LyrArc Article Gist
Estimates are for a 9% increase for Apple laptops and iphones Made in China if Apple passes through the price increase following DJT's 54% tariff on Chinese imports. Instead Apple may decide to be patriotic and reduce the huge margins it has charged American customers for three decades now as part of its $500 billion plan to invest in Made in the USA, after waffling and delay for so so long. Even after the first term of DJT in 2016 Apple has waited 8 years to not move some of the production home to avoid an overconcentration in China. This is a sign of its management not having listened to the mood of America preferring huge profit margins to doing the right thing, literally waiting till the last minute.

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, gives insights into the Chinese position in trade war with the U.S.  China has its own internal groups which support China being able to take a leadership role in world affairs. Xi Jinping made giving China a prominent role in the world a feature of his presidency. China  has this internal audience and its own sense that China's resurgence was won with hard work and cooperation, plus dedication of the Chinese people. In the past Japan and South Korea also used state subsidized industries, and subsidies to gain leadership in key business sectors involving high technology. China would see this state subsidies model as its own model of development. From this standpoint the U.S. demands on subsidies as unfair competition could be seen as changing a key part of its economic model.  Asking China to put everything in writing and show tangible proof of enforcement as the U.S. insisted in talks, was too much for the Chinese side. China said trust us to do this, and lift the tariffs based on our verbal assurances. The U.S. having seen decades of no progress on this point, wanted tangible proof before tariffs were lifted. Added to the demands on subsidies were the demands for no more of what the U.S. calls stealing of U.S. technology through forced transfer of technology by U.S. firms as a condition to operate in Chinese markets. With the U.S. lagging in 5G technology and Huawei ahead the issue resonates on the U.S. side. Add to this Mr. Trump's key voter base includes the former Democratic party supporting workers who have shifted to him because of trade agreements and policies of Clinton and Obama that hurt American workers through seemingly endless closure of manufacturing plants from Chinese competition.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT plans for 25% tariff on all imported cars goes into effect April 2, 2025. It is intended to promote additional investment in the US auto industry, boosting jobs and wages in the US. These countries have now wrapped their behavior around national sentiment even though they very well know how the US has looked out for Europe, and especially China throughout cataclysmic events in the 20th century and the 21st century such as foreign occupation and failures in modernization. By 2015 the US which had given Europe the Marshall Plan and helped Japan rebuild from the ashes of World War II, South Korea rebuild from the devastation of the Korean war, and China rebuild after the failed industrialization experiments of the 1960's and 1970's, was now facing nations that only saw this as a One Way Street, making the US look stupid and showing a degree of irresponsible behaviour on fentanyl, drug and migrant trafficking  by Canada Mexico and China that has few parallels in history. The narrative from the US is that the US allowed Europe, Japan and South Korea, and Mexico as a manufacturing base for these countries 25 years since the 1970's when Japanese Toyota vehicles made inroads into the US market to help these countries recover, a post Marshall Plan benefit given to Europe and Asia. During 1995-2015 a series of weak administrations Clinton-Bush-Obama allowed the US manufacturing base to decline under a falsely premised globalization that served US financial interests but hurt US manufacturing towns and communities across the country.  This means BMW, VW cars imported from Germany, Subaru, Toyota, Nissan, Honda cars from Japan, Hyundai and Kia cars from South Korea, Chinese EV vehicles, and cars made in Mexico for Asian and European makers, all will face this tariff. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This analysis in the South China Morning Post shows that some of the nuclear options China has in a trade war with the U.S. are not as effective as they appear. Selling off China's huge Treasury holdings would lead to a situation where there are no buyers on the other side. It says private sector bond buyers would run a mile, and the lack of buyers, actions by the U.S. government freezing these assets could render them effectively worthless. The bond yields would jump but only for a short period as the Federal Reserve would step in to buy bonds, and yields would stabilize with the actions of central banks of U.S., Europe and Japan. A dent in the dollar would only make Chinese goods more costly in the U.S. exactly what U.S. tariffs are trying to achieve. A 10% devaluation of the yuan would have the effect of creating expectation of further devaluation, and lead to capital outflows from China on a large scale. A small devaluation in 2015 led to a large outflow. This would lead to a significant loss in foreign exchange reserves for China.  In this way China's deterrent would be less effective than it appears. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Tariffs policy is part of a renegotiation the US is conducting with China similar to that started with Japan by Lighthizer in the Reagan era as Deputy Trade Representative. It does not in any way have anything to do with the tariffs of Herbert Hoover in 1930 that gave tariffs a bad meaning. This is because tariffs were reduced since Harry Truman's efforts in 1945 by 2017 to 1.47% on average on total imported goods into the US and world trade makes up 63% of world GDP, so large is world trade today. What are Lighthizer- DJT tariffs trying to accomplish? As with Japan in the 1960-1970's it is intended to reverse the trends for China in 2000-2017 that allowed it to game the world trading system to gain an unfair advantage by dumping specific products into the US destroying American manufacturing and communities dependent on it. The US tariffs on Chinese goods proposed in 2024 by former USTR Robert Lighthizer come at a time when US tariffs are in 2023 only about 2.2% of all imported goods, $33 billion on 2333 billion of imported goods. In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China. By the time the first tariffs were taken up by the DJT administration in 2017 the total tariffs the US had imposed on imported goods were down to an all time low of 1.47% of imported goods value, $33 billion out of $2333 billion in total imported goods. Compared to the 29-40% under Hoover Act of 1930 raised to 60%.  Today world trade makes up 62% of world GDP, in 1930 it made up 9% of World GDP.  In 2023 the total import duties or tariffs as a percentage of US total imported goods is about 2%, with total imported goods into the US from European Union 3%. and with total imported goods into the US from China about 19% matching China's about 19% on American imports into China.   ...

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
How did it come to this the 125% US tariff on China? China thinks it is it's success. American companies have deindustrialized the US taking out it's manufacturing by shipping it overseas destroying the American middle class and working class.  An insult to the American worker whose pride and dignity and efforts rebuilt the world after the Second World War helping Europe and Japan, China, rebuild. Pouille and Thibault of Le Monde of France look at how China advanced in the years 2004 to 2024 and surged from 9% of industrial production in the world to 29% more than US, Japan, Germany and India combined.   This is also the period of three wars Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and two presidents Bush and Obama 16 years in which the US took its eyes of the ball and let this situation take hold, which would inevitably lead to a response from the US which started with US president DJT in 2016 and is now in its 10th year. Having failed to limit the China 2025 Plan so that there is no overconcentration of manufacturing in the world disproportionately affecting the rest of the world. The consequences for the rest of the world are clear to see with the 1.7 billion people in India and Indonesia who were late in industrialization by 10-15 years compared to China, the deindustrialization of Europe and the US as this enters its final stages leading to the fissures in the societies of Europe and the US, the destruction of the middle class. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jim Tankersley of the Washington Post looks at the myths and realities of trade following incorrect statements made by Donald Trump about international trade. For example Trump suggests that Japanese automobiles imports are a big problem, though the imports have been cut by over 50% since the 1980's with Japanese companies Toyota and Honda making cars in the U.S. in Kentucky and Ohio. Detroit faces competition from foreign manufacturers based in southern states, including Alabama for Mercedes Benz and Tennessee for Nissan. Mismanagement including lagging in fuel efficiency and quality, and higher health costs for older workers were problems facing Detroit in the past decade. The Obama administration provided support to the auto companies to make the recovery following two bankruptcies in the U.S. auto industry, showing the U.S. has intervened as needed and the auto companies have made transformational changes. A big problem says Trump is the trade agreement with China which he promises to renegotiate. Tankersley points out that no such treaty exists. The U.S. agreed to China's entry into the WTO. This is not something the U.S. can renegotiate as the WTO sets rules for trade for all countries. The likely result of a shift away from Chinese imports would be more imports from countries such as India and Vietnam which are lower cost producers than China. Trump says some of the 2 million jobs lost in the past 2 decades will come back, yet the shift may be towards lower cost countries from China, with fewer jobs coming back to the U.S. High tariffs would not lead to the growth Trump predicts. A study made by Moody's Analytics at the request of the WP shows a Trump move for high tariffs would lead to a recession and lead to mass layoffs as other countries imposed their own tariffs, leading to large loss in U.S. exports. Trump has made claims such as telling the Post that $19 trillion in federal debt could be paid off in 8 years without raising taxes by fixing trade. No grounding on facts is provided by Trump. One of the failures of the media in the 2016 election campaign is the failure of the media to provide scrutiny for candidates claims and wild exaggerations, which have gone uncontested or unquestioned, or without the persistence till satisfactory answers are given by the candidates making them. Especially when the stakes are so high, for the U.S. and for the global economy. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The French view of the DJT administration is that it is a rupture, an "historic rupture with immigration repression, aggressive trade policy, and undermining of federal and state institutions." This is far from the reality. In fact it is not a rupture, and far from that policy that DJT brought in the waning days of a tired cautious Obama administration that extended the war in Afghanistan long after it was clearly a failure from the Bush years. DJT called it common sense during his Inauguration speech waving his hands- so obvious, stay out of wars we have no purpose pursuing. Regain America's manufacturing base shipped out to China in the Clinton-Bush-Obama years 2000-2016 that helped the rise of China in phases of supply chain partner, competitor, adversary. French view Le Monde is that this is "aggressive trade policy," when in fact small towns across the US and France, and other industrialized EU nations, by losing their factory and industrial base to China have gone downhill losing jobs and standard of living. Tariffs and DJT policy was continued by Biden- there is no rupture. What French in Le Monde call "Immigration repression," is a policy of protecting border security including illegal drug and fentanyl flows and gang activity that was accepted by Biden and Biden-Republican Lankford legislation was agreed in 2024 to close the Border. There is no rupture from Biden on closing the Border.  With millions having crossed the Border illegally Republicans now have the support of Democratic Senators Gallego of Arizona and Fetterman of Pennsylvania in passing the Laken Riley Act in Congress to protect Americans and safeguard life in America.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This story in the WSJ shows how the Phase 1 deal between the U.S. and China was negotiated in November and December 2019. As a bargaining chip for negotiations on a Phase 2 deal the U.S. has preserved tariffs of 25% on $250 billion in imports from China, and the reduced tariff  of 7.5% on $120 billion of imports. In Phase 1 Mr. Trump convinced the Chinese leadership that he was serious about going ahead with further tariffs to cover all of China's exports to the U.S.by a December deadline. This was also Mr. Kushner's message to the Chinese ambassador. In talks China gave easy concessions on agricultural imports and offered to buy twice the amount of soyabeans and other food imports- which helps Mr. Trump with farmers in the U.S. At the same time difficult concessions on enforcement to change subsidies to Chinese state owned companies were put off. China formally says it is an issue of Chinese sovereignty. It is also seen as a part of the Chinese business model that is working and China is in no hurry to change this. It has offered to step back from asking foreign companies to transfer technology in exchange for market access. On technology issues and subsidies the tough negotiating issues on which the U.S. has insisted for changes, China has held back. Phase Two is not likely to happen at least not till after the election, as China wants to be able to develop its own technology rivaling the U.S. and Europe, without the kind of formal enforcement the U.S. is demanding. In the long run it plans a shift to an economy that is less dependent on the U.S. for imports which may be in the interest of both countries, as U.S. manufacturing has shriveled over two decades hurting American jobs as a result.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
After the Phase 1 trade deal with China led to cancellation of new tariffs on computers, mobile phones and the remaining products imported from China, tariffs are still in place on $370 billion of imports from China. President Trump says China agreed to import $32 billion of agricultural goods, with the figures reaching $50 billion in 2020. The prior high was $26 billion in 2012. This comes as a big relief for the agricultural farm sector which had 24% more bankruptcies in 2019. Farmers are now more likely to vote for president Trump as they did in the last election. In addition China agreed to buy $200 billion more of American goods over the next 2 years. This combined with the USMCA agreement to replace NAFTA, for North American trade, is good news for president Trump and for the U.S. economy for 2% annual growth. The S&P stock index went up by 29% in 2019. The big concession by China is its agreement to agree to penalties if it does not keep up its part of the bargain.  Intellectual property protection remains a challenge and Mr. Trump may have decided to take a tactical success and shore up his base of farmers and small business people before taking up these issues in the future. China for its part may have decided to make a tactical move of its own as it has nothing to lose in importing more farm products from the U.S. in exchange for being able to continue to make the computers, iPhones and tech products it manufactures, just like before. China has not conceded much in terms of its goals set  in "Made in China 2025." Both sides are taking a much needed pause to consolidate their positions, as the fundamental differences remain to be tackled. Huawei and Chinese technology issue remains as before with the U.S. wary of China's technological gains in 5G telecom equipment and keen on building and protecting America's technological advantage in future trade relations. ...

