And that is the perpetual problem of American culture, that stock market price levels are used as yardstick for prosperity and wellbeing and happiness of a society. Have you checked lately who benefits from capital investments? Yes, the top 1% in America. Have you checked where America stands in regards to literacy rates? Math scores of students and for that matter any aptitude test of your choosing? General health care coverage of the middle class and cost associated with that? Life expectancies? Social cohesion amd peace among its citizens? Violence? In almost all those metrics America scores close to the bottom among industrialized nations and one might argue even below China re most above mentioned metrics. Yet clowns like you can't find anything better to do than comparing index levels and you extrapolate all sorts of retarded conclusions from where your damn CSI or SPX stands. Some things in America are just so unspeakably retarded that one can only scratch his head, smirk in a bewildered way, and let the dummies believe what they want to believe in. It's called lemmings. And lemmings should just be left to their own devices.
China-US: Who has performed better
- Thread starter Jere Jaja
- Start date
I would question making that assertion based on that data as well. Take a look at China's GDP growth numbers over the past 10 years. Great recession excepted, it's clear that the GDP growth rate is on a long-term secular decline, as one would expect with a maturing emerging economy. There is no big drop due to tariffs as you would expect if they were having a significant impact on their economy, just a continuation of what has been going on for years. In fact if you're going to credit anyone with damaging China it would have to be Bush who did it with the great recession!
I'm not saying that tariffs aren't damaging China's economy, or the U.S.'s There are lots of things both countries can do (like massive tax cuts and resultant ballooning deficits in the U.S. for example) that can provide short-term mitigation to the tariff impacts, although generally with long-term costs to the economy. I'm saying that the headline data cited doesn't support the conclusions cited at all.
it isnt about the cost of the Tarrifs.it is about the complete shift of the global supply chain that china was including us but now they are finding new emerging routes and obscure suppliers who are very happy and want to do business. this tariff damage will end up busting the usa in the long run as china grows even more powerful
perfect truth
You are getting cause and effect messed up here. The trade wars were not a positive catalyst on your economy. Your economy was moving into a later cycle of the recovery on the back of huge stimulus, then got an additional short term pump from Trump cutting corporate taxes. The trade wars are a drag on all of that momentum that will only get worse not better if allowed to continue. I don't follow US GDP forecasts closely but I have seen figures around 1.6% just around the corner. Negative trade actions take time to impact fully.
You're correct. I didn't mean to imply that the trade war strengthened our economy. I'm sure it's blunted our growth to some extent. What I meant was that our economy strengthened last year in spite of the trade war. That makes me believe that we're weathering the storm more efficiently than China.
Don't conflate US stock market volatility with a unilateral opinion that China is winning.
China has PLENTY of major problems. The EU filed a huge Intellectual Property Case against them in 2018 with the WTO. The US Treasury has filed a currency manipulation case against them with the IMF.
It is an essential truth that if you run a $600 B annual trade surplus with one nation - at the end of it all there can be only one winner and it isn't the nation with the surplus. Things seem crazy in the US stock market at the moment but there is no doubt that the Chinese manufacturers aren't pleased either. My guess is that US farmers and Chinese manufacturers privately are both quite anxious.
It is a known fact that the US government is privately steering US Companies to alternative low labor cost manufacturing outside of China. Silicon Valley has stopped taking Chinese Venture Capital 'cold turkey' - WSJ has had several excellent pieces about it. Vietnam, Mexico, India, Korea, and Indonesia are quite aggressively undermining Chinese reliability with their Western export customers. Google "Vietnam GDP Manufacturing". The Vietnamese government has very coyly opened up a special government office in 2018 to oversee foreign intellectual and property rights.
And strong civil unrest in Hong Kong is setting up Beijing for a confrontation that could conceivably lead to Tienanmen Part Deux which would destroy China's economy and shred their international standing. I'm not saying that it's probable, but it is a very tenuous situation. The fact that the Chinese Communist Party released a statement yesterday that their "patience was reaching a limit" was heavy and militaristic. It only inflamed the Hong Kong citizens and reinforced their beliefs about the CCP.
