China has *Already* Lost the Trade War. Meantime, the U.S. Might Sanction China’s Largest Oil Company

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

China has *already* lost the trade war with the U.S. but they just haven't realized it yet.

Trump keeps outmaneuvering Xi.

For reference, look at what has happened recently with Mexico and U.S.  Mexico has capitulated.

Just wait for China to realize that they will no longer be calling the shots in their trade with the U.S.

Here's the latest move:

The U.S. Might Sanction China’s Largest Oil Company

 

[SKEP + 229]

On 8/6/2019 at 9:24 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

China has *already* lost the trade war with the U.S. but they just haven't realized it yet.

Trump keeps outmaneuvering Xi.

For reference, look at what has happened recently with Mexico and U.S.  Mexico has capitulated.

Just wait for China to realize that they will no longer be calling the shots in their trade with the U.S.

Here's the latest move:

The U.S. Might Sanction China’s Largest Oil Company

 

It took U.S. over 20 years to realize that China and their Communist Party are all in on an economic and trade war against them.  

It took Trump to do something about it.

How long will it take China to figure out they already lost.

China's in denial .  .  .  Just like OPEC is in denial.

Edited August 15, 2019 by SKEP

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 8/6/2019 at 8:24 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

China has *already* lost the trade war with the U.S. but they just haven't realized it yet.

Trump keeps outmaneuvering Xi.

For reference, look at what has happened recently with Mexico and U.S.  Mexico has capitulated.

Interesting times. I believe today it's Trump that blinked, delaying tariffs. It's a strange dance that really got under way with Nixon, though into high gear since the late 90s. We need to reestablish our ground smartly. We are doing a brilliant job of putting folks off balance. Whether that translates into wins for the US, or opportunities for other countries is still in question. I personally believe China has plenty of struggles, today it's Hong Kong, tomorrow it will be something else. Fundamentally "managed" economies struggle to compete against regulated capitalistic economies. Just human nature. 

The Mexico capitulation may well backfire on us. A few years back on our behalf Mexico deployed troops/police to protect their southern flank. Helped a bit on the border, but was a disaster for Mexico and their internal abilities to control their own country. Too much of Mexico is already hostage to drug cartels, and probably really the only way to undo them is drug law reform so the margins aren't there. And there exists a symbiotic high margin business with the US exporting weapons. What a mess. The border leaks in both directions. With just enough security to keep prices high. How can such wonderful hard working peoples have such a dysfunctional governance? Rhetorical question I don't want an answer to because someone will say we aren't PC.

In the past few days with great fanfare ICE has gone after hundreds of workers in food processing plants. How is it employers/big biz is off the hook if these efforts are sincere? I want the reform. But the fix also has to be at the employer level. They didn't come for US socialized medicine. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 8/7/2019 at 2:40 PM, SKEP said:

It took US over 20 years to realize that China was all in on trade war against them. 

How long will it take China to figure out they already lost.

China's in denial .  .  .  Just like OPEC is in denial.

Ok SKEP why is OPEC in denial, lay it out for us, I am really looking forward to this one....

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by James Regan

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, John Foote said:

The Mexico capitulation may well backfire on us. A few years back on our behalf Mexico deployed troops/police to protect their southern flank.

What is unappreciated is that Mexico (along with the rest of Latin America) is a signatory to a UN Treaty, known as the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees.  That in turn stems from yet another Treaty, known as the American Convention on Human Rights  (March 2, 1981), together with two subsequent Protocols.  These various Treaty-level signings do obligate Mexico to accept refugees and to work towards the cessation of the elements that cause the migration floods.  Mexico thus cannot seal off its Southern Border, nor indeed any Border. 

Now the USA did not sign any of the Treaties or Declarations, nor the Protocols.  However, it can be reasonably argued that the USA is bound effectively by adhesion contract, as the US has issued the Declaration known as the Monroe Doctrine - which effectively states that whatever goes on in the Western Hemisphere is the business of the USA, and others butt out.  If you start with the Monroe and then add on the Cartagena Declaration, you end up with a USA obligation to adhere to the Declaration and to the ACHR.  

The problem with the American Public, and with certain elements inside both the (Republican) Congress and the Trump Administration, is that they want to be able to flail the Monroe and (for example) tell Russia to get out of Venezuela, and at the same time demand that nobody buy Venezuelan Oil, and then also at the same time disavow the ACHR and the Cartagena Declaration.  And because Americans tend to be unsophisticated about such things, they do not even see the contradictions.  Go figure. 

