job. Do that with enough industries and only the people who actually own the company stand to come out on top. That is why the middle class is shrinking.

cestith 7y ago

There are two things China has been doing for years that the WTO hasn't put an end to. The stated goals of the trade war include stopping those, which I can - as anything but a fan of anything to do with Trump - actually agree need to stop. I'm far from certain the scale and breadth of tariffs involved are necessary to stop them, but I agree those two practices need to stop. One of those is outright IP theft. One especially egregious form of that is by OEM manufacturers in China getting specs from foreign firms in the US and Europe then manufacturing knockoffs under their own brand name on the same lines as the ones they're making under contract. China has agreed to curtail this in their industries. Another form of outright IP theft is paying industrial spies to go to other countries and leak government and corporate documents back to China in an elaborate espionage system. Another practice which China has already announced it is ending (and may have ended without the trade war eventually anyway) is forcing foreign companies to form foreign/domestic partnerships with Chinese companies in exchange for access to manufacture or sell goods in China. Often this involved cross-licensing agreements for IP, meaning companies like AMD had to license their patents and copyrights to Chinese companies or but shut out of the market.

roymurdock 7y ago
These are good points. Not sure why Trump would care about the first one, but could see how enough businesspeople were leaning on him to get the second point done. This seems like the most likely explanation to me as well (opening China to further foreign investment by accelerating the country's slowdown in growth).
theandrewbailey 7y ago
Navarro said it best [0]: Stop stealing our intellectual property Stop forcing technology transfers Stop hacking our computers and steal our trade secrets Stop dumping into our markets and putting our companies out of business Stop their state-owned enterprises from heavy subsidies Stop the fentanyl Stop the currency manipulation [0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trumps-china-tariffs-not-affecting-us-consumer-prices-white-house-trade-adviser https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trumps-china-tariffs-not...
- 7y ago

flatfilefan 7y ago

I see at least three things: it was his election promise, he preempts the imminent cyclic recession, he gains leverage on federal reserve and transnational corps. Agriculture problem seems to be preceding the trade war. For instance the soybeans sales to China are down because the protein content is down in the US soybeans.