Is it sustainable for the United States to choose which mobile phones all humans can and cannot use ?

[Marcin2 + 724]

Consider the example:

 

I am the owner of the Dutch company that manufactures and sells globally product X. My clients are both end consumers and companies using it in their business processes. I sell 35% in Europe, 25% in US, 25% in China and 15% in the rest of the world.  It is a complicated  product so my supply chains are global. My manufacturing base is in China cause most of my suppliers are there, it is the most convenient due to logistics. There is also an easy access to skilled blue collar workers. I source machinery and components from 15 countries. 10% of my components by value are sourced from the United States. 15% of my CAPEX also comes from the US.

 

In 2018 US-China trade war started. 25% tariff was levied on my sales to the United States. I shifted supply chains so that most of products for US market are sourced from Vietnam and Thai factories or assembled in China and later transshipped for final packaging and testing in Vietnam.

In 2019 many Chinese companies were sanctioned, among them my clients that made 8% of total sales. My supply chains were not directly affected this time cause the share of US components is too small in my final products.

But there were widespread rumors and voices in the US to tighten the sanctions. I would not be able to sell my products to my Chinese clients.

 

Task force was created to take care of this risk for my operations and decrease exposure to US technologies and components. It was found out that substitutes for US components could be sourced from EU and Japan. It would be more costly for me for the first 2 years, cause till this moment US companies were dominating the market for these components. I signed long-term co-operation and supply agreements with Japanese suppliers. US components would be gradually phased out. My US suppliers are temporarily happy with this situation cause I increased orders and stockpiled US components. These US companies would be out of this business but later, cause my competitors with exposure to China also changed supply chains

With US machinery the task was more difficult. Phasing out all US machinery would be possible only in 5 years time and costly. But the risk of potential loss of 25% of my sales at the most promising market was too large.

 

This is the situation that a lot of companies are suddenly facing. They had to choose whether to potentially loose all the Chinese clients or implement changes to become independent from US technology and so the impact of  US political risk on their business.

 

There are many choices:

1. become independent from US technology and US sourced components, by changing supply chains

2. take risk of loosing Chinese clients and potentially all Chinese market if China will   make it difficult to operate for the companies that comply with unilateral US sanctions,

    3.    create dual supply chains, one for the United States one for the rest of the world.

 

Each solution has it upsides and downsides, but the 1^st one is the most suitable cause is neutral and makes company independent from any future US political risks.

 

So the answer is NO, it is not sustainable. Other major countries has not  followed US lead and has not imposed their own sanctions on China, so the US is just self-isolating itself.

But in the meantime this policies would cause a lot of disruptions for the global supply chains.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Marcin2
typos

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Okay, you are an international company, you know the risks, you have done a risk assessment and are fully aware of the pros and cons of each option you have defined. 
It is now up to you to make a management decision on your company’s way forward.

US foreign policy will NOT change simply for you to remain profitable.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Once you remove your products from being part of the problem, you are no longer subject to tariffs and you can sell them into the U.S. with no restrictions.  In the case of the phones you seem to be referencing, the tariffs are in place not due to trade imbalance, but you would already know that because of the extensive research you did and your decisions about whether or not you want to sell into the U.S. market.  The tariffs that you speak of have been or will be implemented due to IP theft, existing restrictive trade barriers on access to the Chinese market for U.S. products, and currency manipulation by the CCP, among others.  

Were you looking for sympathy?  Alternatively, you could choose to support efforts to stop IP theft, choose to support the lowering of restrictive trade barriers on goods from the U.S. that are sold in China, and choose to support the global initiative to stop currency manipulation by the CCP of China.  Ultimately, if those efforts succeed, you could find yourself in a much more profitable scenario with no tariffs into the U.S. and free access to sell your products in China with no unfair currency manipulations to further erode your profits. 

Or you could just try to sneak around the edges looking for crumbs.  Either way, as @Douglas Buckland pointed out, U.S. foreign policy is not going to change for you.