[SKEP + 229]

10 hours ago, James Regan said:

Ok SKEP why is OPEC in denial, lay it out for us, I am really looking forward to this one....

 

 

LOL

See ya

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

What is unappreciated is that Mexico (along with the rest of Latin America) is a signatory to a UN Treaty, known as the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees.  That in turn stems from yet another Treaty, known as the American Convention on Human Rights  (March 2, 1981), together with two subsequent Protocols.  These various Treaty-level signings do obligate Mexico to accept refugees and to work towards the cessation of the elements that cause the migration floods.  Mexico thus cannot seal off its Southern Border, nor indeed any Border. 

Now the USA did not sign any of the Treaties or Declarations, nor the Protocols.  However, it can be reasonably argued that the USA is bound effectively by adhesion contract, as the US has issued the Declaration known as the Monroe Doctrine - which effectively states that whatever goes on in the Western Hemisphere is the business of the USA, and others butt out.  If you start with the Monroe and then add on the Cartagena Declaration, you end up with a USA obligation to adhere to the Declaration and to the ACHR.  

The problem with the American Public, and with certain elements inside both the (Republican) Congress and the Trump Administration, is that they want to be able to flail the Monroe and (for example) tell Russia to get out of Venezuela, and at the same time demand that nobody buy Venezuelan Oil, and then also at the same time disavow the ACHR and the Cartagena Declaration.  And because Americans tend to be unsophisticated about such things, they do not even see the contradictions.  Go figure. 

Do they not see the contradictions, or do they not care? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Do they not see the contradictions, or do they not care? 

Probably both.  Don't see; don't care.

Unfortunately, the USA does not exactly have nuanced individuals in the White House and State Department.  Coupled with that, Mr. Trump is having real problems hiring and retaining quality people to work for him.  I think that that is much more of a problem for the Administration than the obstructionism of the Congress or the bone-headedness of Mitch McConnell. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

21 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Do they not see the contradictions, or do they not care? 

I don’t know which is worse.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

20 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Probably both.  Don't see; don't care.

Unfortunately, the USA does not exactly have nuanced individuals in the White House and State Department.  Coupled with that, Mr. Trump is having real problems hiring and retaining quality people to work for him.  I think that that is much more of a problem for the Administration than the obstructionism of the Congress or the bone-headedness of Mitch McConnell. 

What would go differently if the Whitehouse were capable of nuance?

Which of Mitch McConnell's actions would you describe as "boneheaded"?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

What would go differently if the Whitehouse were capable of nuance?

Well, for starters, you would not have these women up there as press secretaries spouting off saying that there are the facts of the matter, but Mr. Trump has his "alternative facts."  A rather idiotic thing to go say about your boss, now isn't it? 

 

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Which of Mitch McConnell's actions would you describe as "boneheaded"?

All of them.  So let's start a ways back, when Mr. Obama is elected, and the very first thing out of McConnell's mouth is this declaration that "Job One is to see to it that he passes zero legislation and he will only be a one-term president."  How ridiculous can he be?  For the leader of the Senate?  Time for that old wreck to go retire to some farm in Kentucky.  I despair that you cannot see the urgent need to sweep all of these mental wrecks out of the Government.  The voters do not fire them and bring in fresh blood. These old guys interpret that as a mandate to continue stubbornly as poisonous old farts.  So they continue with their behaviour.  So you end up with a stalled, stagnant government.  The USA is in this place of internal paralysis precisely because you have these Mitch McConnell guys staying on, year after year after year.  

[Michael Sanches + 187]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

  The USA is in this place of internal paralysis 

Probably explains why we are so prosperous. Gridlock in Government is the best we can hope for. All they do, otherwise, is pass legislation increasing taxes to give money to people for votes and increasing regulations to reward their voters. They don't care about the country. They should be in recess and the White House closed 11 months each year.

". . . governs least, governs best."

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

They should be in recess and the White House closed 11 months each year.

Ironically, the founding Fathers specifically chose the location of Washington for the stifling humidity and heat there, thinking it would force the closing of the government from Spring until the Fall.  Then along came air conditioning and that idea went down the drain.....

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Well, for starters, you would not have these women up there as press secretaries spouting off saying that there are the facts of the matter, but Mr. Trump has his "alternative facts."  A rather idiotic thing to go say about your boss, now isn't it? 

