Phase One trade deal, for China it is about technology

[Marcin2 + 725]

Additional purchases of 200 billion of US merchandice and services by China, amended the relations, but they are still tense.

We would see how the implementation would work, but still the most important problem that is still to be solved is in the area of technology conflict and IP protection.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Marcin2 + 725]

Chinese imports from US decreased by 20.9% in 2019 in comparison with previous year. One type of merchandice, imports increased, yes integrated circuits.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Marcin2 + 725]

It icould be the symptom of stockpiling before mutual tariffs become higher.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[0R0 + 6,251]

Note that all that inventory will be obsolete next year if not now, as the chip complement in modern 5G phones and network equipment is different from what has been used so far. Their production has only gone live last year and availability is still limited, first dibs to Apple and Samsung. 

The purpose of the US purchase commitments is to lock China into US supplied food and energy, thus making China dependent. Second is to pull them further into negative forex cash flow. As SAFE, the forex regulator is trying to get Chinese to repatriate export revenue and credit financing, which they are investing outside China, often leaving along with the capital they extracted from the country as exports. 

 

 

[Marcin2 + 725]

This is an interesting idea, but there are also other markets.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[remake it + 288]

29 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Trump attacks Chinese tech, Chinese ban all imports of food and energy possible, Trump looses re-election.

This links to US polling and Trump is presently in big trouble on most metrics so will need to rely on apathy to get elected rather than ability.

Monday, January 13

General Election: Trump vs. Warren	IBD/TIPP	Warren 46, Trump 47	Trump +1
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg	IBD/TIPP	Trump 46, Buttigieg 47	Buttigieg +1
General Election: Trump vs. Bloomberg	IBD/TIPP	Bloomberg 47, Trump 45	Bloomberg +2
President Trump Job Approval	IBD/TIPP	Approve 43, Disapprove 51	Disapprove +8
President Trump Job Approval	Quinnipiac	Approve 43, Disapprove 52	Disapprove +9
Direction of Country	Rasmussen Reports	Right Direction 40, Wrong Track 55	Wrong Track +15

 

Friday, January 10

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)	Poll	Results	Spread
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden	FOX News	Biden 46, Trump 41	Biden +5
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Sanders	FOX News	Sanders 46, Trump 42	Sanders +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Warren	FOX News	Trump 42, Warren 44	Warren +2
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Buttigieg	FOX News	Buttigieg 42, Trump 41	Buttigieg +1
Nevada: Trump vs. Biden	FOX News	Biden 47, Trump 39	Biden +8
Nevada: Trump vs. Sanders	FOX News	Sanders 46, Trump 41	Sanders +5
Nevada: Trump vs. Warren	FOX News	Trump 42, Warren 43	Warren +1
Nevada: Trump vs. Buttigieg	FOX News	Trump 40, Buttigieg 41	Buttigieg +1

Thursday, January 9

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort)	Poll	Results	Spread
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden	Detroit News/WDIV-TV	Biden 50, Trump 43	Biden +7
Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders	Detroit News/WDIV-TV	Sanders 49, Trump 45	Sanders +4
Michigan: Trump vs. Warren	Detroit News/WDIV-TV	Warren 46, Trump 44	Warren +2
Michigan: Trump vs. Buttigieg	Detroit News/WDIV-TV	Buttigieg 45, Trump 43	Buttigieg +2
Michigan: Trump vs. Bloomberg	Detroit News/WDIV-TV	Bloomberg 47, Trump 41	Bloomberg +6
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden	Mason-Dixon	Biden 44, Trump 51	Trump +7
Georgia: Trump vs. Sanders	Mason-Dixon	Trump 52, Sanders 42	Trump +10
Georgia: Trump vs. Warren	Mason-Dixon	Trump 54, Warren 40	Trump +14
Georgia: Trump vs. Buttigieg	Mason-Dixon	Trump 52, Buttigieg 43	Trump +9
President Trump Job Approval	Reuters/Ipsos	Approve 43, Disapprove 54	Disapprove +11
Direction of Country	Reuters/Ipsos	Right Direction 31, Wrong Track 59	Wrong Track +28

[Otis11 + 551]

21 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Additional purchases of 200 billion of US merchandice and services by China will allow to blunt the spire of US technology war.

How we can buy 200 billion of merchandice if you embargo purchases of so many products by Selected Chinese companies or Simply by China ?

Even if China buys additional 50 billion of products it really can source from US on market terms cause there is demand, and another 50 billion just to please Trump and US public, it still gets cheap. Assume China looses 25 billion on these additional 50 , half the price, it still means tech war has 2 billion per month cost, like nothing.

 

WE??? Marcin - Did you just admit to being from China?!?

[Papillon + 485]

Is that prohibited sir? 

[Otis11 + 551]

47 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Is that prohibited sir? 

