U.S. Trade Ambassador Robert Lighthizer Explains “Phase One” of U.S-China Trade Deal

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

US - China Phase One Trade Deal is amazing stuff.  Historic.  A trade deal like this has never been attempted before, between Communist and Capitalist 800 pound gorilla countries.  Both U.S. and China have huge influence on global trade.  A template for a balanced, even - handed trade agreement between profoundly different countries and governments is being hammered out.

● USMCA (U.S. Mexico Canada free trade Agreement) is replacing the horrid NAFTA.

● I fully expect there to be a U.S. + UK free trade agreement enacted after Brexit (due by end of Jan 2020).

● Phase One of U.S. - China trade deal is getting the finishing touches.

● Global trade is getting a global reset.

Read the transcript / watch the video.

Excerpt below, full transcript in the link:

Rare Interview – U.S. Trade Ambassador Robert Lighthizer Explains “Phase One” of U.S-China Trade Deal

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer made a rare appearance in the media to discuss the “big picture”, and some specifics, around the U.S-China phase-one agreement.

Ambassador Lighthizer notes the principle challenge is generating an enforceable set of standards -within a written agreement- between a totally controlled communist economic system (China) and a free-market system (USA).  No other nation has ever tried, and there is no preexisting trade agreement to facilitate a mapping.  What Lighthizer is constructing will be what all nations will start to use going forward.  This is historic stuff.

Arguably, next to President Trump, USTR Lighthizer is one of the most consequential members of the administration. What he is constructing, with the guidance of President Trump, is going to influence generations of Americans.

.

[Transcript] MARGARET BRENNAN: This week, the U.S. and China agreed on the first phase of a trade deal that would roll back some American tariffs. It’s expected to be signed in early January. We’re joined now by the U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, the top negotiator in those talks with Chinese officials. Good to have you here.

U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT LIGHTHIZER: Thank you for having me, MARGARET.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s huge to have the two largest economies in the world cool off some of these tensions that have been rattling the global economy. But I want to get to some of the details here. China says still needs to be proofread, still needs to be translated. Is you being here today a sign this is done, this deal’s not falling apart?

AMB. LIGHTHIZER: So first of all, this is done. This is something that happens in every agreement. There’s a translation period. There are some scrubs. This is totally done. Absolutely. But can I make one point? Because I think it’s really important. Friday was probably the most momentous day in trade history ever. That day we submitted the USMCA, the Mexico-Canada Agreement with bipartisan support and support of business, labor, agriculture. We actually introduced that into the House and the Senate on this, which is about 1.4 trillion dollars worth of the economy- I mean of- of trade. And then in addition to this, which is about 600 billion, so that’s literally about half of total trade were announced on the same day. It was extremely momentous and indicative of where we’re going, what this president has accomplished.

...

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

To avoid a huge wall of text above, here is another small excerpt from the interview.  2 scoops for Trump  [REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE]

=================================

...  MARGARET BRENNAN: But that $50 billion number, is that in writing?

AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Absolutely. So- so here’s what’s in writing. We- we have a list that will go manufacturing, agriculture, services, energy and the like. There’ll be a total for each one of those. Overall, it’s a minimum of 200 billion dollars. Keep in mind, by the second year, we will just about double exports of goods to China, if this- if this agreement is in place. Double exports. We had about 128 billion dollars in 2017. We’re going to go up at least by a hundred, probably a little over one hundred. And in terms of the agriculture numbers, what we have are specific breakdowns by products and we have a commitment for 40 to 50 billion dollars in sales. You could think of it as 80 to 100 billion dollars in new sales for agriculture over the course of the next two years. Just massive numbers.  ...

 

[Marcin + 519]

I assume agreement is about Chinese imports and US exports, so as to decrease bilateral trade deficit. This is perfectly possible, crude oil that China buys now from Saudi Arabia would be substituted by US oil currently purchased by France. To close the equation France will start buying crude from Saudi Arabia (the same as China purchases now).

US deficit with China decreased, US deficit with the world unchanged.

Fantastic news, job done!

Hail to Trump Tribune of the People and Conqueror of China.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

27 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I assume agreement is about Chinese imports and US exports, so as to decrease bilateral trade deficit. This is perfectly possible, crude oil that China buys now from Saudi Arabia would be substituted by US oil currently purchased by France. To close the equation France will start buying crude from Saudi Arabia (the same as China purchases now).