 

All of them.  So let's start a ways back, when Mr. Obama is elected, and the very first thing out of McConnell's mouth is this declaration that "Job One is to see to it that he passes zero legislation and he will only be a one-term president."  How ridiculous can he be?  For the leader of the Senate?  Time for that old wreck to go retire to some farm in Kentucky.  I despair that you cannot see the urgent need to sweep all of these mental wrecks out of the Government.  The voters do not fire them and bring in fresh blood. These old guys interpret that as a mandate to continue stubbornly as poisonous old farts.  So they continue with their behaviour.  So you end up with a stalled, stagnant government.  The USA is in this place of internal paralysis precisely because you have these Mitch McConnell guys staying on, year after year after year.  

That's all fair enough. One point of clarification though: I see reason to sweep these mental wrecks out of the government, but I was curious to hear your thoughts on it. 

I'm also uncertain about what, exactly, would be better.  Trump's administration lacks nuance, but at least he's actively grappling with issues.  That seems to be better than, say, letting China do as it pleases as millions of illegal immigrants cross the border.  Meanwhile, O'Connell correctly prioritized the appointment of judges, which I think has brought more balance to the courts.  That all seems broadly correct, with or without nuance. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Trump's administration lacks nuance, but at least he's actively grappling with issues.

Not really.  He has not closed down any government department.  He did fire some top bureaucrats inside the FBI and DOJ, but that is only because they irritated him personally.  That did nothing for the country at large.  He has not dealt with the problems of military contractors; indeed, he seems to have made it worse, with calls for an every larger military. He has not addressed systemic poverty, nor addressed very large wealth and income inequalities, all of which spell trouble down the road - big social trouble.  Nothing has been done as to decaying infrastructure; indeed, the USA is starting to look like Southern Russia.  Passing tax cuts for the rich does nothing to alleviate the Treasury problems.  Refusing to take on the pigs and sharks on Wall Street does nothing to restore confidence in the Courts.  So it is a big mess.  Arguably the USA is worse off than from when Clinton left office.  Indeed, you could argue that it has been all down hill since Eisenhower. 

13 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

O'Connell correctly prioritized the appointment of judges, which I think has brought more balance to the courts.

That is only if you think that the Court should be politically activist and have political agendas; that is inherent in the idea of "balance."   Judges should never be appointed as political flacks; they are far too hard to remove.  If a Judge puts you in some jail on a capias, because of personal spite, what does he get - a reprimand?  Not even.  Judges have to be selected for even temperament and a desire to do equity.  They don't do that.  "Republican" Judges are probably the worst of the bunch.  The exception seems to be Judge Alito, and now I recall he is dead. Who is his replacement?  Are you suggesting Kavanaugh?  (DIsclaimer:  he is my fraternity brother from Yale).  Are you suggesting he is up to the job? Where are you going with that argument?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 8/14/2019 at 7:58 AM, Jan van Eck said:

 

Coupled with that, Mr. Trump is having real problems hiring and retaining quality people to work for him.

The saying is "people don't quit jobs, they quit bad bosses."

Plus, I'm sure he fires everyone who isn't a yes-man.

I'll stop bad mouthing trump when you stop bad mouthing Canadian politicians (of course I say plenty of bad stuff about them too).

Edited August 15, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  He has not closed down any government department.  He did fire some top bureaucrats inside the FBI and DOJ, but that is only because they irritated him personally.  That did nothing for the country at large.  He has not dealt with the problems of military contractors; indeed, he seems to have made it worse, with calls for an every larger military. He has not addressed systemic poverty, nor addressed very large wealth and income inequalities, all of which spell trouble down the road - big social trouble.  Nothing has been done as to decaying infrastructure; indeed, the USA is starting to look like Southern Russia.  Passing tax cuts for the rich does nothing to alleviate the Treasury problems.  Refusing to take on the pigs and sharks on Wall Street does nothing to restore confidence in the Courts.  So it is a big mess.  Arguably the USA is worse off than from when Clinton left office.  Indeed, you could argue that it has been all down hill since Eisenhower.

Wonder why law enforcement irritates him...

Doesn't he want to make a whole new branch of the military (space force).  Spaceships I'm sure are cheap.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

I'll stop bad mouthing trump when you stop bad mouthing Canadian politicians

That is actually funny!