Last edited:
Donald Trump sets a toothless dog loose on China
FT article
"Making the designation now is logically incomprehensible, has no or negative practical value and merely serves to underline the US’s inability to force China to do what it wants. Apart from that, it’s a great idea."
"there are no practical consequences except having the US start negotiations either bilaterally or at the IMF. Such talks in themselves will achieve nothing. The fund’s regular assessment of member countries’ external positions uses an eclectic mix of approaches with wide confidence intervals, making them hard to weaponise for use in currency wars."
"
You could call that cowardice on the IMF’s part, or you could call it intellectual honesty. Unlike calculations for, say, antidumping, there is nothing close to an accepted single methodology for exchange rate misalignment. But there it is. International law to constrain deliberate exchange rate misalignment is weak, and the US designating a country a currency manipulator involves setting an almost entirely toothless dog on it. Making the designation during the years of heavy Chinese renminbi intervention would have been intellectually defensible, if practically meaningless. Now it is both incoherent and impotent — indeed, counterproductive. The Treasury’s stated reason for the designation on Monday was implicitly that China ought to have been intervening more rather than less. In other words, “manipulation” now simply means failing to keep the exchange rate at a level the US Treasury secretary of the day deems appropriate."
"
Even so, if the US genuinely wants a stable renminbi it has got itself into a ludicrous position. The more it threatens trade conflict through actions like this, the more downward pressure there is likely to be on the renminbi, as the currency naturally moves to offset Chinese exporters’ loss of competitiveness from tariffs. Beijing actually has little desire to let the currency slide rapidly. But the cost of holding up a falling currency becomes higher the more the US is in effect talking it down — both in financial terms from the expense of intervention and political terms from the damage of being seen to do the US’s bidding. It never made much practical sense to call China a currency manipulator. In current circumstances it makes none at all. The only conceivable reason could be that Donald Trump wants more political cover for imposing more tariffs. This move is dumb, disingenuous or both."
In my opinion, It is manipulation to keep the currency at an artificial level. Let it float freely baby. I thought crony capitalists here always wanted free floating currencies.
FT article
"Making the designation now is logically incomprehensible, has no or negative practical value and merely serves to underline the US’s inability to force China to do what it wants. Apart from that, it’s a great idea."
"there are no practical consequences except having the US start negotiations either bilaterally or at the IMF. Such talks in themselves will achieve nothing. The fund’s regular assessment of member countries’ external positions uses an eclectic mix of approaches with wide confidence intervals, making them hard to weaponise for use in currency wars."
"
You could call that cowardice on the IMF’s part, or you could call it intellectual honesty. Unlike calculations for, say, antidumping, there is nothing close to an accepted single methodology for exchange rate misalignment. But there it is. International law to constrain deliberate exchange rate misalignment is weak, and the US designating a country a currency manipulator involves setting an almost entirely toothless dog on it. Making the designation during the years of heavy Chinese renminbi intervention would have been intellectually defensible, if practically meaningless. Now it is both incoherent and impotent — indeed, counterproductive. The Treasury’s stated reason for the designation on Monday was implicitly that China ought to have been intervening more rather than less. In other words, “manipulation” now simply means failing to keep the exchange rate at a level the US Treasury secretary of the day deems appropriate."
"
Even so, if the US genuinely wants a stable renminbi it has got itself into a ludicrous position. The more it threatens trade conflict through actions like this, the more downward pressure there is likely to be on the renminbi, as the currency naturally moves to offset Chinese exporters’ loss of competitiveness from tariffs. Beijing actually has little desire to let the currency slide rapidly. But the cost of holding up a falling currency becomes higher the more the US is in effect talking it down — both in financial terms from the expense of intervention and political terms from the damage of being seen to do the US’s bidding. It never made much practical sense to call China a currency manipulator. In current circumstances it makes none at all. The only conceivable reason could be that Donald Trump wants more political cover for imposing more tariffs. This move is dumb, disingenuous or both."
In my opinion, It is manipulation to keep the currency at an artificial level. Let it float freely baby. I thought crony capitalists here always wanted free floating currencies.