US deficit with China decreased, US deficit with the world unchanged.

Fantastic news, job done!

Hail to Trump Tribune of the People and Conqueror of China.

Most people fail to understand the goals here.  Trump has stated them over and over again, but people apparently don't listen.  Imagine that.

First and foremost, Trump has targeted China as a massive intellectual property thief, in reverse engineering, forcing joint venture companies to give up designs and markets, and outright stealing.  According to the U.S. Federal Government, this is to the tune of over $600 BILLION every single year!  I used to attach the report when re-pointing this out, but I'm not going to go looking for it again.  Look it up yourselves (not targeting you here, Marcin).

Second is Trade.  Others can go more into the real stats but it has mainly to do with dumping,  Then failure to carry out reciprocal trade wherever possible.  The U.S./China trade imbalance and therefore deficit will continue to exist.  More importantly, the U.S./World trade imbalance will continue to exist because even when suppliers move from China to Vietnam or any other place, that will result in about the same imbalance.  It is hoped, and promoted by the Trump administration, that more companies will come back to the U.S., but that is neither the main goal nor reality.  Trump knows it; his opponents choose not to know it.

[Marcin + 519]

50 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Most people fail to understand the goals here.  Trump has stated them over and over again, but people apparently don't listen.  Imagine that.

First and foremost, Trump has targeted China as a massive intellectual property thief,

Second is Trade.  Others can go more into the real stats but it has mainly to do with dumping,  Then failure to carry out reciprocal trade wherever possible. 

-         intellectual property theft, reverse engineering, forced technology transfers

China is at the moment in its history when IP/technology is the decisive factor in its development.

I am not going to whitewash China, but all other similar countries in recent past: Japan, South Korea did exactly the same (@specinfo commented about it). Earlier it was also practice of US when it was backward in comparison to UK.

My point is moving up the technology ladder is so important for China that it is not going to curb it (of course unofficially) no matter what will be the backlash from the United States or other countries. Even after imposing 100% of tariffs on all Chinese exports. At the same time China exponentially increased its R&D/IP output in recent decade, and are still on that path. That is why IP courts were created in China, to protect Chinese IP on Chinese domestic market.

On paper China will be also protecting foreign IP, but in reality domestic technology self-sufficiency is top national priority and case of national security.

In fact since ZTE embargo in April 2018 China doubled down on self-sufficiency (and probably selective IP theft, I do not have data).

There were rumors that comprehensive analysis of technology gaps were performed, with action plans to close them.

US is treated by Chinese authorities (and vice versa) as the most important threat to national security.

I know about this IP theft report, I have not mentioned IP on purpose as I do not believe any REAL agreement in this area is possible, until China is technologically self-sufficient and on par with United States. Something weak could be signed, but without enforcement mechanism.

- access to domestic market

China abuses its position of large country and large consumer market to keep domestic market closed if it thinks it is beneficial economically, in national security area, or is the case of keeping control over the society by ruling Communist Party. Again in my opinion this model could not be substantially changed, US has not enough leverage to change policies crucial for Communist Party or country existence.

 

My opinion is China only buys time by prolonging negotiations and I do not think Trump after re-election will have motivation to exacerbate conflict with China especially where it should – in technology area. He will be 75, achieved everything he wanted, started solving China problem, more than enough. He will not want to be remembered as the guy who started catastrophic war with China.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Wow!

So, are you saying the Chinese actions are to be considered acceptable and that the fight against their practices is only some type of legacy fight that Trump is fighting for his own ego?

Or am I not understanding you?

[remake it + 288]

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Trump has targeted China as a massive intellectual property thief, in reverse engineering, forcing joint venture companies to give up designs and markets, and outright stealing. 

This is the classical "so what" moment unless you are one of the 99% of Americans that have not been following what the USA was doing via the WTO prior to Trump AND think that Trump has actually advanced America's standing not just from the MAGA perspective of indulgent isolationism but also from the international perspective of being a good corporate citizen.

[Marcin + 519]

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Wow!

So, are you saying the Chinese actions are to be considered acceptable and that the fight against their practices is only some type of legacy fight that Trump is fighting for his own ego?

Or am I not understanding you?

I only have written what is going on according to my analysis as far as Chinese actions and motivation is concerned. From Chinese perspective it is acceptable, from mine not as I am citizen of NATO and UE country and under US military umbrella so Chinese hegemony is against vital interests of my country.