I really don't care if you bad-mouth President Trump, that goes with the territory.  Plus, he is fertile ground for material to go criticize.  In that, he is right up there with Doug Ford. 🤣

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

7 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really.  He has not closed down any government department.  He did fire some top bureaucrats inside the FBI and DOJ, but that is only because they irritated him personally.  That did nothing for the country at large.  He has not dealt with the problems of military contractors; indeed, he seems to have made it worse, with calls for an every larger military. He has not addressed systemic poverty, nor addressed very large wealth and income inequalities, all of which spell trouble down the road - big social trouble.  Nothing has been done as to decaying infrastructure; indeed, the USA is starting to look like Southern Russia.  Passing tax cuts for the rich does nothing to alleviate the Treasury problems.  Refusing to take on the pigs and sharks on Wall Street does nothing to restore confidence in the Courts.  So it is a big mess.  Arguably the USA is worse off than from when Clinton left office.  Indeed, you could argue that it has been all down hill since Eisenhower. 

That is only if you think that the Court should be politically activist and have political agendas; that is inherent in the idea of "balance."   Judges should never be appointed as political flacks; they are far too hard to remove.  If a Judge puts you in some jail on a capias, because of personal spite, what does he get - a reprimand?  Not even.  Judges have to be selected for even temperament and a desire to do equity.  They don't do that.  "Republican" Judges are probably the worst of the bunch.  The exception seems to be Judge Alito, and now I recall he is dead. Who is his replacement?  Are you suggesting Kavanaugh?  (DIsclaimer:  he is my fraternity brother from Yale).  Are you suggesting he is up to the job? Where are you going with that argument?

Correction: I happen to like the things Trump is doing, and that's good enough for me. 

[entertenter + 24]

In this war, there is no clear winner, as sanctions of this magnitude affect economy globally.
So, as China is able to buy less from world, the china and world is able to buy less from US. Less jobs in US, and less well paid jobs in US. Also in the world generally.
Oilprices already affected by US-China tradewars.
It could trigger an economic downturn, or make inevitable economic downturn worse for a time, until new balance is achieved.

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

27 minutes ago, entertenter said:

In this war, there is no clear winner, as sanctions of this magnitude affect economy globally.
So, as China is able to buy less from world, the china and world is able to buy less from US. Less jobs in US, and less well paid jobs in US. Also in the world generally.
Oilprices already affected by US-China tradewars.
It could trigger an economic downturn, or make inevitable economic downturn worse for a time, until new balance is achieved.

For your consideration:

U.S. Consumer Spending Beats Expectations – Shoppers Reject Phony Media Recession Fears

If you needed any empirical evidence to prove the doomsday proclamations by the financial pundits are false claims, just look at the July consumer spending results. July spending more than doubled expectations.

July results were +0.7 percent, against the economic forecast of +.03 percent.   Consumer spending makes up over two-thirds of the U.S. GDP and overall economy. Doesn’t exactly sound like Main Street is on the precipice of a recession. Oh my.

Average wage growth remains +3.5% year-over-year.  The growth of overall income for American workers exceeds +5.4 percent year-over-year.  Unemployment is a low 3.6%and U.S. consumer inflation remains low at 1.4 percent.  Meaning: the middle-class has more disposable income to save or SPEND; and that’s what is happening….

• Reminder #1: Consumer spending is two-thirds of the U.S. economy.
• Reminder #2: We consume more than 80 percent of our own production (products created in USA).  We do not rely on exports.
• Reminder #3: Because of #1 and #2, the “Main Street” U.S. economy is self sustaining -much stronger- and more protected from the negative impacts on the global economy.
• Reminder #4: Who/What is at risk from global contraction? The Wall Street economy (compromised primarily of multinationals).  What is not at risk, the Main St economy.
• Reminder #5:  Because of #3 and #4, Wall Street can drop while Main Street thrives.

...

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

1 hour ago, entertenter said:

So, as China is able to buy less from world, the china and world is able to buy less from US. Less jobs in US, and less well paid jobs in US. Also in the world generally.

Trump is president of the United States, not president of China, not president of the the world.  Deal with it.
https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2019/08/02/Photos/NS/MW-HO691_julyjo_20190802091202_NS.jpg

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

12 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Correction: I happen to like the things Trump is doing, and that's good enough for me. 

Well, I do not. Yes, he has made great strides when dealing with North Korea, and in dealing with China, and you have to give him credit for that. Those are great accomplishments.  Actually, I cannot think of another person in America who could have pulled it off, or who had the guts to do it.

