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
Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute points to trade barriers reducing competition and free trade that should raise an outcry when free trade and competition advocates focus alone on the Trump steel tariffs. He points to estimates that show $90 billion in additional costs to Americans from the barriers that prevent Americans from paying world market prices for surgeries and medical treatment, prices similar to what is paid in advanced countries like Germany, Britain and France. A bigger barrier in pharmaceuticals prices being sheltered from market competition worldwide costs a huge $370 billion in additional costs to Americans. These two costs in healthcare would help Americans by a magnitude compared to tax cuts that do not work for average Americans with the business tax cut going more into share buybacks than into increasing wages or capital investment in 2018.  Bernstein points to Neil Irwin's column in the NYT that flags statements such as Senator Mike Lee, Republican, that the steel tariffs are a huge job killing tax hike, as being misleading. Bernstein says two actions were never taken that would have used benefits of free trade to help affected communities that lost jobs in industries such as steel and textiles, other industries affected by foreign competition.  He lists these steps as sectoral employment training, apprenticeships ,and job creation efforts in the worst affected areas. Basically no one really knows what is good trade policy, the textbook concepts and theories are out of date when countries can subsidize particular industries such as steel and dump products into the American market. At a press conference on CSPAN with the Swedish prime minister Mr. Trump stated that China was exporting more than what is officially shown as there are transshipments from other countries, some of them with no steel mills.  As Mr. Trump stated at that press conference he was elected partly because of the worst affected communities- in places such as Michigan and other states in the midwestern U.S.- that suffered from unfair trade. Bernstein admonishes the economists and politicians, media, for the headlines that are misleading in showing that bad trade policy is being pursued and trade wars are being started. This deserves attention because the Trump administration and advisors such as Lighthizer who served in the Reagan administration seek fair trade, and the Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross successfully pushed for NAFTA trade deal renegotiation not the outright rejection of NAFTA that was mentioned in the election campaign. Ironically no one is helped by this trade rhetoric and misleading headlines. In fact the strengthening of the U.S. currency as the huge trade surplus of China goes into U.S. assets, and with the election of Mr. Trump, gives foreign competitors a continued advantage. And in fact Japan, South Korea, China, had a mild response to the tariffs as reported, because these countries are aware of global overcapacity created especially by China which produces 50% of the world's steel, and as China shifts to higher technologically value added products closing many older steel mills. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In a speech to 3000 party officials Xi Jinping says it is the "central and united leadership of the party that made possible this historic transition." He was speaking at the 40th anniversary of the Deng reforms to open up China's economy. He said China was right to have "lofty aspirations." Yet he said China "would not sacrifice the interests of other countries," while preserving its own interests. The speech comes as China is trying to find a way out of the trade tensions with the U.S. through negotiations. The U.S. sees China in the same way that it saw Japan's rise as an industrial power in the 1980's. and seeks to preserve U.S. economic strength and balanced trade relations that give no unfair advantages to Asian competitors. The U.S. negotiating team is led by the same negotiator who led the team that negotiated for the Reagan administration with Japan-Robert Lighthizer.

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
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
Robert Reich, a former Labor Secretary, says that instead of "rebalancing" with Chinese consumers buying more American goods and China exporting less to the USA, things are headed in the opposite direction. Why? Because at the macroeconomic level China is devoting more of its country's resources to production capacity. Chinese consumers are taking home a smaller proportion of the total economy. In 2008 personal consumption amounted to 35% of the total economy, whereas in 1998 it was 50%. Capital investment in the same 10 years went up 35% to 44%. Chinese continue to save and these savings are going into infrastructure and manufacturing capacity. There is even a social twist to the savings, with fewer young Chinese women than men parents with boys have to compete in the marraige market and save assets for this. Households are also saving to support more elderly people as population is aging quickly with population policies. All this means that with all the talk (see links to Niall Ferguson and Krugman), the situation will likely roll on in this manner till things reach an impasse, or there is a strong political backlash in the USA which leads to stronger trade actions by the government, or there is a crisis. Meanwhile the trade deficit is headed higher and Chinese foreign reserves will go far above the current $2.3 trillion. And the Europeans will also be getting restless with their trade imbalance, as the euro edges higher and the yuan remians pegged to the dollar, leading to trade distortions. ...

