Trump's China Strategy: Death By a Thousand Paper Cuts

[Papillon + 485]

I have not stated in any sense sir whatsoever that her stating taking care of the planet is wrong. It is a reference to earlier aspects of the discussion of her apparently doing what she does 'independently'. The fact that you have just said 'I'm not sure she pretends to know' suggests to me you would agree with me sir. To certain users she does what she does alone, and I assume that would include writing speeches? How may I ask would you write on certain topics if you 'don't even pretend to know' the topic? My guess would be with help, and so by definition, not 'independently'.

With respect it is precisely the question at hand, that being the people 'behind' the girl. If you view my comments in their entirety sir you will note I have actually done nothing but defend this girl and her intentions.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Papillon

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

9 minutes ago, Papillon said:

With respect it is precisely the question at hand, that being the people 'behind' the girl. If you view my comments in their entirety sir you will note I have actually done nothing but defend this girl.

True & fair enough. 

10 minutes ago, Papillon said:

To certain users she does what she does alone, and I assume that would include writing speeches? How may I ask would you write on certain topics if you 'don't even pretend to know' the topic? My guess would be with help, and so by definition, not 'independently'.

Accepted and fair enough. 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

1 minute ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I am not sure that she pretends to or if it is the question at hand. I don't really agree with her militant approach, but simply stating that we humans need to take better care of planet is not wrong to me. Honestly, people on this forum tend to accept the means if the end-goal is worthy when it comes to Trump. The same leniancy is not extend to Greta Thunberg, enviromentalists or the EU...

I don't think any rational human being would disagree with your sentiment. There are arguments to the vallidity of some of the "science" IMO but the willingness to want to change for the better is an admirable quality. 

However unless we want economies to collapse due to not having viable alternate energy sources this wont happen overnight. Fossil fuels are here to stay and for a long time based on current technologies and energy supplies. This is perhaps the reality that many environmentalists just don't grasp. If you take California as an example, and a forward thinking state from an environmentalists perspective, they are currently experiencing blackout after blackout because of the massively increased legislation the utilties have to now comply with.

i drive a hybrid car, am i helping make a differnce to Co2 emissions? absolutely not! in fact over the lifespan of the car it will probably cost the environment more than an ICE vehicle due to the amount of Co2 it takes to manufacture the battery in the first place. i wonder how many environmentalists know this and thinking they are helping when in fact they are making things worse.

Are we all prepared to accept blackouts as the norm and is it a price worth paying? Maybe, time will tell.

As for the EU, it has potential but is crippled by political in fighting and bureaucracy. Reform it from the top down and you may just have something!

Respectfully

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

However unless we want economies to collapse due to not having viable alternate energy sources this wont happen overnight. Fossil fuels are here to stay and for a long time based on current technologies and energy supplies. This is perhaps the reality that many environmentalists just don't grasp. If you take California as an example, and a forward thinking state from an environmentalists perspective, they are currently experiencing blackout after blackout because of the massively increased legislation the utilties have to now comply with.

Well said.

Meanwhile ...

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 11/27/2019 at 7:27 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

As I have been saying for months now, Trump has *already won* the trade war against China.

And will continue to state that Trump has already won the trade war with China.

Maybe I can vary the statement a bit every now and then by stating the China has already lost the trade war with Trump.

 

On 12/2/2019 at 8:56 PM, Marcin said:

When I first read articles about the US vs China trade war/all these tariffs, I asked myself the question what is this all about, why the hell mass media are making so much noise about this very unimportant issue in US-China relations.

The fact that President Trump is talking about it constantly is not enough. There came reflection:

99.9% of PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND economics and nature of US and China economies,

but the ISSUE of TRADE DEFICIT is a very simple notion, to gather society around it. Every Joe Sixpack can think that US deficit in trade with China is important, and this very Joe Sixpack may think that he understands the complexity of the relations between superpowers and because of that think better of himself. Mass media have to adjust to stupidity of society, because they need viewers and advertisers. Mass media task is not to educate people that overall deficit or surplus of country with all partners counts.