[Boat + 1,315]

6 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Consider the example:

 

I am the owner of the Dutch company that manufactures and sells globally product X. My clients are both end consumers and companies using it in their business processes. I sell 35% in Europe, 25% in US, 25% in China and 15% in the rest of the world.  It is a complicated  product so my supply chains are global. My manufacturing base is in China cause most of my suppliers are there, it is the most convenient due to logistics. There is also an easy access to skilled blue collar workers. I source machinery and components from 15 countries. 10% of my components by value are sourced from the United States. 15% of my CAPEX also comes from the US.

 

In 2018 US-China trade war started. 25% tariff was levied on my sales to the United States. I shifted supply chains so that most of products for US market are sourced from Vietnam and Thai factories or assembled in China and later transshipped for final packaging and testing in Vietnam.

In 2019 many Chinese companies were sanctioned, among them my clients that made 8% of total sales. My supply chains were not directly affected this time cause the share of US components is too small in my final products.

But there were widespread rumors and voices in the US to tighten the sanctions. I would not be able to sell my products to my Chinese clients.

 

Task force was created to take care of this risk for my operations and decrease exposure to US technologies and components. It was found out that substitutes for US components could be sourced from EU and Japan. It would be more costly for me for the first 2 years, cause till this moment US companies were dominating the market for these components. I signed long-term co-operation and supply agreements with Japanese suppliers. US components would be gradually phased out. My US suppliers are temporarily happy with this situation cause I increased orders and stockpiled US components. These US companies would be out of this business but later, cause my competitors with exposure to China also changed supply chains

With US machinery the task was more difficult. Phasing out all US machinery would be possible only in 5 years time and costly. But the risk of potential loss of 25% of my sales at the most promising market was too large.

 

This is the situation that a lot of companies are suddenly facing. They had to choose whether to potentially loose all the Chinese clients or implement changes to become independent from US technology and so the impact of  US political risk on their business.

 

There are many choices:

1. become independent from US technology and US sourced components, by changing supply chains

2. take risk of loosing Chinese clients and potentially all Chinese market if China will   make it difficult to operate for the companies that comply with unilateral US sanctions,

    3.    create dual supply chains, one for the United States one for the rest of the world.

 

Each solution has it upsides and downsides, but the 1^st one is the most suitable cause is neutral and makes company independent from any future US political risks.

 

So the answer is NO, it is not sustainable. Other major countries has not  followed US lead and has not imposed their own sanctions on China, so the US is just self-isolating itself.

But in the meantime this policies would cause a lot of disruptions for the global supply chains.

I don’t believe the Chinese buying your product is a problem. In fact the world needs to buy around 600 billion more to appease the US or sell 600 billion less. Me thinks your making stuff up.

The US self isolating itself is ok. It’s the best market in the world. No trade imbalance is the goal. Make that happen and open markets like the US does. Until then we should implement quotas along with those sanctions. 

Edited April 26, 2020 by Boat

[Marcin2 + 724]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, you are an international company, you know the risks, you have done a risk assessment and are fully aware of the pros and cons of each option you have defined. 
It is now up to you to make a management decision on your company’s way forward.

US foreign policy will NOT change simply for you to remain profitable.

Yes, that is exactly the risk.

Company has a few solutions to mitigate this risk, but all these solutions have significant adverse effects for the United States.

Chinese GDP is 14 trillion dollars, output of Chinese manufacturing, the largest in the world is 4 trillion dollars a year.

And all of these companies, the mammoth, are under the risk of both US tariffs and ability of conducting business going forward with any usage of US technologies, components or machinery.

But that is only the domestic Chinese market. What is of the utmost concern is global backlash.

All non-American companies could be impacted if they use US machinery, technology or components.

And for nearly all multinationals Chinese market is so important that their competitive position would be significantly diminished if they loose this market.

So all the global multinationals are doing risk assesment: and make 1 of the choices.

The best, the safest is to get rid of US machinery, technology, components.

And if the cost is low they are already substituting US technology with any other.

This is very dangerous for US economy and competitiveness.

There are also many other indirect effectes

[Marcin2 + 724]

3 hours ago, Boat said:

I don’t believe the Chinese buying your product is a problem. In fact the world needs to buy around 600 billion more to appease the US or sell 600 billion less. Me thinks your making stuff up.

