4 ms·

What about those claims exactly do you consider nonsense?

• JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > What about those claims exactly do you consider nonsense? Raising hackles over moot agreements, one from which the U.S. withdrew, the other which is dead.
  • zardo 4y ago
    Just because they failed to implement doesn't mean the effort is dismissed. They indicate Washington's intent.
    • sdfhdhjdw3 4y ago
      Concur.
    • sdfhdhjdw3 4y ago
      But your honor, my client didn't actually succeed in robbing the bank. Bang - case dismissed.
    • wahern 4y ago
      The U.S. pulled out because it doesn't want to "create two large 'anti-China' trade bodies". For better or worse (worse, IMO) U.S. preference for the past couple of decades has been a multitude of bilateral agreements, which by their nature would be neither pro- nor anti-China. And the TPP was ratified (as the TPP11) without the U.S. Should we now consider all of Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam anti-China? I don't think China gets any warm fuzzies from Australia and Japan, but what about all the rest? In any event, what does China expect when its official industrial policy is to milk trade agreements for all their worth without relinquishing any markets to outsiders. OTOH, conflating (as this Register article does) the proposals of some Chinese economist, no matter how domestically renowned, with official Chinese policy definitely smacks of alarmism and, perhaps, anti-China bias.