The fact that the notion of importance of bilateral deficit between 2 countries (China and US) is a really very stupid one, this fact is irrelevant to mass media and thus sheep viewers. Btw who could understand real economists like for example Stephen Roach.

1. Bilateral deficits between countries are not important, what is important is overall deficit or surplus of the country with all partners ( freshman year of any economics studies).

2. The larger the country, the less important foreign trade is. In 2018 China had overall surplus in foreign trade with all partners of 2.7% of its GDP, and US trade deficit of 4.2% of its GDP.

3. There are no losers in China-US trade war, and also no winners because this issue, even that easy to peddle to society is not important. What is very important is technology supremacy.

4. Countries of the size of US and China naturally have nearly everything important produced or created within its borders. It is the case of national security and simple economies of scale. Current situation that China is not one of the leaders in some areas of advanced manufacturing, is a short term deviation from this tendency. For example China like US will produce all types of passenger aircraft because it currently is 25% of global demand and will be 40% of global demand for aircrafts inthe future. Or all types of semiconductors. Or have similar military capability to ensure access to resources (read: hydrocarbons). Preventing this development of China by US is totally patriotic from US perspective. But it is futile as the country of the size of China at the current level of development will naturally have very high R&D output (China is 2 years away from achieving  US output in R&D, at present by major indicators 3/4 of US output (indicators:international patents, citations in scientific press, number of scientists, PhD thesis, yeraly R&D investment etc.). Of course gap will stay for at least 10-15 years but will narrow fast.)

So United States can move to other offshoring countries all manufacturing that is now in China. It is not important to China in the long term, because China predominantly depends on domestic market (like US) and other countries.

Remember the fact US only 4% of global population, isolated on scarsely populated North America continent. 65% of global population is in Eurasia and China is located on this continent. China borders 14 countries. US only 2. Geography decides the hegemony.

So hegemony conflict is actually already over, bar nuclear attack of United States on China.

Please guys never write about importance of trade war again, who wins, who loses. Of course if you would find any reliable person that can argument  that trade war is the most important issue in US-China relations please link this piece, I would love to learn something new and revolutionary in economics.

 

Interesting arguments.

As a reminder, I view the trade war as very much important indeed.

And China has already lost the trade war / Trump has already won the trade war. 

China's house of cards is teetering.

Two China Firms Miss $526 Million Bond Payments as Woes Grow

(Bloomberg) -- Two Chinese companies failed to repay bonds worth a combined half a billion dollars on Monday, underscoring rising debt risks in the highly leveraged nation as the economy slows.

Peking University Founder Group was unable to secure sufficient funding to repay a 270-day, 2 billion yuan ($285 million) bond, according to a company filing to the National Interbank Funding Center. Tunghsu Optoelectronic Technology Co. failed to deliver repayment on both interest and principal on a 1.7 billion yuan bond, according to Shanghai Clearing House.

The quickening speed of bond defaults in China, especially among ailing private firms, highlights the growing financial strain triggered by the country’s worst economic slowdown in three decades and unabated trade tensions with the U.S. Last week, industrial firm Xiwang Group failed to pay a 1 billion yuan bond, missing a fresh repayment deadline on an already defaulted bond.  ...

Edited December 5, 2019 by Tom Kirkman
Doh! Fixed significant typo. Tip of the hat to Papillon for pointing out my brain fart.

[Marcin + 519]

@Tom Kirkman I have a great respect for you and all other great persons that are commenting here at oilprice.com (bar a few trolls, I must admit).

All of you probably noticed that I speak a different language, language of many quantitative and qualitative metrics that I present to show you my points. They are unfortunately all needed to understand the nature of US, China economies, and the effects of the current conflict (trade and technology area).

It is about 30 different indicators you need to follow (although the major 10-15 are most important) and understand their mutual interdependencies, plus a little bit of knowledge about geography of resources of all kinds on the globe, plus a little bit of knowledge about historical trends in global economy, that are emulated at present, advanced degree in finance is a good addition.

I did not mean to disparage the Fox media discourse, but unfortunately most of it is rubbish, these journalists have no idea what they are writing about.

Example:

Two China Firms Miss $526 Million Bond Payments as Woes Grow

Tom the stream of thoughts that comes in 20second through my mind when I read sth you linked.