The US self isolating itself is ok. It’s the best market in the world. No trade imbalance is the goal. Make that happen and open markets like the US does. Until then we should implement quotas along with those sanctions. 

Huawei is the largest telecom provider and the 2nd largest manufacturer of mobile phones and cannot buy US components.

US is trying to impose sanctions that any global sales using US machinery for this company is banned.

Huawei ban will increase US trade deficit in 2020 by over 10 billion dollars.

There are many other Chinese companies that are impacted and potentially all Chinese companies can be impacted.

Huawei ban was done suddenly, it would have bankrupted the company if it has not been so large and stockpiled a lot of US components. This move would bankrupt any other global company, with such exposure to US technology.

It is safe to buy soybeans, crude oil, pork, natural gas from the United States but virtually no high-tech machinery or components.

This situation will make US another Russia, Iran or Brazil in long-term, supplier of raw materials.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Or, China could play by the same trade rules as everybody else and avoid the whole issue. Their choice.

Huawei is partially a state owned enterprise. The possibility of breaching the security of countries utilizing Huawei hard and software is real.

You have noticed the repeated hacks of this site over and over again. Who would willingly give them a backdoor into their communications systems?

China’s actions have brought this on their own head.

[Marcin2 + 724]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Were you looking for sympathy? 

Yes, definitely I was looking for sympathy. For the United States.

High-tech companies in the United States are already alarming Trump administration about these processes.

I believe that Huawei can be the threat to US national security and foreing policy goals.

But all of China is a threat to US national security and foreing policy goals, cause the countries are engaged in hegemonic conflict.

Additional indictments of fraud, organized crime or IP theft by US government are making everybody laugh, maybe not in the United States, but remember that US administration lost its credibility by blocking EU products from US market on the basis of national security.

In the following months it would be revealed that Huawei is also dealing in drugs and arms, supports international terrorism, mainly ISIS, but remember that 6 billion consumers are using their products as we speak.

Of course nobody would believe.

And please tell me how my usage of Android on Huawei mobile, I am not American, is the threat to US national security, that justifies such measures. (In fact I am personally using Iphone but this is the example)

Edited April 26, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Or, China could play by the same trade rules as everybody else and avoid the whole issue. Their choice.

Not going to happen.

P.S.  For those who insist on saying that "China Virus" or "Wuhan Virus" is racist, perhaps this will mollify you:

 

[Marcin2 + 724]

7 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

China’s actions have brought this on their own head.

Yes this I understand. But remember that this is the largest global manufacturer, Huawei is the largest telecom gear provider, there is already backlash. A lot of Americans still do not know what power, sheer economic power to de-Americanize if possible was started. The huge process that is out of US control is in motion.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

26 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Yes this I understand. But remember that this is the largest global manufacturer, Huawei is the largest telecom gear provider, there is already backlash. A lot of Americans still do not know what power, sheer economic power to de-Americanize if possible was started. The huge process that is out of US control is in motion.

Good! Let it happen, the quicker the better. There was always going to be some financial and economic pain in both China and the US if the trade imbalance, IP property theft, etc.... was going to be resolved, so let’s get it over with and concentrate on sorting out the Chinese virus in our respective countries.

The backlash against China for unleashing a virus which killed hundreds of thousands of people in other countries should be impressive in both the political and economic arenas. IT IS COMING!

This ploy of delivering protective equipment to countries which they caused to be infected, in an attempt to garner goodwill, is so transparent and shallow a third geader must have thought it up!

[Walter Faber + 48]

Good post Marcin2, I agree. Countering Chinas ambition and attempting to level the economic playing field is an important task, but the way the US has done this under Trump is not thought out. The laughing third may be the world minus China and the US, since having part of the supply chain in one of those two is a liability so you attempt to get on "neutral" ground. 

The entire idea approach of the US is wrong, the US does not have the size and power to force China on its knees quickly. It will be a dragged out trade war costly for both and likely a draw in the end. It will backfire.