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
Economist Paul Krugman points out the risks of a trade war in the tariffs announced for steel and aluminium by president Trump. Yet he accepts that he advocated stronger action on China's currency in 2009-2010 when the U.S. economy was weaker. In the past on the TPP agreement proposed by president Obama, Krugman said that it would have an insignificant impact as most of the gains on trade were already made. Here Krugman is critical of the language used by president Trump about trade wars being "easy."  This is taken out of context though as president Trump is saying that it is easy in the context of a country enjoying a $100 billion surplus with the U.S., because that country is going to have incentives to maintain a good trading relationship with the U.S. Essentially this means that the steel industry in the U.S. benefits. China also benefits as it closes many of the older steel plants that led to overproduction. This would reduce overcapacity in China's steel industry, a problem China's economic planners see as a priority. China already is making the shift to higher technology products and this process will be accelerated, as it puts less emphasis on steel and metals as it did in its earlier stage of development. As a result contrary to textbook economics this has the potential to be a win-win solution for the U.S. and China in the long run. So little was done under the Bush and Obama administrations to manage trading relationships with other countries so that the interests of small communities across the U.S. were protected from unfair trade- that Reagan administration trade expert Robert Lighthizer took up the cause of the U.S.,workers in these communities. Surveys showed U.S. public opinion also had shifted among educated, professionals and middle class on this issue by 2015, against unfair trade that hurt U.S. interests. Robert Lighthizer is now the Trade Representative for the U.S. in the Trump administration. Reports in the WSJ about the discussion within the Trump economic council, show Gary Cohn favored not imposing the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Lighthizer advocated the tariffs and was able to convince the president.  For Trump this presents a win-win situation, as a mild response by China -and other trading nations that have enjoyed a favorable situation in the past -with its huge surplus and favorable trading relationship with the U.S. would present a win for the president. Economist Krugman accepts this when he says tariffs in the current context of the trading field- that is more favorable to other countries- are not such a big deal, only the use of such policy that is likely to endanger world trade.  As in much of the debate that takes place this adds to the headlines today yet provides delayed and limited relief to communities across the U.S. devastated by world trade as documented by experts who studied trade patterns and their effect on regions across the U.S.  As the WSJ points out in one report the trade deficit itself may continue to grow under president Trump because of other factors. The U.S. dollar surged 8% during the last 2 years of the Obama administration with the economic recovery underway. With Trump's election win the dollar surged another 3%. This may play a bigger role in the direction of the trade deficit than the new steel tariffs announced by president Trump. Workers and unions matter. As TPP pushed by Democratic party president Obama was opposed by the unions, and by the auto industry (workers and auto companies) in the midwestern states which suffered a hollowing out in the last decade. A WSJ survey after the election showed Clinton received 56% support from union workers in 2018 compared to 65% for president Obama in the 2012 election. Some of that erosion in support may come from Obama's TPP stand fervently opposed by the unions and workers in the auto industry. A similar situation took place in Ontario with hollowing out of the auto industry in this large industrial state in Canada and led to the rejection of the Conservative government and election of the Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau. This lesson is so far lost in the Democratic Party's debate.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's push for globalization is being perceived internationally as an effort to promote its own industries.

Clashes with the U.S. on trade have changed the perception of China in global trade compared to what it was four years ago or in 2008. Tariffs in the U.S. on Chinese imports, slowing foreign investment, inflated property prices, bad debt at banks, and shrinking working age population, are leading to slowing growth which in coming years could drop from 6.1% in 2019. The Belt and Road Initiative is also being perceived differently as it has led to increased in indebtedness of countries in Africa and Asia, debt that cannot be paid back. Much of the ebullient optimism of a few years back is no longer present. The Pew Research Center survey of 34 countries in December 2019 shows about 45% of adults surveyed lacking confidence in China's policy positions in world affairs, according to this report in the WSJ.