China the second largest bond market in the world. I do not remember the exact number, but remember from one McKinsey presentation that bank credit is about 25 trillion, and bond market was 3 times lower, so bond market is about 5-10 trillion USD. I do not remember the rate of default at Chinese bond market, but remember that bank credit default rate in China is in line with global standards, and take this number as an indicator of magnitude for bonds. So below 1% rate of default similar to A US bonds. At 9 trillion market it is 90 billion USD a year, so till such defaults appear more often than 180 times a year it is not important. Summary: This piece was irrelevant (like 90% you read about China at Bloomberg).

Edited December 4, 2019 by Marcin
typo

[Hans bass + 3]

On 11/28/2019 at 8:29 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

My WhatsApp chat with Asia this morning, regarding my repeated assertions that China has lost / Trump has won the trade war.

 

[remake it + 288]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

i wonder how many environmentalists know this and thinking they are helping when in fact they are making things worse.

A lot of environmentalists know these claims have been consistently debunked (as were similar claims for wind turbines) especially as battery life considerations and repurposing have been underestimated or neglected.

[Hans bass + 3]

I believe you have it backwards.Sorry to tell you but China is winning.The u.S.depends more on china than they do on us.China's plan is to string dumbass trump along while  hinting it wants to talk,trump plays it up with his big mouth,the markets rise with their stupid Algos which takes trump at his word. Then China thumbs it's nose at trump.Wash,rinse,repeat.The stupid ass market falls for it every time and never realised trump is just crying "wolf!" When are they ever going to see the obvious? Chinas plan is to wait till the time is right to totally dump trump or until the market finally figures out what a conman bullshit artist is Trumpy the Orange clown,when they finally do,the market will drop like a stone because all of this QE stuff and repo market manipulation has worn too Thin!!!! Get it??China is used to playing the long game,and are willing to wait trump out,Xi is president for life he will never give in to what he and his people see as bullying,while trump is under huge pressure with impeachment and an election both breathing down his neck .China is not so stupid that they don't see this.Their philosophy taken from The Art ofWar" is to know your enemy ,and they've done their due diligence!Watch out because China is playing chess,while trump is playing checkers.I'm not rejoicing in this,just telling you the situation,please don't shoot the messenger.

[Marcin + 519]

Some more input about Greta case. I have written that I have a daughter, actually 3 daughters so I know a little bit about the subject. I also happen to have close family in Stockholm, we frequently meet. When 2 families blessed by many kids meet together kids are one of top subjects. Stockholm teenagers have a lot of space, they are independent, but in a good way, they go to schools and definitely not dropping out at the age of 15. This is bizarre for Sweden. I know only a few families but they are normal, good people, children have friends, spent too much time engaging with friends via smartfons, but again going to schools, telling parents where they are after classes, playing a lot outdoors, they are really healthy. Sweden, and especially Stockholm is a paradise of equality, with my friends giving half of their income to the state in taxes (recently it has changed due to evil immigrants, but still not enough for them to vote for right-wing Swedish Democrats).

But all of this is IRRELEVANT in Greta case. As I was talking about Homo sapiens.

Because her parents belong to different SPECIES, called CELEBRITIES. (homo celebritus)

This species is characterized by selling every part of their life for fame that is later monetized in many ways, like promotion of products, acting in commercials etc.

Unfortunately there is no legal mechanism for this species (CELEBRITIES) that can prevent them from selling also every aspect of life of their pets or kids or both.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Marcin
typo

[Marcin + 519]

1 hour ago, Hans bass said:

I believe you have it backwards.Sorry to tell you but China is winning.The u.S.depends more on china than they do on us.China's plan is to string dumbass trump along while  hinting it wants to talk,trump plays it up with his big mouth,the markets rise with their stupid Algos which takes trump at his word. Then China thumbs it's nose at trump.Wash,rinse,repeat.The stupid ass market falls for it every time and never realised trump is just crying "wolf!" When are they ever going to see the obvious? Chinas plan is to wait till the time is right to totally dump trump or until the market finally figures out what a conman bullshit artist is Trumpy the Orange clown,when they finally do,the market will drop like a stone because all of this QE stuff and repo market manipulation has worn too Thin!!!! Get it??China is used to playing the long game,and are willing to wait trump out,Xi is president for life he will never give in to what he and his people see as bullying,while trump is under huge pressure with impeachment and an election both breathing down his neck .China is not so stupid that they don't see this.Their philosophy taken from The Art ofWar" is to know your enemy ,and they've done their due diligence!Watch out because China is playing chess,while trump is playing checkers.I'm not rejoicing in this,just telling you the situation,please don't shoot the messenger.

