LyrArc Article Gist
The broken world economy has hurt the American people, in small communities and towns across the US whose societal fabric was destroyed by a system of world trade with abuses done by China. Japan, European Union, Canada and Mexico since 2000. Shortsighted American leaders and economists allowed this to happen. Robert Lighthizer on the New World Order a new system of world trade that replaces the old in 2026. The old trading system was one in which lip service was made to free trade while all the time the system was used by Japan, Germany, China, Canada, Mexico and other nations to build non tariff barriers and other policies to support their industry  at the expense of the United States leading to disillusionment in the US. The facts are mind boggling- the loss of 5 million jobs, many small communities across the US decimated with loss of jobs. About 20 trillion in wealth transfers to China and other countries over 2000-2020, with foreigners owning $27 trillion more of US assets than the US owns of theirs. US Trade Deficits that went up by 40% in 4 years of the Biden administration from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion. Economists and weak leaders got it all wrong allowing this to happen from Geoge W. Bush to Clinton Bush and Obama. Lighthizer says "shortsighted leaders aided and abetted this process," from 1990 to early 2010. Consider that US had 17.3 million  people in manufacturing, in factories all over the US in 1970, in 1999 we had the same number of jobs, even though there were changes in technology and productivity- the US held its own with the rest of the world. The Bush, Obama years were the worst for the US industry - by 2026 we have 12.6 million - loss of 4.7 million jobs since 1999. And real median household income took a big hit growing from $72,000 to $84,000 about 17% in the last 25 years, compared to twice that in the period 1975-2000 prior quarter century. The result is the fracturing of American society- and dire consequences for healthcare as communities suffered from loss of jobs leading to drug overdoses, alcohol abuse and suicides, which are common in post industrial American communities. Think of this fact: two thirds of America's workforce that does not have a college degree, that is working class people, lives 8 fewer years than college graduates, a gap that was only 2.5  years in 1992. The wars carried on by Bush and continued by Obama in the Middle East also wracked these same communities till Biden and DJT pulled out. One has only to drive across America to see this with one's own eyes. Trade may be an abstract topic for economists and politicians- there is nothing abstract about this. And the economic growth of the US has suffered with the unfair trading system with China, European Union, Japan, Canada and Mexico. From 1945 to 2000 American growth was 3.2% a year. Since 2000 only 2 years of growth over 3%. US has not seen historically normal growth for the last 19 years and at this rate (if we continued along this path) the Congressional Budget Office says 1.8% growth for 2027-2035. There are other factors yet the the major driver of this is our trade deficit of $1.2 trillion dollars a year. It is a story of remarkable persistence in the Nation's interest through 2 adminstrations- this Lighthizer story. Lighthizer fought Japanese commercial interests as Deputy Trade Representative under Ronald Reagan, and as US Trade Representative under DJT in the first DJT administration in 2016-2020. His Deputy at the time is Jamieson Greer who is now the US Trade Representative in the second DJT adminstration in 2025. For 30 years this brave American patriot has fought to reverse the bad actions of presidents and economists that have led to devastating losses in the American countryside. He says any new trading system must be perceived as fair to working people. It will survive only if working people think it is good for them. It cannot and must entrench a small, permanent elite. The benefits going to labour must be at least as great as those going to capital. It should create fulfilling high paying jobs for the vast majority of the American people. This is America's new promise to its people, its new compact with its people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The media in US and in Europe presents the US and China on a confrontational course little aware that there is quietly emerging a new trend encouraged by both leaders of the two world powers. "Strategic Stability" in US -China relations instead of China seen as a rival and a threat- is now the goal of Xi Jinping of China in 2026 US-China dialogues and meetings. This was abundantly clear during the DJT visit to Beijing August 14 2026 and will continue to shape relations during Xi's visit in September. This is different from the confrontational attitude taken by both DJT in the first administration and Biden in his four years in office. The result is that these tensions are being gradually brought down which started in 2014, were exacerbated by Covid pandemic in 2019, and were put to the test in 2025 with tariffs policies of the incoming DJT administration. A decade of mistrust now being replaced by  buildup of cooperation, establishing a sense of trust and friendship. Partly out of necessity and partly from choice.This was not secured by giving up on issues the US or China saw as important. US did not concede anything on issues of fentanyl entering the US from Mexico, and tariffs for reducing trade deficits. Similarly China did not concede much on issues it saw as important, mutual respect for China as a significant power, and seeing China's different system of government and industrialization as legitimate and worthy of respect. On Hong Kong and on Taiwan both sides decided to see ambiguity and live and let live as the best option. So that in 2026 nothing, not the Iran War or anything that happens in the Middle East is to be allowed to deter both sides from making the educated good and decent choices that are available to them based on attitude of mutual respect.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For the first time in decades the U.S. trade deficit with China is falling significantly. China's exports to the U.S. dropped 12.5% to $296 billion in 2019 from $323 billion in 2018, according to Chinese customs data. Actually China's trade surplus with the U.S would have fallen even more had not the U.S. exports to China declined by 21%. With the Phase 1 trade deal negotiated recently U.S. exports to China will increase significantly, while 25% tariff on $250 billion in Chinese goods still in place limits China's exports. This means in 2021 and 2022 and years ahead China's surplus should shrink much faster achieving one of the principal goals of Mr. Trump and his trade negotiator Mr. Lighthizer. Mr. Lighthizer was chosen by Mr. Trump for having accomplished a similar goal decades back in the eighties with Japan's surplus. Even though China has not stated this in writing, American officials have said China will increase purchases of American goods and services by at least $200 billion over the next 2 years from 2017 levels. China and the U.S. have essentially agreed that the two economies so tightly intertwined works to the detriment of the U.S. with the Chinese surplus creating tensions. China will now have the European Union as the largest trading partner followed by south east Asian countries, and other regions. China decided that its priority is technological development and was unwilling to meet U.S. demands to reduce its efforts for technological competition and access to western technologies. Instead opting for shifting it economy away from dependence on exports to the U.S. in a gradual way. The other demand of the U.S. for stopping state subsidies is also a concession China is not willing to make as it sees it as an economic feature of its business model that is working and a competitive advantage.  This leaves the U.S. with a limited win so that trade and resulting jobs can be brought into favoring the U.S. a key Trump goal, and not a win in the technological competition with China which will continue. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's exports to US declined by 30% in 2025 from $438 billion in 2024 to $308 billion in 2025. The US trade deficit with China declined by 31% from $295 billion in 2024 to $202 billion in 2025. US had a $178 billion trade deficit with Vietnam and some of this could be China's exports to the US through Vietnam and this should be taken into account. For the world as a whole China had a trade surplus of $1.2 trillion in 2025 as it continues to push its exports on the rest of the world.