Chinese actions are just pragmatic, buy some time before hegemony war will become intensive and costly.

The best is to buy 5 years till January 2025, China does not need more.

I only say that Trump is businessman with great ego and his primary goal in life is to win 2020 election. He will win this election on the MAGA premise and central to it is to show achievement in his China policy. After the election he will not have to be as combative towards China as at present.

His major legacy is MAGA and major premise of MAGA is to end unnecessary wars abroad and take care about Americans. So he will not start costly and catastrophic conflict with China.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Marcin
Typo

[remake it + 288]

U.S. Trade Ambassador Robert Lighthizer Explains “Phase One” of U.S-China Trade Deal:

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 hours ago, remake it said:

This is the classical "so what" moment unless you are one of the 99% of Americans that have not been following what the USA was doing via the WTO prior to Trump AND think that Trump has actually advanced America's standing not just from the MAGA perspective of indulgent isolationism but also from the international perspective of being a good corporate citizen.

Your assignment is to diagram your own sentence

Diagramming sentences for Dummies

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

20 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

.

Very interesting talk with Lighthizer.  Especially the parts about IP, in my opinion.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

19 hours ago, Marcin said:

-         intellectual property theft, reverse engineering, forced technology transfers

 

China is at the moment in its history when IP/technology is the decisive factor in its development.

 

I am not going to whitewash China, but all other similar countries in recent past: Japan, South Korea did exactly the same (@specinfo commented about it). Earlier it was also practice of US when it was backward in comparison to UK.

 

My point is moving up the technology ladder is so important for China that it is not going to curb it (of course unofficially) no matter what will be the backlash from the United States or other countries. Even after imposing 100% of tariffs on all Chinese exports. At the same time China exponentially increased its R&D/IP output in recent decade, and are still on that path. That is why IP courts were created in China, to protect Chinese IP on Chinese domestic market.

 

On paper China will be also protecting foreign IP, but in reality domestic technology self-sufficiency is top national priority and case of national security.

 

In fact since ZTE embargo in April 2018 China doubled down on self-sufficiency (and probably selective IP theft, I do not have data).

 

There were rumors that comprehensive analysis of technology gaps were performed, with action plans to close them.

 

US is treated by Chinese authorities (and vice versa) as the most important threat to national security.

 

I know about this IP theft report, I have not mentioned IP on purpose as I do not believe any REAL agreement in this area is possible, until China is technologically self-sufficient and on par with United States. Something weak could be signed, but without enforcement mechanism.

 

- access to domestic market

 

China abuses its position of large country and large consumer market to keep domestic market closed if it thinks it is beneficial economically, in national security area, or is the case of keeping control over the society by ruling Communist Party. Again in my opinion this model could not be substantially changed, US has not enough leverage to change policies crucial for Communist Party or country existence.

 

 

 

My opinion is China only buys time by prolonging negotiations and I do not think Trump after re-election will have motivation to exacerbate conflict with China especially where it should – in technology area. He will be 75, achieved everything he wanted, started solving China problem, more than enough. He will not want to be remembered as the guy who started catastrophic war with China.

 

By the same token, if Trumps wins the electoral college AND the popular vote (a landslide is probably impossible in the present, politically polarized environment) he will essentially be given a ‘mandate of the people’. Since he would then be a ‘lame duck’ president and not need to worry about re-election, he may much more active in making America great again.

Just a thought...

[Marcin + 519]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

By the same token, if Trumps wins the electoral college AND the popular vote (a landslide is probably impossible in the present, politically polarized environment) he will essentially be given a ‘mandate of the people’. Since he would then be a ‘lame duck’ president and not need to worry about re-election, he may much more active in making America great again.

Just a thought...

Republican Party needs to keep Senate in 2022 and 2024 elections. Dynamics&actions of Republicans since 2017 is mostly under Trump control. All Republican leaders were quickly domesticated or sidelined by Trump, so Republicans are now called Trump's Party. "Phase One" deal will be sold to the public as huge success by Trump. The following deals will be small incremental steps, Trump administration is aware of it, Secretary of Treasury already tested ground by mentioning that there will be Phase Two A, Phase Two B, Phase Two C deals etc. Phase Two A deal will be conveniently signed before 2022 elections so to help Republicans. Conflict with China needs to be kept in control in order to keep China at the negotiation table. China is getting stronger and more self sufficient each year.

