LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports that comments from Obama administration officials describe an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the USA over the last two years. David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy program at George Washington University, says the administration had hoped to work with China on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and a new global economic order. China, he says, has failed to step up and play that role. He describes the Chinese as responding as an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested truculent, hyper-nationalist, and powerful country. Jeffrey Baker, a key China policy adviser in the White House, says China's responses reflected a sense in Beijing that China was a rising power and the USA a declining power, especially after the strong rebound of the Chinese economy after the 2008 crisis. The administration is determined to counteract that impression. Other factors complicate things. China is facing a transition to a new leadership in the next year. There are differences within the Chinese Communist party leadership ranks about the direction China should take. Trade and currency issues have come to the point where American public opinion is shifting greatly, with educated professionals changing their views on trade and currency matters. See the recent WSJ/NBC September 2010 poll on world trade, reported by Murray and Belkin in WSJ, Oct 2, 2010. The Obama administration cannot ignore the deep concerns of the American people on these issues. The House overwhelmingly voted in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if the Chinese currency, the renminbi, is not allowed to appreciate significantly enough (experts estimate that it is overvalued by 20%). It is not clear whether the Administration's rhetoric on this issue is to assuage public opinion in a business as usual manner, or expected to achieve substantative results to rebalance world trade. The G-20 summit in S. Korea leaves this change for well into the future- China with current account surplus of 5.8% of GDP in 2009 is expected to lower this to 4% by 2015. With the high jobless rate in the US and the large and rising current account deficit, the United States may have reached a juncture where this cannot be put off well into the future years. Other issues, the different foreign policy objectives, and differing perceptions of China and the US of each other, the relationship with US allies in the region, may create additional tensions. These tensions may be navigated by governments of both countries, but the shift in American public opinion on trade, currency and jobs issues will require tangible and real change. As trade tensions will only increase in the next two years with the lack of fiscal stimulus on the jobs front, and no significant change in jobs expected from the Fed's purchase af additional Treasury debt, and a sense that the mutual benefit in the trade relationship with China has been lost to America's serious detriment. China's position may be perceived as stronger than it really is from the faster rebound from the 2008 crisis, and may in reality not be as Jeffrey Baker sees it. As David Barboza has reported in the New York Times, and experts have pointed out, the huge amount of lending encouraged by the government has accentuated weaknesses in the Chinese economy. A significant amount has gone into real estate speculation and will only increase the bad loans on the books of China's banks. This happens at the very time that growth is expected to slow down and make it harder to absorb the bad loans, as was done in the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. tariffs on a long list of 1300 products includes products such as industrial robots that China sees as a potential area of future growth and technological advantage. In this way the Trump administration tariff is shaping up to be part of a longer term U.S. plan to meet the challenge from Chinese competition in key advanced technology products. These are products China explicitly targeted in its "Made in China 2025" plan. The list compiled by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the former Trade negotiator under the Reagan Administration, targets products such as electric car batteries. China supports its own electric car battery makers by blocking U.S. suppliers from its domestic markets. The new tariffs would do the same for China in the U.S. market. In industrial robots China has 87,000 in 2016, and plans to meet a shortage of labor in its manufacturing plants by using better and more efficient robots. Aircraft and airplane parts are also targets as China has plans to expand its aerospace industry. The list also includes 200 machines, with machinery exports from China making up a significant part of exports to the U.S. So comprehensive is this list of 1100 products that it includes ships, trains, any product in which China's subsidies for its industries, its industrial policies make it easier for it to gain dominance in a product category as has happened in solar panels. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Karishma Vaswani of the BBC points out that the Trump administration tariffs and the response from China with tariffs of its own, are not the beginning of a trade war but negotiating tactics of both sides. Behind the scenes and behind the declarations and position statements both sides are talking to each other and considering the options open to each. The U.S. position is that China has emerged with a bigger share of the global economy by dumping products, subsidizing its industries from solar panels to high tech ventures, and stealing American technology by forcing U.S. firms into joint ventures that increase pass through of advanced technology. U.S. firms seeking access to the Chinese market or using China as a manufacturing base such as Boeing, Apple, GE and other high tech companies are in ventures or manufacturing arrangements where China has access to advanced American technology. Nathaniel Taplin in his article in the WSJ also sees this as a negotiating position set out in the U.S. for talks with China. Taplin says the U.S. is in a stronger position in this negotiation because of the huge surplus of about $300 billion that China now has with the U.S., and which is increasing in 2018 with the strength of the dollar. The Trump administration is looking to correct the trade imbalance in the future by focussing on China's access to advanced U.S. technologies in the next phase of competition between the U.S., Europe and China. This limited objective is more likely to lead to concessions by China Taplin argues, because of two reasons. China needs the dynamism of U.S. firms and technology advances because these firms and Chinese firms that are getting foreign investment are the most productive part of the Chinese economy with jobs generated, rate of return about twice that of inefficient state run firms. China also needs access to advanced U.S. and European technologies even in a limited form as it pursues further modernization.