The proper way for the US would have been to form an alliance against China to gain critical weight (e.g. Europe, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Australia, Japan), but Trump and his administration antagonised its traditional allies one by one over petty issues (compared to the China elephant in the room) or even for no proper reason at all. Now, the US is seen as an unreliable, erratic partner who puts his interests first without consideration for its partners. You can behave like that, but don't be surprised if you end up alone and lack allies in the critical moment.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Walter Faber

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

“The proper way for the US would have been to form an alliance against China to gain critical weight (e.g. Europe, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Australia, Japan), but Trump and his administration antagonised its traditional allies one by one over petty issues (compared to the China elephant in the room) or even for no proper reason at all. Now, the US is seen as an unreliable, erratic partner who puts his interests first without consideration for its partners. You can behave like that, but don't bee surprised if you end up alone. “

I guess you are referring to the allies which, for years, refused to pay their fair share of defense costs. The allies which joined coalition efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and when those campaigns did not result in instant victories blamed the results on the Americans (note that all wars are deemed ‘American lead’ as opposed to simply a ‘coalition’ when things go wrong....Viet Nam and Korea as well. If you thing Viet Nam was NOT a coalition, visit the War Museum in Ho Chi Minh City and see what their view was). Finally, is this the allies which were silent concerning the worldwide imbalance of trade as long as they prospered in both the Chinese and American markets?

And you call America an erratic and unreliable partner....

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

16 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The backlash against China for unleashing a virus which killed hundreds of thousands of people in other countries should be impressive in both the political and economic arenas. IT IS COMING!

This ploy of delivering protective equipment to countries which they caused to be infected, in an attempt to garner goodwill, is so transparent and shallow a third grader must have thought it up!

But wait, there's more ...

Coronavirus: China Continues to Flood the World with Defective Medical Supplies

• More than a dozen countries on four continents have recently disclosed problems with Chinese-made coronavirus tests and personal protective equipment. The problems range from test kits tainted with the coronavirus to medical garments contaminated with insects.

• Chinese authorities have refused to take responsibility for the defective equipment and in many instances have cast blame on the countries that purchased the material. They have also called on nations of the world to stop "politicizing" the problem.

• Slovakian Prime Minister Igor Matovič disclosed that more than a million coronavirus tests supplied by China for a cash payment of €15 million ($16 million) were inaccurate and unable to detect Covid-19. "We have a ton of tests and no use for them," he said. "They should just be thrown straight into the Danube."

• U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler from Georgia accused China of holding up shipments of test kits: "Testing is core to opening our country back up. I'm concerned that China's holding up test kits. They're playing games with trade policy to prevent us, the United States, from getting the testing that we need."

[0R0 + 6,251]

34 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Yes this I understand. But remember that this is the largest global manufacturer, Huawei is the largest telecom gear provider, there is already backlash. A lot of Americans still do not know what power, sheer economic power to de-Americanize if possible was started. The huge process that is out of US control is in motion.

I see that going in reverse. The EU Japan and Australia are pulling their producers out of China and pushing to replace sole sourcing out with duplicate production now rather than later.. 

Taking @Wombat at his suggestion of impending war with China being just a matter of time, a relatively short time, and the question is of what use is your analysis of relative economic sizes and market shares if political alignment and policy has already taken shape.  and are trumping economic considerations.

The Huawei and expanding technology ban on exports to China are going to join in with this new context. Where China is already self isolating and has only managed to prevent public official government condemnation using bully tactics and extreme threats. 

Huawei can offer its components cheaply because of the Chinese monopoly on Cesium from mines outside China, mines that may well be nationalized under Western pressure and as reparations for coronavirus damages. What does it look like then?

 

On a separate plane,

The margin of that huge manufacturing volume in China has been negative for most of the decade in China. They need to find a 10-20% growth of consumption of that output WITHOUT growing it any bigger in order to get it back up to a scale where it can operate profitably. It has only been getting worse when you consider labor costs. Chinese manufacturers complain about the same strategic monopolies within China having made it cheaper to produce in the US. Sustaining this capacity is costing China constant debt expenditures ever growing relative to their economy. 

This capacity was a huge investment error. It is impressive, but an appalling waste. It is value reducing industry in reality, though they call it value added industry.