I agree with most of your statements about the way China is handling Trump, but I think they will never damp him till the end of his second term. I expect 2 Chinese presents for Trump in the spring&summer of 2020: 1. overt:insignificant trade deal with lots of agriculture purchases, 2. covert: upbeat of Q2 and Q3 2020 US GDP prints through 50 billion USD of additional purchases of American merchandise to increase both prints by about 0.5% (but only if necessary).

As you said Trump is good for China because: 1. Trumps impulsive personality plus specific negotiation tactics causes clashes with most allies,  2. He speaks what he thinks and has big mouth 3. Trump is narcissistic and such people are easier to manipulate.

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

I expect 2 Chinese presents for Trump in the spring&summer of 2020:

China also has no problem devaluing the yuan, so if the US believe their tariffs are somehow stealing market share from China elsewhere across the globe then it will be very easy for them to reverse this.

[Boat + 1,315]

I do a lol at the idea of China being a leader in the world. The fact they can’t seem to pacify Taiwan and Hong Kong show their mentality is still stuck in the Cold War. As a leader in a capitalist world how smart is it to irritate their natural close trading partners by claiming the South China Sea as their own. Is this their plan for building trust? Countries like China and Russia are easily contained as long as “our guns are bigger than your guns”. The free world/non expansion, will always supply funds against aggressive authoritarian rule. What I am expecting is the move by the world to steadily increase sanctions until they join the world or become isolated.

[remake it + 288]

26 minutes ago, Boat said:

I do a lol at the idea of China being a leader in the world.

In 10 years time it's likely that India's economy will crank out more than the USA, so your lols might be a bit misplaced.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

Firstly I do not know how anybody including the IMF (which apparently is the source for this prediction) can forecast 10 years into the future!

It is hard enough to forecast with any great accuracy where we will be in 1-3 years let alone 10.

That said, I do tend to agree that India, which nobody ever mentions, will be a major superpower in the very near future. It may well be correct that India and not the US will be the major threat to China's plan for hegemony in the next 2 decades. I wonder when hostilities and trade wars break out between these 2 countries?

i think China's biggest challenge will not be to become the hegemony but to remain as one.

[Papillon + 485]

13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

On 11/28/2019 at 12:27 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

As I have been saying for months now, Trump has *already won* the trade war against China.

And will continue to state that Trump has already lost the trade war with China.

Maybe I can vary the statement a bit every now and then by stating the China has already lost the trade war with Trump.

Forgive me sir, but with respect I cannot help but notice a typing error here, as the middle line contradicts the preceding and following ones, unless of course you are confused in your beforehand very clear position, or became some sort of schizophrenic while writing? I jest sir, forgive me, I am prone to a little banter from time to time, but simply thought I would let you know incase you wish to correct it. Respectfully, Papillon. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

9 hours ago, Marcin said:

As you said Trump is good for China because: 1. Trumps impulsive personality plus specific negotiation tactics causes clashes with most allies,  2. He speaks what he thinks and has big mouth 3. Trump is narcissistic and such people are easier to manipulate.

^Bingo... 

@Tom Kirkman - this is why I don't get your cheerleading. I perfectly understand if you think he is the best of a shitty bunch, but longterm his strategy is not good for the West or the US. you can vote for, but treating him like the one true God is not good... 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

5 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

^Bingo... 

@Tom Kirkman - this is why I don't get your cheerleading. I perfectly understand if you think he is the best of a shitty bunch, but longterm his strategy is not good for the West or the US. you can vote for, but treating him like the one true God is not good... 

Who are you kidding Rasmus, deep down you love Trump!