No, just, unless I'm remembering wrong and confusing him with someone else - he's been very adamant that he's Polish and even more adamant that he's not from China despite his very pro-China comments. It's just noteworthy that he slipped up and showed his origin.

Also, noted that you didn't quote me nor tag me - hoping I didn't see this and respond so as to make me look bad?

Note - lest I get attacked by you for being racist like you attacked Jan - I make note of this not because anyone's opinions are less valid than another's, but because it helps me understand different political and cultural backgrounds people may have that allows them to see the same thing through a different viewpoint. (Unlike how you and a few other here categorically attack anyone who's American and belittle our views without actually addressing them. Which, frankly, I'm sick of. The fact I'm an American doesn't make my viewpoint or comment any less relevant or valid - nor does it lump me in with all the other Americans on this site or anywhere else. I often agree with other international commentators too, and I often disagree with my fellow American commentators.)

[Papillon + 485]

13 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Also, noted that you didn't quote me nor tag me - hoping I didn't see this and respond so as to make me look bad?

Sir with respect you are becoming a little paranoid.

13 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

The fact I'm an American doesn't make my viewpoint or comment any less relevant or valid - nor does it lump me in with all the other Americans on this site or anywhere else.

I haven't stated anything like this have I sir? Where is this coming from?

13 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Note - lest I get attacked by you for being racist like you attacked Jan

I apologise for attacking what I view as racism sir, it won't happen again. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Papillon

[Otis11 + 551]

12 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Sir with respect you are becoming a little paranoid.

I haven't stated anything like this have I sir? Where is this coming from?

I apologise for attacking what I view as racism sir, it won't happen again. 

My apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else, but have you not been the one going on about american exceptionalism and using that as a phrase to undermine other's arguments?

[Papillon + 485]

3 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

My apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else

No problem sir.

3 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

american exceptionalism and using that as a phrase to undermine other's arguments?

I may have mentioned the USA with regard to some things, but suggesting I undermine others' views, due to being American at all, is false sir. I will peruse some threads and try to see who you may be referring to.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Papillon

[Marcin2 + 725]

An interesting observation

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[Otis11 + 551]

Just now, Papillon said:

No problem sir.

I may have mentioned the USA with regard to some things but suggesting I undermine others' views due to being American at all is false sir. I will peruse some threads and see who you may be referring to.

Well, if not, again, my apologies - I may be mixing people up. (Or it may not have been how you intended it, but rather how I read it)

[Otis11 + 551]

1 minute ago, Marcin2 said:

I just cited how Chinese could speak about it with US. It is interesting that you perceive me as being pro Chinese and just not biased to any side. I think my observations are just observations with arguments to back them, and opinions about them.

It would be genuinely interesting for to know which part of my opinions, specifically you judge as biased. It is not sth to start heated conversation with you, I just Really could be biased proChina and not be conscious about it, biased opinions are often about lack of awareness about self-bias.

 

Yes, everyone (including me) has a bias. The best we can do is be aware of them and try to identify our own biases to keep them in check and remain logical.

And if you say so Marcin - I'll take you at your word, but I'm still suspicious. 🤣 (Pleas note the teasing tone)

I do have a perception that you're pro-China, but I don't have anything to immediately cite. I'll point it out next time I see it - if you'd like. (Again, we all have biases, simply being aware that others perceive you as having a bias may make you identify it. I, for one, know others here perceive me as having a very Conservative bias simply because of the topics being discussed, however in daily interactions, much fewer people perceive me that way)

[Marcin2 + 725]

If I could put my intentions and views in a few sentences it would be:

China is formidable opponent of US and EU and current world order

I acknowledge that current world order is not fair for developing countries, but I do not mind cause I am part of this order as from EU and NATO country.

I observe that this order is being actively and succesfully changed mainly by China

I observe that US has important economic political and societal problems of systemie nature.

US needs to sort them out and ally with EU to be counter weight to Chinese expansion.

[Bob D + 562]

6 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

 

I observe that US has important economic political and societal problems of systemie nature.

US needs to sort them out and ally with EU to be counter weight to Chinese expansion.

BIAS ALERT

Important economic and political problems??  By problems you mean "things you disagree with"?   

Do you observe China or EU political and societal problems??  Ever think the EU needs to sort out their 'problems' and ally with the US to counter weight Chinese expansion.

[Marcin2 + 725]

38 minutes ago, Bob D said:

BIAS ALERT

Important economic and political problems??  By problems you mean "things you disagree with"?   

Do you observe China or EU political and societal problems??  Ever think the EU needs to sort out their 'problems' and ally with the US to counter weight Chinese expansion.

I will explain, in 1,000 years of its history since 966 Poland has never been in such a beneficial situation both in economic and defense terms. 70 years without wars on our territory.