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Economist article looks at India-China relations and the Wuhan Summit between prime minister Modi and president Xi Jinping. It sees India's reluctance to follow a containment strategy in an historical light from the period in which India followed a non-alignment policy in the early post independence period under prime minister Nehru. During the period of the Eisenhower administration with Secretary of State John Foster Dulles India adhered to a strict nonalignment policy avoiding choosing sides in the Cold War. As a result U.S. policy tilted towards Pakistan during the Eisenhower administration. A balance was restored under president Kennedy, with Adlai Stevenson a close friend of India.  The short Sino-Indian war of 1962 led to a situation in which the U.S. backed India and improvement of relations. A semblance of non-alignment in foreign relations continued under Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi. By 1990 with the opening of the Indian economy to foreign investment, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the integration of China into the global economy, a new period of good bilateral relations with the U.S. and Europe was maintained. In 2017 the potential for a conflict in Doklam, Bhutan revived fears from 1962 in India. In 2018 After the U.S. administration of Donald Trump and Trade Representative Lighthizer imposed trade tariffs on China and restrictions on export of advanced technologies China pursued a policy of conciliatory relations with India. China's relations also improved with Japan and South Korea as the U.S. policy was unanticipated and seen as a significant change that would seriously affect China's economy. India's response was to pursue a policy of good relations with China and the U.S., even as the economies of the U.S. and India were drawn closer in India's pursuit of modernization.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US sends aircraft carrier group of the US 7th fleet with the aircraft carrier USS Reagan and destroyers on a freedom of navigation mission through the South China Sea. What is a freedom of navigation mission and what is the US goal? "Our presence in the Pacific is to demonstrate our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific," says commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, Captain Fred Goldhammer. Seen on a map the Paracel Islands are far from China's coast. They lie on the waters further south in the South China Sea closer to the coast of Vietnam and between Vietnam and the Philippines. Till 1974 the Paracel Islands were part of Vietnam. In that year China took control of these islands after a war with Vietnam. The name Paracel is of Portuguese origin on maps in the 16th century. There are 130 islands or reefs with total area of about 3 square miles spread out over about 6000 square miles of ocean in the middle of the South China Sea near the coast of Vietnam. The French had  weather station there in 1932. After independence South Vietnam controlled the islands. In 1974 the islands were taken over by China from Vietnam. The result is that by taking over the islands China put itself in the position it is in Tibet. In Tibet it has put itself right across the Himalayas in a position that interferes with security on the border with India in the Himalayas that for centuries almost going back to Buddhist times 2500 years ago had very little and most of the time no Chinese presence. The passes in the Tibetan region are at heights over 15,000 feet that were mostly inaccessible except by yaks and other animals for transport for most of the 2500 year period. This is true also of the Paracel and other islands in the South China Sea as they are right in the middle of the seas of open navigation used by traders before the coming of the Europeans and for ocean going trade since 1500. Britain and the US have enjoyed free and open navigation in these oceans which connect past the Philippines into the Pacific to the Japanese islands and on to Hawaii and the US Pacific coast. What the US and European allies are saying is that the free and open navigation of the seas has always been the case for the last thousand years in the Pacific. The taking of the islands in 1974 by China from Vietnam now put it up against the US and European allies, and their Asian allies, as it interferes with navigation in the open seas essential for trade and travel between Asia and the Pacific. This is how the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the taking over of the Paracel Islands have put China into the position of interfering in the normally open and free areas in the Himalayas and the Pacific. This is where the Quad group shares a common interest in preserving what always existed in history-  a free and open Pacific and a free and open Himalayas. It brings together the US, Japan, India and Australia which stretch all the way from the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean uninterrupted all the way through Indonesia to Australia and Japan and the US. From the Mediterranean through Egypt into the Indian Ocean all the way to the Pacific and the US keeping free and open seas for trade and navigation. Or across the Cape of Good Hope into the Indian Ocean and the Pacific to the US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Under an obscure rule called "deminimis" any packages less than $800 coming from China or other Asian countries are not counted in official trade statistics, This could easily understate imports from China by about $50 billion as 800 million such packages enter the US annually mostly from China. When this and other corrections are made and with the surge in imports during the pandemic the US trade deficit may not bave budged much even after Mr. Trump made this Priority No.1, says this report in the WSJ. At stake are manufacturing jobs in America, factories and workplaces all across America that made it what it was and whose fracturing has led to the fracturing of America.