Their tech industry grew up largely as a private market phenomenon till the CCP/government interests shoved the founder generation aside and installed their own people. Till then and for a few years following it, China's tech sector leaped in productivity and pay scales to come close to Western counterparts. It stopped 2 years ago as labor costs for talent matched Western levels. They are suffering from a structural cultural preference for secure work in government and SOEs, which has kept the bulk of the available talent out of their reach even with explicit government backing. The economic researchers call it a resource allocation bias and keep wondering why China doesn't fix it. As I keep pointing out, the sector can't just expand while the incoming young talent is shrinking every year. Even with government support volunteering their "talent" it would require years of training to covert them from bureaucrats to actual engineers applied scientists and programmers in a commercial context. 

This is just another "great leap forward" into the economic abyss. 

[Marcin2 + 724]

Consider this article from New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/business/economy/us-china-technology.html

Trump Effort to Keep U.S. Tech Out of China Alarms American Firms

The administration wants to protect national security by restricting the flow of technology to China. But technology companies worry it could undermine them instead.

 

A Trump administration proposal would allow Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to block certain transactions involving technology tied to a “foreign adversary.”Credit...

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s push to prevent China from dominating the market for advanced technologies has put it on a collision course with the same American companies it wants to protect.

Firms that specialize in microchips, artificial intelligence, biotechnology and other industries have grown increasingly alarmed by the administration’s efforts to restrict the flow of technology to China, saying it could siphon expertise, research and revenue away from the United States, ultimately eroding America’s advantage.

The concerns, which have been simmering for months, have taken on new urgency as the Commerce Department considers adopting a sweeping proposal that would allow the United States to block transactions between American firms and Chinese counterparts.

Those rules, on top of new restrictions on Chinese investment in the United States and proposed measures that would prevent American companies from exporting certain products and sharing technology with foreign nationals, have the tech industry scrambling to respond.

The Trump administration’s crackdown has already prompted foreign firms to shun American components and technology over concerns that access to parts they need could be abruptly cut off. American companies are watching warily as the United States considers restricting export licenses for companies that sell products or share intellectual property with China, including General Electric, which sells aircraft parts to China as part of a joint venture with Safran, a French firm.

I understand that it is easy for all Americans to say now: "Just decouple from them, we can ban anybody from using US technology, it is our technology in the first place".

US is temporarily "winning" technology conflict cause China is backward and at mercy of foreign suppliers.

But this is a short-sighted strategy.

It reminds me of a short-term joy at US mass media (and also at this) that Chinese economy is going down fast due to coronavirus epidemic, and how US would be beneficiary of this situation.

A lot of threads how supply chains and manufacturing is escaping China in panic mode.

Relax, try to see things in perspective, multi-year perspective.

Cause China is not Belgium or Iran, it is 1.4 billion smart people country and is doubling down on indigenous research and co-operation with non-American companies and countries.

Non-American companies would be given a very good deals cause China is in a very difficult situation, but this would be a loss to US suppliers.

[0R0 + 6,251]

54 minutes ago, Walter Faber said:

The proper way for the US would have been to form an alliance against China to gain critical weight (e.g. Europe, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Australia, Japan), but Trump and his administration antagonised its traditional allies one by one over petty issues (compared to the China elephant in the room) or even for no proper reason at all. Now, the US is seen as an unreliable, erratic partner who puts his interests first without consideration for its partners. You can behave like that, but don't be surprised if you end up alone and lack allies in the critical moment.

These are not petty issues, it is a reversal of the mercantile balance in US favor as a compensation for continued US engagement in maintaining security. The allies, as it turned out, were far more interested in their mercantile position than in the military alliance and their need for it. Not recognizing that the strategic bargain against China is not the same as that against Russia. The EU is not in a position to contribute militarily to any China military efforts. They have nothing to so on the Pacific. Perhaps send some Subs. The US can't handle both the economic losses of the slanted trade table that favors Europe so blatantly, and the military burden that the EU has not picked up in 2 decades, and then maintain military superiority over China with a thin complement of Marine powers Japan and Australia, and whatever Korea can provide. 