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
A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll conducted in September 2010 shows a big change in public opinion in the US towards outsourcing of production and on free trade agreements. Poll respondents were asked "Do you think free-trade agreements have helped or hurt the US?" The response in 1999 was close to 30% for those who said hurt and those saying helped. By 2005 the curves diverged seriously with more people saying that it hurt and fewer saying it helped. In 2010 this swing is sharp with about 50% saying it hurts the US and only about 10% saying it helps. When asked "Do you agree or disagree that outsourcing of production and manufacturing work to foreign countries is a reason the U.S. economy is struggling and more people are not being hired?" the response is overwhelmingly agreeing that this is bad for the U.S. job situation. The answers are the same across party affiliation, in fact higher for Republicans than Democrats 90% to 84%, higher by income level with 93% for those making over $75,000 agreeing and 86% for those making less than 75,000 agreeing, 93% of professionals and managers agree compared to 89% white collar and 83% blue collar agreeing. This shows all segments of society agree that that the manner in which free trade and outsourcing of production is taking place is not helping the U.S., and this time the highly educated segments are leading the way. Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who helped do the survey points to the big change in the way well educated and upper income people perceive free trade agreements. In 1999 only 24% of this group making over $75,000 said free trade hurt the U.S., now 50% of this group says it hurts the US. This is sure to lead to big changes in U.S. trade and currency issues with China and other countries. ...

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
Mexico replaces China as the U.S. top trading partner in the first half of 2019. U.S. imports from China fell by 12% and exports fell by 19% in first half 2019, according to Commerce Department. The total value of trade with China of $271 billion was less than the trade with either Canada or Mexico.

Mr. Trump said yesterday to China- "If they don't want to trade with us anymore, that would be fine with me. Until such time as there is a deal we will be taxing them." He went on to say he would place 25% tariff on additional $300 billion of Chinese goods on Sept. 1, 2019.

Meanwhile in first half 2019 the U.S. imports increased to 34% from Vietnam. Some of this could be Chinese goods transhipment through Vietnam. Japan, South Korea, India, Europe, all increased exports to the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
A graphics view of the severe trade imbalance in U.S. trade with China and the trade war after president Trump put tariffs in place.

LyrArc Article Gist
A senior Indian diplomat, and former ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale, says China's action in the June 15 clash at Galwan Valley was the worst violence since 1967. He sees it as a premeditated and well thought out action. His view is that India's relations with China will deteriorate further. That this was an action by the PLA to take territory to what it sees as the LAC or border. For small tactical gains he says "China has strategically lost India." This will impact trade and other relations going forward in his view.  Nothing of this sort was expected says Bambawale. All the agreements put in place since 1993, everything for tranquillity at the border, all the mechanisms, have now collapsed. Bambawale has provided a very lucid and clear account of the relations and the border issues. He goes on to say that Chinese observers have given reasons for the Galwan clash with PLA- that India should stay away from the US and other democracies such as the European Union. Some reflection shows that the opposite has happened. And further reflection would show that the same situation was repeated in the period of transfer from British Empire to Republican India, and from Nationalist China to Communist China from the period 1947 onwards. Different perceptions and different leaderships that gave the perception of gaps between the two countries. In the 1950's after the Korean War Chinese perceptions about India could have led to the incursions that brought China to the borders of India in 1950, similar perceptions of gaps in development and capabilities could have led to the conflict in 1962. From 1993 peace prevailed with India after China entered the World Trade Organization under president Clinton in 2001 following a 10 year effort. Because the focus in China was on development after a series of crises, internal sense of a widening technological gap with the US and Europe, disagreements with the Soviet Union, and the experiments with market economy, internal struggles for democracy. With that period coming to a close as the new trading relationship has led to working class losses in factory jobs in the US, China is faced with protecting its economy as it and the US look at changing supply channels and how it affects both countries. It is a critical time for China as it faces governments in US, France, UK and Canada determined to protect their own interests in manufacturing jobs, renewing supply channels, and in technological advancement. The response is similar to that in 1962 when seen from the Communist party perspective as a gap has opened up with India following China's progress in the 30 year trading relationship with the US and Europe. That gap and the difficult situation China faces today with the US and EU in trade and technology has brought forward the Galwan clash and future clashes in Ladakh and at the border.  As Mr. Jaishnkar, India's Minister of External Affairs as well as former ambassador to China,  has pointed out this is a very different aspirational India that China faces. The same kind of grassroots development that happened in China and rapid pooling of capital, human resources and technology inputs for development is taking place in India, and will continue for the next two decades, quickly bridging any gaps in modernization between the two countries. The difference between a youthful population in India and aging population in China and Japan, is likely to add another dimension. China's Buddhist culture that came from India is not likely to go away, more likely is that China will see a revival of Buddhist ideas of wellness and living more as culture than religion. The experience with British colonialism that prevailed both in India and China, and which from its base in India caused so much grief to China during the Opium wars will recede from memory. Extending borders from historical memory of Japanese incursions into border areas in Manchuria could have led leaders after 1950 in China to extend borders to remote areas in the Arunachal region of India and communist theory books may have created the perception of defensive moves. In the context of an aspirational India similar to China, and no real intention on the part of India to extend itself in any way to China's provinces in Sichuan, this extending of borders as a defensive move will be seen as stemming from memories of Japanese incursions in the 1930's, but simply costly and not relevant in any way to China's own aspirational development and progress. ...