LyrArc Article Gist
There is a sense of cognitive dissonance in the states of former East Germany, known as the GDR or German Democratic Republic in the Soviet Union period from 1950's to 1990. The 5 states that formed the GDR continued to build close ties with Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the perception that this would build good long term relations. The crisis in Ukraine with border states of the Soviet Union opting in favor of close ties with the European Union and not Russia have disrupted the economic relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and Russia. As long as Russia needed the economic ties to build its economy and standard of living the political issues posed by NATO expansion and EU expansion were set aside by Putin and political parties within Russia. The very ties that were supposed to usher in an era of peace in Europe helped strengthen the Russian and Chinese economies. Leading to a point where these two economies were strong enough by 2021 in the midst of the waning pandemic to  assert themselves on political issues where serious differences existed such as expansion of NATO and Taiwan. When the economic relations such as making China a manufacturing powerhouse  was the path taken by American and European business in 1990's, business interests were focused on the declining quality and high wages demanded by unions and workers in the US and Germany. This could be personally witnessed at Apple's factory in Colorado Springs where quality was failing badly in the 1990's. Apple when Steve Jobs returned in 1997 adopted a China manufacturing strategy when its manufacturing operations in the US failed to deliver the quality and cost structure needed for it to expand. The high margins with low costs of manufacturing in China was the strategy adopted by Steve Jobs to compete with Microsoft and turbocharge its expansion. Soon other companies followed. A similar process happened in economic ties with Russia on a smaller scale. Two decades of such expansion whittled down American manufacturing, hurt American workers, hurt European manufacturing and European workers.  This process could not continue- yellow vest protests in France, the protest vote in US midwestern states in recent elections, the protest votes in German elections and fragmentation of parties, made this clear. The US imposed trade tariffs on Chinese products and moved to restrict flow of technologies to China under the Trump administration, accelerated by the Biden administration. President Xi was once of the view that China's ties with the US were important "thousand fold" in the period as late as 2010. Yet this lopsided trade relationship was not beneficial to American workers or American interests as a technologically advanced leader. It is true that American workers and engineers at Apple had failed to ensure American quality competitiveness in the 1980's into 1990's, yet no advanced country or its business can come up with a false narrative that cedes its manufacturing leadership and jobs for the working class of its country. That false narrative is being challenged today by Mr. Biden, Mr. Scholz, and all American and German political parties, and by Mr. Modi with Atman Nirbhar Bharat for local manufacturing. The integration one sees of the port of Hamburg as Chinese export hub with China's economy is one aspect of what has happened. A new leadership is taking its place in Europe and in America that sees clearly the false narrative. The visit of the new Danish prime minister to India is the beginning of the effort to set up a new logistics relationship with South and South East Asia, as Denmark's Maersk is a world leader in shipping logistics for exports and manufacturing. The planned Noida logistics center outside of New Delhi under Gati Shakti integrated development is part of the change happening today as a new supply chain is being built. The unwinding of the one sided trade relationship with China, and its related relationship on energy with Russia, led to the changing perception in Russia and China of the value of the relationship. Political relations superseded economic and cultural relations during Putin's second phase and Xi's second phase with assertive attitudes on NATO, and on Hong Kong, Taiwan under Xi and Putin 2.0. As could be expected Germany and the US were caught flat footed as leaders who were cast in the mold of Putin as a Soviet representative in Dresden, and Xi with his father leading the Communist struggle in the 1930's and 1940's against Chiangkaishek, acted in ways that reflected the Soviet period. Chiang left for Taiwan in 1948 when Mao-tse-tung setup the People's Republic of China. Taiwan and Hong Kong remained important in the perceptions of Xi 2.0, in the effort to build "China Dream" and erase last vestiges of what in Soviet times were seen as western colonialism. US and EU particularly Business and the new IT telecom Business failed to grasp these matters, and historical events such as the opium wars of the 1850's. Business and cultural interests lacked both the inclination to learn and the knowledge of these events in Chinese history and its relations with colonial powers Britain and Japan, and also Russia. In 1900 the Boxer rebellion against ceding Chinese ports to colonial powers Britain, Japan, Russia, ended with permanent colonial settlements in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tsingtao, other Chinese ports. Chinese rejuvenation in the mind of leaders such as Xi from the second generation of Communist leadership, means putting this behind, leading to the action taken in Hong Kong. In some ways as some observers have commented it is as much a problem of the sluggishness of American and European thinking, particularly business interests including in Taiwan, post British Hong Kong, and ignorance of recent Chinese history which was mistakenly thought not to exist or forgotten. This is as much of a problem as the action taken by Putin and moves by Xi Jinping. The great democracies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, were ignored as American and European business interests integrated the American and German economies with China's. In terms of population the population of these regions and related parts of South East Asia such as Malaysia and Vietnam which have a shared cultural history is about 1.5 times the population of China. Travelling through the parts of India's largest state Uttar Pradesh, an Madhya Pradesh one finds how much American and European business interests have failed both their own interests, their own workers and failed the great democracies of the world, by not only not investing in the democracies of Asia, and also of Africa and Latin America and bought into a narrative of China which no longer holds true and may never have been true all along. This is starkly evident in a once in a century pandemic in these great democracies of the world. These democracies have been left to fend for themselves during the pandemic and their leaders facing false narratives in the media such as the BBC and American media outlets even on issues such as vaccination of the largest part of the world's people.           ...