[Marcin2 + 724]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You have noticed the repeated hacks of this site over and over again. Who would willingly give them a backdoor into their communications systems?

These "hacks" were done by not sophisticated spammers.

Even illiterate person can "hack" this site in this manner.

Short instruction for illiterate person: "How to hack oilprice.com site": @Tom Kirkman correct me if I am wrong in some steps.

Machinery: Any computer/mobile device with web browser; separate keyboard with some letters marked with colours.

1. You turn on the computer, open browser, open MS Word with the message that illiterate person would be copy/pasting, go to oilprice.com site, log your self, go to geopolitics and train illiterate person, first in mouse usage

2. The training:

You click the blue icon below the screen, white screen with black marks opens,

You press left-down key (ctlrl,this marked in black) and at the same time press "A" key (this marked in yellow),

than again press black button and at the same time press "C" key (this marked in blue")

You click the only other icon below the main screen.

You click the big red button (start A new topic) at the top right

New screen opens with 2 small windows above and large window below it

In the top small window above you press "M" 4 times (marked in red, I have chosen it cause it is the first letter of both my initials and cause it was easier to explain cause it is similar to flying bird)

The second small window you omit.

You click on the large window

You press black button (ctrl) and at the same time press "V" button (this marked in green).

You press the large red button below the bigger white window.

PLEASE REPEAT THE STEPS 50 times.

Illiterate person learns this in 10 minutes.

For Chimpanzee it takes larger keyboard and 3 days.

For German shepherd you need different interface to be manned (well "manned" is not the right word, I would say dogged) by the paw and it takes 2 weeks

Edited April 26, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[0R0 + 6,251]

7 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Consider this article from New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/business/economy/us-china-technology.html

Trump Effort to Keep U.S. Tech Out of China Alarms American Firms

The administration wants to protect national security by restricting the flow of technology to China. But technology companies worry it could undermine them instead.

 

A Trump administration proposal would allow Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to block certain transactions involving technology tied to a “foreign adversary.”Credit...

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s push to prevent China from dominating the market for advanced technologies has put it on a collision course with the same American companies it wants to protect.

Firms that specialize in microchips, artificial intelligence, biotechnology and other industries have grown increasingly alarmed by the administration’s efforts to restrict the flow of technology to China, saying it could siphon expertise, research and revenue away from the United States, ultimately eroding America’s advantage.

The concerns, which have been simmering for months, have taken on new urgency as the Commerce Department considers adopting a sweeping proposal that would allow the United States to block transactions between American firms and Chinese counterparts.

Those rules, on top of new restrictions on Chinese investment in the United States and proposed measures that would prevent American companies from exporting certain products and sharing technology with foreign nationals, have the tech industry scrambling to respond.

The Trump administration’s crackdown has already prompted foreign firms to shun American components and technology over concerns that access to parts they need could be abruptly cut off. American companies are watching warily as the United States considers restricting export licenses for companies that sell products or share intellectual property with China, including General Electric, which sells aircraft parts to China as part of a joint venture with Safran, a French firm.

I understand that it is easy for all Americans to say now: "Just decouple from them, we can ban anybody from using US technology, it is our technology in the first place".

US is temporarily "winning" technology conflict cause China is backward and at mercy of foreign suppliers.

But this is a short-sighted strategy.

It reminds me of a short-term joy at US mass media (and also at this) that Chinese economy is going down fast due to coronavirus epidemic, and how US would be beneficiary of this situation.

A lot of threads how supply chains and manufacturing is escaping China in panic mode.

Relax, try to see things in perspective, multi-year perspective.

Cause China is not Belgium or Iran, it is 1.4 billion smart people country and is doubling down on indigenous research and co-operation with non-American companies and countries.

Non-American companies would be given a very good deals cause China is in a very difficult situation, but this would be a loss to US suppliers.

I said precisely the same thing. But it is not enough of the picture. and presumes a commercial alignment will always be primary. That it would drive strategic considerations. If Trump had some support to level the playing field (rather compromise on a tilt of it in the US favor) with the EU etc. then there could have been a much easier time. But Europe is not looking at the facts. The cost of protecting them and their trade is high, their contribution paltry, and they demand continued asymmetric trade conditions against the US. How does that add up? 