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
Robert Lighthizer, was deputy trade representative for the Reagan administration. He says, trade is one area in which the establishment has simply got it wrong. In this area there is little difference between George Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama and Republican politicians. It is one area, he says, where the feeling that elites are thwarting the will of the voters resonates most. He says the talk about America's decline, and the idea that the 21st century belongs to China, leaves voters unconvinced that our trade policy is working for America. For voters who are unconvinced, it makes sense to have a nationalist trade policy that takes on foreign abuses and fights for American interests. He cites 2 statistics that worry these voters. One is the huge trade imbalances that require the USA to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in assets each year. The value of foreign investments in the USA exceeds the value of American investments abroad by $2.74 trillion, and China by itself has $2.5 trillion in foreign currency reserves, mostly in dollars. The other fact is that while the trade deficit for the last decade was about $4.3 trillion for the last decade, America also lost 5.6 millon jobs. And its becoming increasingly clear that as with managed currencies such as the Chinese yuan, and other trade practices, the rest of the world is stacking the free-trade deck against us. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. trade dispute with China takes a new turn after tit for tat tariffs, with the U.S. president Trump claiming that China was interfering in the U.S. midterm elections. This plays into the narrative in China that the U.S. does not want to see China's ascent as a global power. President Trump and Trade Representative Lighthizer have singled out "Made In China 2025," China's plans for tech leadership as a serious issue for the U.S. President Trump made his claim in a speech at the United Nations, saying that he was "the first president ever to challenge China on trade."

Many of China's tariffs on U.S. exports are targeted at agricultural products such as soyabeans and corn in heavily pro-Trump states, and in rural areas where the Republican party has a significant base. 

 

LyrArc Article Gist
The difficult task facing Wang Yi, former foreign minister of China, of maintaining relations with the European Union in the middle of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on which China has not supported the EU. Some changes have taken place in the EU in 2022 that affect EU relations with China. Italy and Czech Republic have new governments that are critical of China. The Ukraine war after one year is taking its toll on EU relations with China, as trade between Russia and China is expected to grow to $200 billion in 2023 from $140 billion in 2021.