Fantastic economic conditions are ensured by EU membership and defence, safety conditions by being ally/vassal state of US ( not NATO, NATO without US is completely irrelevant).

And notice that both partners could give us, what they are currently providing, and NOT the other type.

EU would never be able to be defence partner, weak militaries of small Europeans countries, not in next 30 years.

US would never be economic partner in EU meaning because of distance.

We have bad geography between strongest European countries and No geographical barriers, tank can go all the way from Moscow to Calais on a nice, flat plain.

And only country that EXIST that can give some probability of protection is US.

Weak US would not be able to provide this type of protection.

So at the end of the day I REALLY do not care about problems of China unless they harm everyone like their CO2 emissions.

And I actually do not care about EU problems cause we can do with weak and divided EU and even without EU, much poorer but still can live decent life.

We cannot live without US, that simple that is why I care .

[remake it + 288]

20 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

So at the end of the day I REALLY do not care about problems of China unless they harm everyone like their CO2 emissions.

Polish people emit more CO2 per capita than the Chinese and your beloved USA is responsible for the majority of the planet's cumulative additional CO2 since the industrial revolution although you would not show any bias here would you?

[Marcin2 + 725]

On 1/15/2020 at 9:21 PM, remake it said:

Polish people emit more CO2 per capita than the Chinese and your beloved USA is responsible for the majority of the planet's cumulative additional CO2 since the industrial revolution although you would not show any bias here would you?

You are right US 15 Poland 8 China 6.7.

China cannot change its coal reliance cause there is not enough hydrocarbons on these planet for China. And nuclear needs still 20 years to be scaled up.

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Otis11 + 551]

46 minutes ago, remake it said:

Polish people emit more CO2 per capita than the Chinese and your beloved USA is responsible for the majority of the planet's cumulative additional CO2 since the industrial revolution although you would not show any bias here would you?

Might be interesting: https://www.populationpyramid.net/carbon-emissions/china+russian-federation+united-states-of-america+europe/

 

Per person, China is now on par with Europe (and this is with a lot of people still living in energy poverty in China)

Data only goes through 2015 on this chart (but couldn't find a better one). Unless there's been a drastic change in the curve, though, I'd expect China to pass the US in total CO2 emissions within 2.5-3 years of the end of this chart... which was end of 2018. Shockingly, I can't find anyone who has published data past 2017. Even Wikipedia ends at 2017. Could it be that they don't want to show this?

[remake it + 288]

23 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

US is not beloved, it is just the only solution, this is fact, not opinion.

A fact would need to be true so you cannot therefore exhibit a bias against China which seems to be a far less interventionist nation than the USA and also does not have the woeful recent record of the USA in terms of armed conflicts of its own instigation.

[remake it + 288]

17 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Data only goes through 2015 on this chart (but couldn't find a better one). Unless there's been a drastic change in the curve, though, I'd expect China to pass the US in total CO2 emissions within 2.5-3 years of the end of this chart... which was end of 2018.

This might change your mind and in any case China is not yet a mature industrialized nation so it is no different to those many other nations aspiring to bring all its citizens into the first world.

Edited January 15, 2020 by remake it
added the link

[Bob D + 562]

Greta will eventually turn her evil stare at China as the trends will continue.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Bob D
Removed Bias!

[Otis11 + 551]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

A fact would need to be true so you cannot therefore exhibit a bias against China which seems to be a far less interventionist nation than the USA and also does not have the woeful recent record of the USA in terms of armed conflicts of its own instigation.

China not interventionist? Have you looked at what China is doing in Korea? Taiwan? SE Asia? Africa? Really, anywhere they have the BRI (which they use to essentially force nations into economic servitude).

Ok, just double checking.

2 hours ago, remake it said:

This might change your mind and in any case China is not yet a mature industrialized nation so it is no different to those many other nations aspiring to bring all its citizens into the first world.

So China is essentially equal to Poland on Per-Capita. China has a huge portion of people who are still in energy poverty. Combining these facts - someone in China who has modern energy is more poluting that a comparable person in Poland.

Also, you're looking at Per-Capita, My post was on total cumulative emissions. I've never claimed the US was low on per capita. We're at 1.8X Poland and decreasing. Once China gets everyone in China to modern standards, they'll be higher than Poland and likely around where the US is (not because they use much energy per person, but because China's carbon emissions per unit energy is so high).

So no, you didn't present any contradiction to anything I said. What was I supposed to change my mind about?

China, to date, likely has more cumulative emissions that the US (likely passed in 2018, but no one will show this data)
The US has more emissions per capita because we use more energy per person
China has more emissions per unit energy produced
As China uses more units of energy per capita, they are currently on track to pass the US in emissions per capita (though, this may very well change if they clean their grid - just looking at trends)

Please note - none of this is Anti-China, it's just the facts and trends.