But being an American President has a unique responsibility.  And that is to be and to project being a moral voice. And here Trump fails miserably.  In my view beating up on migrants, putting people into detention jails and putting their infants and children into these dog cages, is not what we are about in America.  Americans are above all a voice for morality on the world stage.  When the monsters oppress, Americans are the people who raise up their voices, and in some cases their swords, to stand for decency.  When the President loses the pedestal of Decency, he collapses that moral voice.  And Trump did not have that pedestal, even in his personal life, to start with. 

I am disgusted with his treatment of the migrants.  Now you can argue "Policy" as to immigration and Emigration all day long, but let's remember, the USA is the world's Moral Leader and is what stands between decency and the Dark Side of the Force.  And when it comes to morality and decency, Mr. Trump has gone over to that Dark Side.  So, for me, no, it is not "good enough." 

There are things that you just do not do in your life.  You do not sit in some Bar and then go slide your hand up some young woman's skirt sitting next to you to go "feel her pussy."  You are not introduced, she has no idea who you are, and her "pussy" is her private part and not there for you to go fondle while she is sitting with her girlfriends having a drink.  She is not your personal whore.  You just do not even think about doing that. Even by New York's non-existent moral standards, you do not do that.  OK, that was before he was elected President.  What it does is describe a frame of reference that I personally find disgraceful.  People are not sex toys, people have an inherent worth and everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity.  Trump fails with the migrants and puts the women in cages precisely because in the past he put his finger where it did not belong.  It is an attitude problem, and in my view in that he is a failure.  So NO, that is not good enough for me. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[John Foote + 1,135]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

he has made great strides when dealing with North Korea, and in dealing with China, and you have to give him credit for that. Those are great accomplishments. 

I'd argue the jury is definitely still out. North Korea, we've raised US awareness perhaps, but there was a successful program keeping them nuke free, with on-site verification, which Bush43 undid. Not as dumb as letting Al Queda have a looser leash prior to 9-11, but pretty dumb. Steve Bannon was right on this one, NK is just a dog whistle. They won't really do anything, or take them off the planet, but we can't really do anything to them either. This is all about NK leadership trying to extort a money and aid. 

China has needed dealing with for some time. I don't the taking them on alone can work, but it needs dealing with. The global herd as some finance people call big money, is getting frustrated. For now it has no place better to go, but the system is freaking out on a macro scale. A grand collapse and reset might be good long term thing, but it will be a hell of a painful thing for a while.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

32 minutes ago, John Foote said:

A grand collapse and reset might be good long term thing, but it will be a hell of a painful thing for a while.  

There can be no dispute that it will be "a hell of a painful thing for a while."  

I would further suggest that, once the issue of the locked-up US tooling is resolved  (likely by the building of new tooling and the abandonment of whatever was shipped to China), the US will be in a much stronger position, as then (and historically) the US is not in the position of having to rely on imports of manufactured parts and goods from China.  In that area, the US economy would emerge much stronger, as the big advantage of the USA on the world stage is its large manufacturing capability.  Toss in modern CNC machines that can run unattended, and you end up with a much shorter supply line and fast response to customer demand, both in consumer goods and in industrial goods.  Americans are good at that, and I foresee lots and lots of small entrepreneurial shops emerging as Tier 5 and 6 suppliers.  I once started a factory that was a parts provider to TRW, which in turn incorporated those parts into assemblies for GM, which made me a Tier 3 manufacturer to the industry.  That literally started with nothing more than a conversation and a sales call.  And Americans are good at that, I can see lots of these arrangements flourishing once the mantra of sourcing from China is over. 

Will that convert the USA into some low-wage society?  I don't think so.  Yes, it will drive up the sourcing costs of the large companies, but it will lower, possibly dramatically, the logistics of dealing with a supplier on the other side of the planet. Also those new USA suppliers will likely invest in very modern machinery, CNC turning centers and mill machines, which will crank out the product with very short lead times.  If you need a part and can send the specifications via an e-mail attachment, and the plant parts designer then converts that via AUTOCAD software into a parts machine instruction set, and that is loaded into the machine, the part is finished overnight, and can be shipped immediately to that factory, you can have a one-day turnaround on the first parts to get that production line up and running.  That kind of lightning-fast work makes a huge difference to your costing structure.  So, low-wage society?  Probably not.