LyrArc Article Gist
Researchers David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, and David Dorn of the Center for Monetary and Fiscal Studies in Madrid, in independent research, studied the impact of trade on 722 clusters of interrelated counties in the U.S. They focussed on the surge in Chinese imports and found a pattern. Counties with higher exposure to Chinese import growth showed higher unemployment and higher expenditures by the government for unemployment benefits, food stamps and disability benefits. Their calculations show the increased government payments amount to one to two thirds of the gains from trade with China. This does not include the losses suffered by people losing jobs who deplete savings as they look for new jobs. Hanson studied the effects of trade and Chinese imports in the 1990's and found the effects were relatively small. This time the effects are large and show counties that lacked local investments in industrial machinery and technologies in which China was still playing catchup such as Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois, and Boeing in Everett, Washington, were most susceptible to higher jobless rates and in need of government support payments. Autor and Hanson found that from 2000-2007, communities in the 75th percentile- ones with greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities- saw a manufacturing jobless rate of about one-third more than communities in the 25th percentile. The government payments mean higher taxes or larger deficits are needed to support these communities, and long periods of unemployment reduce the incentive to work. Michael Spence, a Nobel prize winning economist from New York University, says the world has never seen such a rapid pace of growth as China experienced between 2000-2011, with rates approaching 12% in some years, making past experience and prevailing theories on trade an insufficient guide to what is happening....

LyrArc Article Gist
The US Federal Reserve Report on Economic Wellbeing of US Households 2024-May 2025 gives some insights into the well being of American households. It shows food insufficiency households the same in 2023-2025 at 7%. The situation for cost of living remains a concern in 2024 as well as 2025. Retirement savings have improved for many middle class Americans, as confirmed by reports from Fidelity and Vanguard. The people earning less than 25,000 are 19% and about the same in 2024 under Biden as under DJT in 2025. 39% make $100,000 or more and 26% make $50,000 -$100,000. Combining the 19% making less than $25,000 and the 16% making between $25,000 and $50,000 shows about one third of the population under $50,000 living paycheck to paycheck. It would appear that $2000 DJT rebate putting $160 billion out of $550 billion of tariff revenues for 2025-2026  in the hands of 79 million households that make less than $100,000 would go a long way to keep the situation stable with optimism and hope arising from the restructuring of world trade that would bring trillions of dollars of investment into the US from Europe and Asia. A this investment plus domestic investment should bring back jobs and higher incomes to US manufacturing in small towns across America. The rest of $550 billion tariff revenue of $390 billion would go to reducing the deficit which would improve prospects for the economy in 2027 and produce a more resilient economy in 2027-2028. As shown on this page the popular Democratic Governor of Michigan in her op-ed in Washington Post supports strategic tariffs, and supports using the revenue for a check to American workers of $2000 per worker or per worker household and offers to work with the opposite party to get a WIN-WIN for the American People.  In the whole process of trade tariffs it must be remembered when seeing the inconsistent cases of tariff use by this Republican administration that these were special reason situations not aberrations or whimsical. First, it should be borne in mind that behind the appearance of DJT making tariff decisions is a carefully thought out process that took ten years to form under Reagan era Trade Representative Lighthizer who negotiated with Japan, and his deputy Jamieson for 2016-2024, and the economic and capital markets experience of Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary. The two cases of inconsistent application of tariffs relate to the 50% tariff on India and the reduction of tariffs on China agreement on rare earths, and the imposition of a large tarif on Japan and the EU. In the first instance with India it was intended to give Ukraine breathing room from Russian attacks as Germany steps up its military preparedness and assistance to Ukraine. With both countries it was about saving face important in Asian or any societies and it has achieved it's purpose. Reports show both Indian and Chinese refiners have quietly cut purchases of oil from Russia leading to Russian oil selling at about $20 discount to Brent