Hegemony war is a very dangerous game, on the brink of total war, at present it means nuclear war.

(Always have been this way. Some writers tell us that change of hegemony from British Empire to United States was peaceful. No it was not, 100 million people died in WW1 and WW2. Germans during WW1 and Germans and Japanese in WW2 helped United States a lot by significantly weaking British Empire. Also other major powers: France, Germany, Japan, China, Soviet Union were weakened as war was conducted on their territory and significant part of physical infrastructure was destroyed)

Trump is a billionaire with vast ego that put him into White House, near the end of his life.  I do not think that Trump became President on patriotic, altruistic motivation. He is the oldest President in US history. Old men with big egos are not going to war.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Marcin
typo

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

47 minutes ago, Marcin said:

He is the oldest President in US history.

Technically Ronald Reagan was 73 when elected for his second term as opposed to Trump at 70 

 

[Marcin + 519]

8 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Technically Ronald Reagan was 73 when elected for his second term as opposed to Trump at 70 

 

I want your human handler back. Please give us Rob back.

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

Hegemony war is a very dangerous game, on the brink of total war, at present it means nuclear war.

Marcin do you really believe that the trade war between USA and China is a precursor to nuclear war??

I understand your logic linking WWI + WWII to the change of hegemony between Britain and USA but this is a tenuous link at best.

We didn't go to war with Germany and its allies for this reason as you well know. Also if i'm not mistaken the USA was a significant player in said world wars.

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

4 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I want your human handler back. Please give us Rob back.

Sorry he has been sent to one of our Gulags in Zhejiang province

[Marcin + 519]

9 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Very interesting talk with Lighthizer.  Especially the parts about IP, in my opinion.

I watched this, and later corroborated with China Daily, and there really is going to be the chapter on IP protection in the Deal.

I am going to wait till it is signed by both parties and text released to judge how substantial the deal is, especially enforcement mechanism.

[Marcin + 519]

16 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Marcin do you really believe that the trade war between USA and China is a precursor to nuclear war??

I understand your logic linking WWI + WWII to the change of hegemony between Britain and USA but this is a tenuous link at best.

We didn't go to war with Germany and its allies for this reason as you well know. Also if i'm not mistaken the USA was a significant player in said world wars.

I said (bolded some statements for convenience):

Hegemony war is a very dangerous game, on the brink of total war, at present it means nuclear war.

(Always have been this way. Some writers tell us that change of hegemony from British Empire to United States was peaceful. No it was not, 100 million people died in WW1 and WW2. Germans during WW1 and Germans and Japanese in WW2 helped United States a lot by significantly weaking British Empire. Also other major powers: France, Germany, Japan, China, Soviet Union were weakened as war was conducted on their territory and significant part of physical infrastructure was destroyed)

I only cited the obvious historial facts: change of hegemony always meant large, catastrophic wars. Of course US has gone to war with Germany because it was the right thing to do, not because of hegemony. I only said that international situation was very convenient for the United States to achieve hegemony without direct confrontation with British Empire.

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

7 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I only said that international situation was very convenient for the United States to achieve hegemony without direct confrontation with British Empire

OK I understand you Marcin 

The last time we fought they threw all our bloody tea away!

Cheers

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

45 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I watched this, and later corroborated with China Daily, and there really is going to be the chapter on IP protection in the Deal.

I am going to wait till it is signed by both parties and text released to judge how substantial the deal is, especially enforcement mechanism.

Back in the day we used to read the China Daily every day.  What a rag.  But the crossword puzzle was stolen from the NY Times or something like that and was a great thing to kill 10-15 minutes on each day.

Yes, enforcement.  As we all know, making agreements is one thing; enforcement another thing entirely.  It will take years to compile any real results I'm afraid.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, remake it said:

U.S. Trade Ambassador Robert Lighthizer Explains “Phase One” of U.S-China Trade Deal:

Dump the 'bot' or other users or whatever we wanna call it / accuse you of man. You're hilarious when you wanna be and aren't just disagreeing. 

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Sorry he has been sent to one of our Gulags in Zhejiang province

An odd location for an American bot admittedly.

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The last time we fought they threw all our bloody tea away!

Chinese hegemony becomes tea lover's heaven.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

Dump the 'bot' or other users or whatever we wanna call it / accuse you of man. You're hilarious when you wanna be and aren't just disagreeing. 

^ Agreed