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

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

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.

USTR Robert Lightizer Discusses USMCA and U.S-China Trade Agreements

Great interview with United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer as he described the goals, objectives and outcomes of the USMCA and U.S-China Phase One agreements.

While answering a question about Wall St. journal criticism of the USMCA, Lighthizer discussed the dynamic of Wall Street -vs- Main Street as part of the bigger picture objective in the revised deal. He avoids the words “globalism” -vs- “nationalism” but the sentiment as described is there.

On China Lighthizer emphasizes the “phase one” deal is really a test to see if it is even possible to have an enforceable trade agreement between a communist state-run economy (China) and a free-market economy (U.S).

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/17/2019 at 9:29 AM, Marcin said:

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.

Old men with big egos have always been the ones starting unnecessary wars. President Trump is wise enough to see that it rarely ever works out well for the participants. I think he deserves credit for that. I would hope that he would, in his second term, start figuring out how to reduce military spending by getting more bang for our buck. (The bang, hopefully not ever needed). The existence of a powerful military is mainly to avoid attack. President Trump has practiced weakening our rivals economies through demanding fair trade and not falling for leftist schemes such as globalism, United Nations conspiracies, green alarmism, etc. 

IMHO all governmental levels need to economize, if our economy (or any other economy) is going to continue to prosper rather than fail. I am afraid that we are being misled by economists who do not believe in logic.

[Marcin + 519]

In US-China trade deal there would probably be caveat relating to purchases especially of agriculture products.

Unlike in petrochemical business where most of oil processing capacity is under state control and China authorities could order crude purchases from US, agriculture sector is different.

2 years of soybeans harvest at least would be effrectively lost to Us farmers. Brazil and Argentina emerged as major sources of soybeans for China and this could not change in short-term perspective. More acreage has sown soybeans so next harvest from Latin America would go to China. Brazil soybeans are richer in proteins.

There could not be mandatory purchases, US cannot impose planned economy upon China.

Furthermore supply chains for high-tech products are changing their geography. American suppliers are unreliable due to threat of sanctions. No Chinese business or business operating in "factory of the world" could source semiconductors or other high-tech products in US if substitutes in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or EU exist.

US authorities imposes embargos on any business relations of 140 Chinese companies. Effect is that every Chinese company are seeking alternatives to  permanently, permanently means for 20 years or forever cease to source in US.

Remember that we are talking about not Zimbabwe but factory of the world and the largest retail market in the world.

Unbelievable.

Furthermore Chinese entities are desperately trying to find substitutes for any American technology, complete technological decoupling

What i wanted to say ?

Any trade agreement China-US is NULL and VOID before signed because Chinese companies  were prevented from buying American products by American authorities, PERMANENTLY.

[Marcin + 519]

On 12/17/2019 at 5:35 PM, Rob Plant said:

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

No vocational training facilities in Zhejiang province, climate is too good, land too expensive for educational facilities.

[Marcin + 519]

On 12/17/2019 at 6:25 PM, Dan Warnick said:

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.

I was reading about agricultural & high tech products sourcing from US by Chinese companies.

Commentators believe that damage was already permanently done.

I have commented about it above but summary is:

- change of agricultural sourcing to Latin America and APEC is more or less permanent in at least for the next couple of years,

- high tech supply chains are in the process of the permanent change, with small only-for-Americans partial supply chains and second one for the other 96% of global population. This second 96% of the world supply chains are dominated by East Asian manufacturing. All Chinese companies embargoed or not yet try to evade US market.

To put it bluntly, if Huawei restrictions are lifted some Chinese companies will source minor part of their components in 5-10 years. Huawei restrictions will never be lifted. So Chinese market WAS lost permanently.

Recently Chinese company producing metro wagons in USA was embargoed, on national security grounds, Chinese will install survailance, in metro wagons !!! to check who is going to Pentagon, by metro ! This was reasoning. Yes it seems insane, totally insane but Donald Trump signed this into law, today !

I would not buy even soybeans in US. My perfect reasoning says that they could be changed into ethanol in China. And this ethanol will move Chinese tanks, so US soybeans sales to China should be banned as strengthening Chinese Army.

 

[remake it + 288]

Contracts are equally as important for their omissions or in the case of this supposedly done deal what is not being said nor trumpeted while an impeachment was carried out so here's some balance from a smart commentator (will Day Trader be needed or is he still commatose).

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

15 minutes ago, remake it said:

Contracts are equally as important for their omissions or in the case of this supposedly done deal what is not being said nor trumpeted while an impeachment was carried out so here's some balance from a smart commentator (will Day Trader be needed or is he still commatose).

That's a good link to a South China Morning Post opinion piece written by Brian P. Klein.  I consider Klein to be a voice worth listening to, but I'll leave it to others to judge for themselves.  This particular quote below was disappointing to me, as I had seen the interview with Lighthizer and had the same feeling when he stated $380B worth or tariffs.:

"US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, in an attempt to quell growing criticism of the deal, gave an interview on CBS Face the Nation over the weekend and said that “US$380 billion worth of tariffs to defend, protect US technology” would remain.

 

He must have meant US$380 billion worth of goods instead, since there is nowhere near that amount being collected in tariffs."