crude oil. In the case of Japan the quick action to raise tariffs was intended not to get into long drawn negotiations and show serious intent- Japan is known for dragging out negotiations for years if not decades. The same is true for the European Union. With the Swiss it was about a certain disrespect of the US coming from attitudes that Swiss products were somehow superior. Not just in the long run, in 2026-2028 history will show that the effort done right - and it takes effort to get this right- to restructure world trade so that other nations are not siphoning off the benefits and leaving the US to lose its manufacturing and factories is the right one. And taken with courage and sincere desire to create a fair distribution of the benefits of world trade for too long distorted by egregious practices of competitors. It has nothing to do with 2 senators from the 1930's who were from places like the Mountain West in the US, having no concept of world trade, Smoot and Hawley, who under a irresponsible president Hoover got everything wrong. This is a carefully set out plan to evenly balance the benefits of world trade to all nations.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ interview with Narendra Modi before he meets Joe Biden at the White House. This interview talks about India seeking larger role in world affairs, about Indian democracy. Seen from inside India the perspective is different. India is at the same stage where China was in 1990-2000 with the rising aspirations of a billion people, Japan in the Meiji period in 1900. It is all about jobs, investment, technologies and manufacturing on a scale that surpasses China in that period with newer technologies to meet the rising aspirations of 1.4 billion people. China's trade with the US was three times higher than the Indian trade with the US in 2022, India desperately wants to catch up and fast. The Danish ambassador to India was asked what he saw in India today and he said it was the rising confidence of people that struck him most. The digitalization that has changed the way government benefits are provided to 1.4 billion people and opened bank accounts for all, provided delivery of services to all parts of the population. The infrastructure that is being built at breakneck pace, and new colleges and universities expanding access to quality education, healthcare.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Navarro points out the problem with textbook economics and concepts such as comparitive advantage. Many economists from elite universities ignored for a long time the distortions in world trade arising from state subsidies as they used textbook economics without looking at what was happening in practice. Even as the U.S. runs a trade deficit of $ 1 billion a day with China such text book economists ignored for too long the advantages of state directed industries and state directed investments in creating distortions in trade patterns, and not creating a level playing field for the U.S. Here Peter Navarro desceibes what he calls afaux comparitive advantage built on high nontariff and other barriers. Auto tariffs of China are 10 times that of the U.S. Other barriers are intrusive licensing requirements and foreign ownership restrictions. With subsidized land and capital, export subsidies, and tax preferences, unfair trade advantages can be gaine d in many industries leaving the U.S. in a disadvantaged position. Mr. Navarro is assistant to the U.S. president on trade and manufacturing policy, and director of the White House National Trade Council. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reagan words taken out of historical context by Ontario ad- Lighthizer as Reagan's USTR negotiating with Japan experienced Japan's efforts to unfairly capture world markets. It was only after years of negotiation that Lighthizer was able to get Japan to play by fair rules of world trade. In 2025 Jamieson as US Trade Representative for the US is Lighthizer's deputy in prior negotiations with Asian trade partners who have unfairly gamed the system to their advantage. Canada, Mexico and China are misrepresenting the facts to show they play by the rules when they clearly and blatantly flout world fair trading practices that lead to losses for American workers. The reality is that the Smoot Hawley tariffs by the senators of states that were not industrial states in the US inthe 1930's were adopted by the reckless atitude of Herbert Hoover as president and by senators who had no grasp of world trade. Senator Harry Truman from Missouri as president made correcting these mistakes a top priority in the late 1940's. Today's abuse of the system by Asian countries and Canada, Mexico have nothing to do with the tariffs of the 1930's- America wants all nations to play by the rules which over time will create a stronger world trading system. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What were the stories in the Economist magazine that were the most read stories of 2019? Not on president Trump. On Malaysia, China under Jinping, and exodus from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The most read article was on the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. The mismanagement of the economy particularly extravagant state spending on the Olympics and soccer stadiums for the World Cup at the expense of basic sanitation services, bus and transport services, health services, led to the result of a majority of Brazilians rejecting the Workers Party and its leader former president Lula. Unfortunately most of the media including the Economist did not draw attention to this gap. During a period in which income from mining with export of iron ore, and soyabeans to China, enabled Brazil to live beyond its means, there was no effort to draw attention to glaring gaps in development of public services such as sanitation, bus services and transport, lack of building infrastructure other than to support mining. Glaring gaps in education and health services made the situation worse. The second most read piece in the Economist  was on March 10th- Malaysia's PM is about to steal an election. Here the Economist magazine joined the Wall Street Journal which originally broke the story on the 1MDB fund and irregularities in Malaysia where a development fund was misused by the government. Najib actually lost that election and the WSJ covered the story of the developments that followed in which Malaysia's new governemnt led by a returning former prime minister in his nineties Mahathir Mohammed, ousted his own protege Mr. Najib.  The third most read piece in the Economist magazine was - How the West got China Wrong.  Unfortunately the Economist magazine and most of the media covered China in the two decade long boom years without covering the other emerging story as well in which Mr. Lighthizer (now president Trump's top trade adviser) and others questioned the huge unsustainable trade surpluses in U.S. trade with China. With the economy facing huge downside risks and rising trade tensions with the U.S. Chinese president Jinping's move to remove the limit on terms in office in the Constitution was considered a shift from the notion that China was likely to turn into a democracy. Mr. Jinping had already completed his first term in office and the anti-corruption campaign, managing the economic boom for a soft landing, was carried out with the central leadership of the party, after the destabilization evident in the early part of Xi Jinping's first term. Much of China's path was predictable and rational behaviour in its national interest, what was not clearly defined or defended was the way the U.S. could sustain the trade deficits that had reached a billion dollars a day. Leading to Mr. Trump seizing on this as an election issue to form a bloc of voters separate from the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The fifth most read piece was on Oct 11, 2018- the next recession. It pointed out that with low interest rates central banks in the U.S. and Europe and America could not cope effectively with a recession. The sixth most read piece was on June 29, 2018- Bullshit jobs and the yoke of managerial feudalism. It cited Prof. David Graeber of the London School of Economics, who wrote a short essay that went viral on the prevalence of work that had no social or economic reason to exist, work he called "bullshit jobs". Graeber said people want to feel they are transforming the world around them in a way that is leading to a positive difference. No. 7, 8, 9, were on Bitcoin, Netflix and programming language Python. No. 10 most read was on Aug. 30, 2018- Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley. It showed that in 2017 more people left the county of San Francisco than entered. The main reason the cost of living was burdensome and out of control. As Amazon shifts attention to India and Brazil, and Apple pulls back from India, social media companies coming under fire for disinformation, this period of Tech is making way for a shift in a new direction. A direction that focuses on people's lives, wages, spending on much needed infrastructure and services. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Real tariffs are less than 12% of imports much lower than expected because of exemptions and tariffs announced and later dropped, CEO's have said that the impact of tariffs is much less than expected, and some say the worst is behind us. The administration of DJT and Treasury Secretary Bessent has shown much more flexibility and responded to the stock market declines in its tariffs posture. Bessent says the purpose of tariffs was not the revenues itself but getting other nations to play by the rules for fair play in world trade, rather than try to take the largest share of trade for their nations in the case of China, EU, Canada, Mexico and Japan which have all profited from unfair trade practices. The perception of tariffs is now changed.