The US could, and Trump said so - as a hypothetical - but it has much support in the US, pack up its ships and leave EU and China to scramble for control of what they need or figure out some sort of agreement on how to do it without killing each other. As neither the Chinese nor Europe are happy to take a back seat, then their solution should have been to give the US what it needs to be able to sustain a military superiority against China and regain economic advantage. Yet they can't do it. Perhaps now they would be willing.

On the china supply chain issue, It was their total shutdown and their behavior that was the main issue in the public sphere, but economically it is not entirely a China issue but a general issue of the need to diversify sourcing and manufacturing locations. Since the vast bulk of sole sourcing and manufacturing concentrations are in China, then China is the one to lose and it does not matter at all what price advantages it might be able to pull out its ears. It is an actuarial problem that popped up for insuring supply chains AFTER this major disruption. The insurers want durability and resilience with ample duplication, the financiers want the business interruption insurance before they put money in. This is true in EU, Japan, US and everywhere else. The only place it does not matter is in China since all the legs of the stool are the CCP. The SOE banks fund, the SOE insurers cover, the SOE manufacturers and others. So commercial and financial risk considerations mean nothing, since the entire edifice is the same person.  

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

These "hacks" were done by not sophisticated spammers.

Even illiterate person can "hack" this site in this manner.

Short instruction for illiterate person: "How to hack oilprice.com site": @Tom Kirkman correct me if I am wrong in some steps.

Machinery: Any computer/mobile device with web browser; separate keyboard with some letters marked with colours.

1. You turn on the computer, open browser, open MS Word with the message that illiterate person would be copy/pasting, go to oilprice.com site, log your self, go to geopolitics and train illiterate person, first in mouse usage

2. The training:

You click the blue icon below the screen, white screen with black marks opens,

You press left-down key (ctlrl,this marked in black) and at the same time press "A" key (this marked in yellow),

than again press black button and at the same time press "C" key (this marked in blue")

You click the only other icon below the main screen.

You click the big red button (start A new topic) at the top right

New screen opens with 2 small windows above and large window below it

In the top small window above you press "M" 4 times (marked in red, I have chosen it cause it is the first letter of both my initials and cause it was easier to explain cause it is similar to flying bird)

The second small window you omit.

You click on the large window

You press black button (ctrl) and at the same time press "V" button (this marked in green).

You press the large red button below the bigger white window.

PLEASE REPEAT THE STEPS 50 times.

 

 

Wow, that was an intelligent move... If even illiterate people can hack the site, what was your motivation for giving step by step instructions? Your common sense is lacking.

But I digress...

My comment was meant to reflect that hacking for nefarious purposes seems to be a Chinese pastime. Their military, and everyone else's, trains for cuber warfare, why give them an advantage via Huawei hard and software?

[Marcin2 + 724]

19 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Wow, that was an intelligent move... If even illiterate people can hack the site, what was your motivation for giving step by step instructions? Your common sense is lacking.

But I digress...

My comment was meant to reflect that hacking for nefarious purposes seems to be a Chinese pastime. Their military, and everyone else's, trains for cuber warfare, why give them an advantage via Huawei hard and software?

I simply care about this site and it is as vulnerable as a baby.

But since it is so vulnerable, what more sophisticated spammers (still not hackers) would do:

- write not that complex program to automate "start a new topic" process, create 50 threads in every section of oilprice.com

- on top of that in constant intervals say 1 hour add 5 comments to every thread on this site, also automated, also doable, more complex but doable. Each time with different nick.

This would completely block this forum.

You just need to implement:

- I am not a robot functionality,

- limit the number of threads new user can create ( to 1 ) in a period of time, say 24 hours.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

24 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

I simply care about this site and it is as vulnerable as a baby.

But since it is so vulnerable, what more sophisticated spammers (still not hackers) would do:

- write not that complex program to automate "start a new topic" process, create 50 threads in every section of oilprice.com

- on top of that in constant intervals say 1 hour add 5 comments to every thread on this site, also automated, also doable, more complex but doable. Each time with different nick.