LyrArc Article Gist
The recent appointment of fast food executive Andrew Puzder as Labor Secretary has caused great concern among union leaders. Puzder supports a $9 minimum wage compared to $15 supported by Democrats. Unions now represent 7% of the labor force, down from a high of 20% during Reagan's time when Reagan appointed a construction company executive as Labor Secretary and cut regulations.  Globalization has thinned the ranks of workers in unions. And the failure of Democratic administrations to stem the shift of factories overseas to China, Mexico and other places, as part of global supply chains focussed on cost, has weakened Democratic support among workers since the period of Bill Clinton. It eroded to the point where Obama won 65% of support among unions and Hillary Clinton won 56% in 2016. Interestingly the Republican Romney gained 33% versus 37% for Trump, showing voters were more inclined to move away from Democrats and only a smaller number willing to support Republicans, but the shift enough to give Republicans a win in 2016 for the presidency. The figures are from a Election Day survey of trade union AFL-CIO, and a larger proportion in midwestern states showed disaffection with policies from Clinton to Obama. In fact Obama spent years promoting another free trade agreement TPP that favored tech more than auto and older industries, just as Bill Clinton had promoted NAFTA, without giving thought to what this was doing to its worker base of support. A similar situation happened with Social Democrats in Germany as a SPD administration moved to the centre and handed Christian Democrats led by Merkel a win in parliamentary elections. As Democrats such as former Labor Secretary Reich, a professor at UC Berkeley who served under Bill Clinton, describe the problems of working class people their is less reflection on the impact of the changes from globalization and how Democrats handled or mishandled it, and more on the politics between the two parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The countries of Central and Eastern Europe are building closer relations with Taiwan. Central European and Eastern European countries trade less with China and see close relations with the US as essential for their security. This includes Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania, Czech Republic. Taiwan is increasing investments in Eastern Europe after investments by China failed to materialize in the last decade. Taiwan foreign minister is now on a visit to Slovakia and the Czech republic. For many Eastern Europeans the dominance of China brings back memories of the dominance of Soviet Union and the Cold War.  Taiwan says it is looking to deepen ties in the industrial, scientific and green energy fields with the region. Eastern Europe's perception of China has changed in the last three years as shared values of rule of law, democracy, and human rights with the rest of the world and the US are seen as important for the region.  Western Europe with France and Germany is also gradually moving away from its close dependence on trade with China. The French Senate is leading an effort to build closer ties with India by hosting Ambition India 2021 starting on October 29. Germany under Scholz of SPD and Baerbock of the Greens is moving away from the Merkel CDU era of close dependence on China in trade. ...