LyrArc Article Gist
Chinese president Xi Jinping is learning from the country's Covid experience in the way Biden and Democrats learned from their initial push for tighter restrictions in 2020-2021. Most covid restrictions, quarantines, testing is being lifted in China and efforts are being made to stabilize the economy hurt by frequent lockdowns, and a new path is being taken that responds to the Covid lockdown fatigue of the people.  This will lower Chinese growth below the central bank forecast of 3.3% for 2023, yet it also offers a learning curve for the Chinese leadership and new government that was put in place after the CCP party congress in 2022. This may be experimental in the short run but offer benefits for China and the world in the long term. For the first time it means China's trade tensions with the US are turning the corner in a way no number of tariffs and rhetoric could do between the two countries. The evidence- China's exports to the US have declined by 25% already in the last few months. Exports to the EU have declined as well by 11%. China's trade surplus in November 2022 showed a drop to $70 billion from $85 billion in October. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's current account surplus has declined to 2.8% of GDP for 2011 from about 10% in 2007, and will be around 2.3% of GDP in 2012, according to IMF estimates. The U.S. current account deficit is down to 3.1% of GDP from 5.1%. By controlling the exchange rate China was able to keep the competitiveness of its exports, resulting in a five fold increase in exports from 2000 to 2010, according to the IMF. The decline could be temporary say experts, as the the recession in Europe and the U.S. resulted in slowing exports, with its infrastructure buildup sucking in imports of machinery and other goods from the western countries at an accelerated pace with its 2009 stimulus measures. Another reason is that in the last decade China has developed its own high tech and other companies which will now increase exports. IMF forecasts show a pickup in China's trade surplus to 4.25% by 2017. This could be lower if the renminbi is allowed to appreciate. Estimates of appreciation of the renminbi are 8 percent in nominal terms since June 2010 against the dollar. Including inflation, which is higher in China, the renminbi has appreciated by 13% since June 2010. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This month president Biden signed into law 100% tariff on China made EV's and 50% tariff on solar panels. The Guardian describes the hollowing out of factory towns in England such as Sheffield and the same in the US and Europe, which was a disaster for these communities dependent on manufacturing. There is now a sense that heavily subsidized products made in Asia should not be allowed to deindustrialize the US and take jobs away from these communities across the US. Trade has to be fair before it can be called free trade. Wars in Asia,  trade that ripped up American manufacturing, monopolies and burdensome pricing of pharmaceuticals and healthcare, lack of investment in infrastructure and public services, shows the deeply flawed policy pursued by presidents from Reagan and Bush to Clinton and Obama that have reduced the standard of living of the American worker and the American people.

LyrArc Article Gist
Does a 10% reduction in tariffs on China with the October 30 2025 agreement- made in Busan South Korea at APEC meetings- make a difference for companies relocating from China? It only does for smaller companies who are stuck with Chinese sources. Larger American companies prefer to diversify their supply chain and continue to relocate part of their factories to Vietnam, India and other countries knowing that the tariffs game will end up with allies EU, Japan and India in the 10-15% tariff range as a concession to US for putting up with trade disadvantages and job losses 2000-2025. China's will still be at 47% in comparison and the fentanyl issue causing serious questions to be asked by the American people which have not been grasped in China or even in the US by companies and politicians.   Does it affect the urgency and general shift out of China? The fentanyl issue is unlikely to change and it is likely to do lasting damage to China's credibility to a degree that it not clearly understood in China, and even not fully grasped even in the US today because of the sheer size of the number dead- more young Americans dead from fentanyl than in the Korean, Vietnam and First World Wars combined. Other issues are technology that has been transferred without a proper assessment of the importance to national security, the need to shift the manufacturing base back home that US industries have inadvertently and carelessly shifted to China in the disastrous Bush and Obama years 2000-2016, and for the jobs, the wages, and cost of living concerns when supply chains are outside one's control. This article asks the question about tariffs on India and Brazil as being contradictory and showing a lack of consistency in tariffs. India is compared to China with India facing a 50% tariff because of Russian oil purchases, and Brazil a 100% tariff related to treatment of former president Bolsonaro even though US has a trade surplus with Brazil. One expects that at some point India and the US will come to an agreement that lowers the tariffs in a way that was done with the European Union to bring it closer to 10%. China's tariff to be sure is still around 47% dropping from 57% a concession for rare earths and for the upcoming elections and economic concerns not because of policy intent which has not changed on  strong action for fentanyl which is also part of the Appeal to the People in the DJT base.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