This would completely block this forum.

You just need to implement:

- I am not a robot functionality,

- limit the number of threads new user can create ( to 1 ) in a period of time, say 24 hours.

Let’s see....you care about the vulnerability of this site, yet you post step by step instructions on how to interfere with it....seems that you really don’t care.

You could have expressed your concern by a personal mail to any of the administrators....but you didn’t do that did you?

As I indicated earlier, your common sense is questionable.

[Marcin2 + 724]

5 hours ago, Walter Faber said:

Good post Marcin2, I agree. Countering Chinas ambition and attempting to level the economic playing field is an important task, but the way the US has done this under Trump is not thought out. The laughing third may be the world minus China and the US, since having part of the supply chain in one of those two is a liability so you attempt to get on "neutral" ground. 

The entire idea approach of the US is wrong, the US does not have the size and power to force China on its knees quickly. It will be a dragged out trade war costly for both and likely a draw in the end. It will backfire.

The proper way for the US would have been to form an alliance against China to gain critical weight (e.g. Europe, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Australia, Japan), but Trump and his administration antagonised its traditional allies one by one over petty issues (compared to the China elephant in the room) or even for no proper reason at all. Now, the US is seen as an unreliable, erratic partner who puts his interests first without consideration for its partners. You can behave like that, but don't be surprised if you end up alone and lack allies in the critical moment.

Exactly. US needs to "lose" some battles to win a war.

US cannot go against whole world, and their only toolset being not constructive, destrcutive actions to block, sanction, threat, even if there is a legitimate reason behind these actions (I do not question this fact).

You need to choose where to attack and where to co-operate, otherwise you lose.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Marcin2
Fighting with the symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

Exclusive: leaked docs expose China’s secret internet troll ops

https://youtu.be/WZCnLveJ-Ko?t=75

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Or, China could play by the same trade rules as everybody else and avoid the whole issue. Their choice.

Huawei is partially a state owned enterprise. The possibility of breaching the security of countries utilizing Huawei hard and software is real.

You have noticed the repeated hacks of this site over and over again. Who would willingly give them a backdoor into their communications systems?

China’s actions have brought this on their own head.

With one caveat, Douglas: Our governments allowed it to happen almost from the time that China opened to the world and began trading.  It started small enough and our governments, I believe, had good reasons and intentions for allowing it in the beginning.  Namely that we wanted to encourage and assist China (give them a leg up, if you will), with the political motivation of getting them to join the "good" team vs the "bad" team.  It worked well enough in the beginning, but over time and the changing of the guard in Democratic governments it seems that the intent was not passed along to our successive leaders and their trade teams.  The only thing that stuck was "big market, cheap labor, keep it going".

Our governments were almost unforgivably naive along the way.  On the one hand, we gave them a crash course on how to do business with the West, including short cuts of every type to make it easier and to make China more successful more rapidly.  On the other hand, like a well intentioned teacher that passes the star student along to the next teacher in the next term, we didn't follow up on their progress.  Imagine: We showed them it is okay, even encouraged, to take shortcuts.  We showed them how to get into markets that were underserved or wanting for cheap labor/higher margins and actually move on to dominate.  Fair enough so far, nobody wanted to do that work anyway and companies were happy to shift the labor costs to Chinese factories and, Hey, we get to skip out on taxes along the way!  More profits for our companies.

Our governments, like I mentioned, were not paying attention to what was developing at home from all of this.  Namely whole factories were being off-shored to China and American (and other country's) workers were beginning to lose their jobs, slowly at first and very rapidly over the last 15 or so years (pre-Trump/2016).  Admittedly, our governments were preoccupied with 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq again, a couple of market crashes, etc., and I guess everyone was just happy that the Chinese produced stuff and seemed to be doing fine.  Whew!  One less thing to deal with.  

But the Chinese had not been sitting still.  Their government, due to the growing success of industry and the growing wealth of a large portion of their population, were able to grab absolute power.  Even a Premier, a position that used to be temporary, that became Premier for life.  Tune in next week for "The Rest of the Story".  Good day!  (R.I.P. Paul Harvey)