[remake it + 288]

25 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Firstly I do not know how anybody including the IMF (which apparently is the source for this prediction) can forecast 10 years into the future!

IMF data only, Standard Chartered's projections (not predictions), and Visualcapitalist's graphic aided by Oxford economics and Brookings, so a formidable pedigree - but the future can always be different, even after it's the present and viewed from a different perspective (as indicative of these forums).

31 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

i think China's biggest challenge will not be to become the hegemony but to remain as one.

As in Xi's life term which is terminal?

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

13 minutes ago, remake it said:

IMF data only, Standard Chartered's projections (not predictions), and Visualcapitalist's graphic aided by Oxford economics and Brookings, so a formidable pedigree - but the future can always be different, even after it's the present and viewed from a different perspective (as indicative of these forums).

As in Xi's life term which is terminal?

Yes partly, but 2 other factors.

the main one being the rise of India as well. If India aligns itself with the west (ie the US) their combined economic and political strength would be IMO too much for China to overcome. India would also be an unbelievably important ally to the US in geopolitics. It may also be the quickest way for India to become the hegemony of the future.

The other issue I believe will affect China is the the Chinese people themselves. I find it hard to believe even with the controls currently in place and those on the horizon that many countries are adopting, that the Chinese people will allow themselves to remain in such a controlled environment. Basically what I'm saying is I think there will be severe socio-economic issues to deal with due to wealth disparity "the haves and the have nots" that go directly against the states mantra. India you will note already has its class system and has done so for millenia.

I am not attacking China before you reply, this happens in almost every country as their wealth increases. Already your average factory owner drives a BMW or similar vehicle that costs around $200K.

Greed and jealousy unfortunately are widespread human traits!

This potentially could lead to civil unrest and a real danger to the Chinese state.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Papillon said:

Forgive me sir, but with respect I cannot help but notice a typing error here, as the middle line contradicts the preceding and following ones, unless of course you are confused in your beforehand very clear position, or became some sort of schizophrenic while writing? I jest sir, forgive me, I am prone to a little banter from time to time, but simply thought I would let you know incase you wish to correct it. Respectfully, Papillon. 

Doh, typo!  Thanks for pointing that out, I'll correct it.

[remake it + 288]

5 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

If India aligns itself with the west (ie the US) their combined economic and political strength would be IMO too much for China to overcome.

India is already more closely aligned with Russia than the USA so that's a bet with very long odds.

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Basically what I'm saying is I think there will be severe socio-economic issues to deal with due to wealth disparity "the haves and the have nots" that go directly against the states mantra.

You are talking about a country that in less than 2 generations has lifted the majority of its population out of dire poverty, and the memory effect of this is profound when you travel China, so your idea is likely to be far more sensitive in economies where a majority of "haves" are increasing their number of "having less."

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

^Bingo... 

@Tom Kirkman - this is why I don't get your cheerleading. I perfectly understand if you think he is the best of a shitty bunch, but longterm his strategy is not good for the West or the US. you can vote for, but treating him like the one true God is not good... 

Seems you will never understand my views, or understand how Trump is upending globalist plans for ruling the world.

Meanwhile, over in China ...

A Secret Government Project Sparks Huge Protest in Wenlou, China

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

13 minutes ago, remake it said:

India is already more closely aligned with Russia than the USA so that's a bet with very long odds.

This may be true to a degree on policies such as defence etc however when you talk about trading partners the figures dont stack up. i think the bet is odds on IMO

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/india-and-major-powers-russia-54183/

The relationship is clearly waning and Russia is aligning itself with China more and more.

I believe in 2018 india /  Russia trade was $11b there is an attempt to increase this to $30B by 2025 which will not happen.

india / US trade $142.6b in 2018 so a huge disparity

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/south-central-asia/india

I think your views are very dated and relate back to cold war days in particular

[remake it + 288]

59 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

This may be true to a degree on policies such as defence etc however when you talk about trading partners the figures dont stack up. i think the bet is odds on IMO

Using you logic China would also align with the US, but clearly does not, and in any case most nations expanding at annual GDP growth rates of >7% are in Asia so as time marches on their US trading base will continue to diminish in very much the same way it has wrt to China.