There may be psychological hurdles in China's growth with the effects on mental health from lockdowns in major cities, the revolt in the property sector with home buyers losing confidence in developers, the loss of confidence of foreign investors from US and EU. The dependence on the property sector to carry so large a burden of growth for the last 2 decades in China may now look like an error. The dependence on foreign investment may also be an error as the loss of confidence could mean some withdrawal and a lack of sustained investment.  It could even be said that restraints on both sectors property and foreign investors could have created alternative paths to growth, and reduced the shift of factories from the US and Europe to China that have now caused trade friction and and a reverse shift of investment back to home countries of US and EU. Trade friction has it appears backfired in a way that extends to the overall relationship which could have been prevented by preventing the hyper growth that happened. Greg Ip of the WSJ has argued that compared to Japan's growth in the sixties and seventies from a country of 100 million the hyper growth for a country of 1 billion for 2 decades created a massive impact on communities in US and EU that were dependent on factories that were lost to China. This has alienated large sectors of the public in the US and EU which could have been prevented by restraints on hyper growth in China. Ip says the growth was too large and too fast for the US to cope. It may have permanently damaged the relations between the two countries showing that trade and globalization had unintended effects when left to business and governments staying away from keeping an eye on how it was happening. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In total this is a 50% tax on Indian imports to the US with DJT executive order of  August 6, 2025, 25% baseline for trade and 25% for Indian buying of 2 million barrels a day of Russian oil. US and EU say this money s fueling the Ukraine war, along with higher purchases than this by China from Russia, which add to Russian oil revenues and higher oil production. The order takes effect in 21 days so that India has time to come up with an agreement with the US. The Swiss also are scrambling to get an agreement, hit with 30% tariff.

LyrArc Article Gist
China starts to buy U.S. agricultural products as a way to reduce trade tensions and get back to the bargaining table with the Trump administration. Mr. Trump in turn stated he would postpone till Oct. 15 a tariff increase on $250 billion in imports effective Oct. 1. 

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in WSJ says president Trump's trade policies have flopped so far. Part of the reason are Mr. Trump's tax policies which acted like a stimulus to the U.S. economy at a time when the world economy and China were slowing, even though this created a large fiscal deficit. Increase in interest rates by the U.S. Federal Reserve increased the value of the U.S. dollar against other currencies making imports cheaper. The Trump tariffs are in play in negotiations with the Chinese government, and the WSJ argues that Trump's tax policies are in play too. Not that the Trump threat of tariffs has not accomplished its initial intent of getting China to the negotiating table in a serious way for the first time since it joined the WTO, and reminding it of its WTO obligations and obligations for maintaining a level trading field free of state sponsored subsidies to reduce competition. Economists argue this proves that the trade deficit is influenced only by macro or larger economic influences such as the strength of your currency and demand for imports. In the long run the Trump tariff action may work, yet the tax policies may prove inconsistent in increasing the fiscal deficit without producing gains in investment in infrastructure and other vital areas of investment in the economy that would provide benefits to society. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China sees a principal peacemaker role for Ukraine peace settlement with its economic benefits in US/EU trade as foreign policy. NYT's David Sanger reports from the G-7 meetings in Italy in June 2024. He says the G7 sentiment is changing about China in the last few months of 2024 compared to 2023. In 2023 China was seen as a nation that had more in common with the US than Russia considering historical differences between the two nations. As the US veered round to the view China's indirect economic support and its technology was helping Russia in escalating attacks on Kharkiv and the border regions of Ukraine, Europeans were skeptical. No longer, the Europeans now see China's relationship with Russia in the same way. Another change observed is that China is not pursuing a peace settlement participation to end the war by not joining a Swiss effort. Instead says Sanger China is seen as wanting to wait so that at some future date it would be the principal actor in bringing all parties