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
China sees the situation in Hong Kong spiralling out of control after two months of protests and leading to a loss of China's sovereignty in Hong Kong. The Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong Affairs in the State Council, Zhang Xiaoming, met with the Hong Kong government representatives in Shenzen and made it clear offering a dire assessment and the most severe since China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997 from Britain. Zhang stated- "If the situation worsens further, and there is turmoil that the Hong Kong government is unable to control, the central government absolutely will not just watch without doing anything." He also stated that the central government had enough strength to end the unrest, that the Party center and military force if necessary is behind the Hong Kong government. Wang Zhmin, China's top official in Hong Kong gives a better view of how this is seen in the Party in Beijing. He even called it a "life and death war" comparing it to the "color revolutions" the democratic movements that unseated governments in Georgia, Ukraine and Serbia. China sees this differently than western countries. With its long struggle against colonial rule in the territory controlled by Western powers along China's coastal region, China's ruling party leaders have a very different perception of the situation than is shown in most western media, particularly during the two decades of China's reconciliation with Japan and the U.S. in its effort to catch up. In the rest of the world the perception is very different. The use of a military garrison or riot police from other parts of China would affect China's image carefully built up over two decades of a peaceful developing country working hard to catch up in living standards and technology. As the economy slows to 5-6% the damage would be to business confidence and investment, and to Hong Kong's status as a world financial center. This could also affect China's relations with the U.S., European Union and Britain. with criticism on action by China. Unlike negotiations with Japan by Mr. Lighthizer for president Reagan, when Japan enjoyed a trade surplus such as that of China today (where there were no such issues with Japan as the U.S. had offered security guarantees to Japan), negotiations with China on trade could be affected by issues such as status of Hong Kong. This could lead to a worsening of trade relations, indefinite duration of tariffs and lack of any settlement on trade, further slowing the Chinese economy and hardening positions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Latest data from the U.S. Treasury shows it has collected $63 billion in tariffs over the preceding 12 months. Even though there is no agreement on trade with China, president Trump says the U.S. is benefitting from higher tariffs by tens of billions of dollars. In May he estimated tariff revenues could reach $100 billion.This report in the WSJ says this could happen if the the new tariffs of 10% on additional $300 Chinese goods imported to U.S. goes into effect on September 1. This is likely considering that China sees this in different terms than the U.S. such as its sovereignty, whereas the U.S. sees it simply in terms of fair trade. With new elections China may be simply putting things off till the election is decided as Mr. Trump has pointed out. The tally of what the U.S. Treasury gets annually if $100 billion is generated in tariffs goes something like this. Of this $30 billion was generated previously for the U.S. government, so the incremental amount is $70 billion. Of this about $16 billion goes to offset the effect of loss of farm exports to farmers, mainly soyabeans exports to China, through a rescue fund. This leaves additional $54 billion for the U.S. Treasury. Money that could conceivably be put back into infrastructure that the U.S. badly needs in mobile and fixed to improve internet speeds and move up from its low rankings compared to China and other countries. A WSJ report this week shows Germany in worse shape than the U.S., both countries having dismal status in mobile infrastructure- the U.S. at No. 37, and Australia No. 4, Canada No. 3, and even Croatia No. 9. This throws some light on why this trade dispute has become intractable, for China the right of a sovereign nation to move past middle income status even as its telecom technology with Huawei 5G is top class, and for the U.S. the right not to fall behind in advanced technologies such as Telecom. It is also why one hears so much about Huawei and why it has become a flashpoint of the conflict in trade and trade practices. It is thought Mr. Trump is conducting this trade dispute. Yet less known is the fact that prominent Republicans in Congress such as Senator Warner have stated on television talk shows that they are concerned Mr. Trump may give up too much in negotiations that lead to the U.S. not being able to compete in telecom advanced technologies that matter for competitiveness and for national security. What was treated by Bush and Obama administrations routinely without much attention to the consequences is now a top concern for Republicans and others in Congress and business. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China will continue to keep its $1.19 trillion dollar U.S. bond holdings as it is a liquid and secure place for its foreign exchange reserves, say sources close to SAFE which handles the investments. China has over $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves.

LyrArc Article Gist
China's dollar for dollar retaliation on $16 billion of U.S. imports with 25% tariffs set to take effect August 23 excludes oil which was on the original list. China takes in about one fifth of the total U.S. oil exports, and in the space of 2 years has become the largest importer of U.S. oil. Experts say China could be shooting itself in the foot if it decides to place tariffs on oil imports from U.S. China is dependent on foreign sources for 70% of energy needs and this trend continues. Another reason say analysts is that by keeping oil out of this trade dispute there is more chance that China can continue importing Iranian oil through a waiver  after U.S. sanctions on Iran go into effect in November.

The U.S. also exports higher quality oil that is less polluting and a grade which is used in newer plants.

LyrArc Article Gist
The move by Peugeot and Fiat Chrysler to merge is seen as an effort to use consolidation as a way to tackle depressed demand. Ford and GM are struggling in foreign markets, as Toyota and VW have expanded in foreign markets, and Geely has expanded in China with stakes in Daimler and Volvo AB. Added costs for the shift to electric cars, higher emissions standards,  are also hurting car makers. Global new car sales of 96 million in 2018 are expected to decline by 4% in 2019, and remain sluggish, with the U.S. China trade war and Brexit taking its toll. Some car companies are particularly affected. Chrysler's European car factories ran at about 52% in 2018, well below European industry average of 73%.

LyrArc Article Gist
The biggest decision coming out of the NATO and European Council meetings is Germany saying it supports stationing of long range missile systems in Germany by the US by 2026. German chancellor Scholz says the decision was a long time in the making and Germany supports it as a necessary step to secure the country. This happens as China's support to Russia continues through trade and economic relations and the Ukraine war prolonged for another year into 2025. Other decisions were to provide F-16's and added Patriot missile systems so that Ukraine can defend its skies from missile attacks.