to a peace settlement for Ukraine. With Ukraine facing escalating attacks in the Kharkiv region the mood has changed and China is now seen differently from just a year back. This as shown in the adjoining article in NYT on student exchange for US and China and China's view that racism exists towards Chinese students in the US is affecting the effort for closer understanding between the people's of the two nations sought by the two nations since 1972, and in the interwar period with Gen. Joe Stilwell fighting the Imperial Japanese Army alongside the Chinese people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's military exercises for air and sea blockade of Taiwan raise the political risk of doing business in China says this report in WSJ. It raises the risk level for American corporations such as Apple and Boeing and others, that have large investments in China. The escalating tension and freeze in relations between the US and China is a watershed moment says the WSJ. Looking back years from now it may be the year following the pandemic and the war in Ukraine that tensions took on a level that would lead to acceleration of the building of new supply chains for the US and European Union in Asia that separate from China. The Trump years as president escalated trade tensions and tensions over origins of Covid. The war in Ukraine and China's siding with Russia and forming a "no limits" partnership with Russia have created serious rethinking of the entire relationship from supply chains to defense. US president Biden sees Ukraine's defense as a way of showing that an attack on one country by a neighbor in violation of international law is not acceptable to the US, and particularly in the context of China's relations with Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific countries. In this situation the US is taking the initiative in the war in Ukraine with Gen. Cavoli at US Headquarters in Europe assisting in the effort to repel Russian aggression, and also send a message to China on the importance the US sees in not allowing this kind of violation of international law. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Gerald Seib, executive editor of of the WSJ, attributes the divisions in America both on the left and the right to a deep skepticism among people about the intentions of the U.S. political and financial establishment to conduct the country's affairs in a way that benefits all people. Both the traditional Democratic and Republican establishments, the Bush-Reagan, Clinton-Obama politicians and the financial community were seen as self-serving and looking after their own interests. The right of center supply side economics and the the tolerance for immigration levels of 30% rise in the last decade were discredited. A much larger recovery program was seen as needed from the deeply bruising effects of the financial crisis of 2008, started by the reckless financial establishment behaviours, than either the Reagan supply siders or the Obama people had understood or planned. This opened the way for Mr. Trump to take up the cause of ordinary Americans with a message of ambitious infrastructure development, confronting China's use of trade adversely affecting American workers, and slowing down immigration. And within the Democratic party the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders with programs for a wealth tax that would finance Medicare for All and college education supported by the federal government. Both the traditional Republicans under Bush and Democrats under Clinton Obama were seen not upto the task, after the 2008 financial and economic crisis created deeper scars than were imagined possible. The lack of effective policies under Bush or Obama simply aggravating the situation further. The culture wars have split Americans down the middle with a breakdown of the traditional American family and social structures creating deep anxieties in America. Obama's comments unsettled people in the heartland when he said that economic decline in the Rust Belt had made people there to "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."   The trillions of dollars spent in wars in Asia and the Middle East were seen by Mr. Trump as an enormous waste when much needed investment was deprived of attention at home. Mr. Trump hammered this point home till today it is well accepted across America.  Even as political divisions persist they are now on how to tackle the redevelopment and growth of the U.S. The new focus of agreement has shifted with agreement across the country that infrastructure development in the U.S. and defending workers rights to jobs and opportunities is the top priority. That trade relations need to be reshaped keeping this priority ever present in negotiations. As a result all parties could agree on infrastructure and the recently concluded agreement for trade with Mexico and Canada and phase 1 of negotiated agreement with China. In overseas affairs the U.S. under Trump seeks cost sharing with a 2% of GDP defense spending by other nations so that money can be diverted to use at home. In this sense the debate has already shifted in the U.S. and the UK to how to address the problems of uneven development and growth across the two countries and better allocation of scarce resources to needs at home. Which is for the U.S. a good thing in the middle of all the perception of divisions.      ...