LyrArc Article Gist
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says this is not chaos in tariff policy because you don't change 70 years of policy overnight. He says China's is highest because it has the highest trade deficit, then EU, Japan, South Korea at 15% because of the smaller deficits with these nations, Vietnam because it is used  by China to send products to the US, India because of geopolitical reasons buying Russian oil. See Dasha Burns, Politico White House Bureau Chief's  interview with USTR Jamieson Greer.  He says about India- Jamieson USTR calls India "an outlier" and says "I'm confident we will get a deal with India in the near future." India he says has largely corrected its imports of Russian oil and negotiations are underway for a deal.  ON USMCA Greer says of the $31 trillion in trade with Canada and Mexico $29 trillion is us right. trade between Canda and Mexico is small. So he says it makes sense to negotiate separately with Canada and separately with Mexico. This suggests that there doesnt need to be a USMCA- separate deals are just fine says Greer. Mexico has gained much in automobiles under USMCA- US wants to make more in the US including auto parts which it can do by negotiating this with Mexico. It does not make a ton of economic sense to marry the three economies together, says Greer, as the import export profiles, lab,or situations are all different. Are Tariffs good for the economy and do they lead to higher prices? Greer says inflation was down in the first DJT term in trade with China and tariffs. Greer says there is never a 1 to 1 with tariffs. It tariffs become a kind of leveage in getting agreements. That is the style of these tariffs. You tell Ecuador or Brazil we don't make these here so there will be no tariffs on bananas and on coffee. Says Greer- we have seen inflation in check, imported goods relatively low priced. We have seen that we can have growth and higher wages with tariffs at the same time. The growth in 2025 third quarter at 3.8% annual growth, and Atlanta Fed predicting 4.2% growth in 2026. And tariff money can be used for paying down the debt and financing America's reindustrialization, Greer says members of Congress are asking about this.When a new administration comes tariffs will still be part of the playbook. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
 President DJT has several options after SC Tariffs decision -Sections 122 Trade Act of 1972 has 150 day limit and 15% maximum tariff rate, and Sections 232 and 301 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 is specifically designed for China and countries with high trade deficits. DJT pointed out at the press conference following the Supreme Court decision pointed out that he had these options at the beginning in April for tariffs. He chose IEEPA instead because the other options required work that would take several months showing the unfair treatment of the US by other nations. It is likely that the president used IEEPA for speed yet kept open the options to replace it with the option that would work best. The new studies will have been started much earlier in 2025 so that the president can introduce all his tariffs under new arrangements. Another aspect of this is that the president has negotiated Free Trade Agreements with most of the nations that are large trade partners from India, China, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan to UK, EU, Germany, France with the idea of boosting the US economy with tariffs of 10-15%. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
For the first time the U.S. focuses on the huge trade deficit with China in a serious way. The trade negotiating team led by Robert Lighthizer has set forth its negotiating terms.  1. China must reduce its trade deficit with the U.S. by $100 billion in the first 12 months. In the next 12 months it must reduce its deficit by another $100 billion. In 2 years the trade deficit the U.S. has with China must come down by $200 billion. The issue is no longer just the tariffs on steel, it is about the core issue of balance in  trade. 2. The U.S. says subsidies to state industries in the "Made in China 2025" program must stop. Here the focus is on gaining an unfair technological advantage with a combination of U.S. technology imports and subsidies to state advanced manufacturing industries to erode over time the U.S. technological lead.  3.  China is expected to cut its tariffs by about two thirds on imported products so that the tariffs match that of the U.S. This is the first serious negotiation the U.S. has conducted with China on the core issue of the trade surplus which is growing with a stronger dollar not declining. The surplus approaches $1 billion each day for about $365 billion a year, unsustainable from any perspective. The vital issue of the erosion of the U.S. technological advantage under the Made in China 2025 has turned this issue into one in which the U.S. is unlikely to back down. Especially now that Mr. Lighthizer is leading the  negotiations and has the confidence of the president of the U.S. Lighthizer is a veteran of negotiations from an earlier period -under the Reagan administration in a similar situation with another national competitor- then it was the Japanese. A relentless negotiator as the U.S. seeks to reverse a trade imbalance of stupendous proportions neglected by previous administrations.           ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. and China sign Phase 1 of the trade agreement in a sign of reduction of trade tensions between the two countries. Difficult issues of state subsidies under China's state enterprise model of development, and technological competition were put off for the future. China made the deal possible by agreeing to double its purchases of agricultural products, and offering to purchase about $200 billion in American goods and services over the next two years. This gives relief to farmers, a key part of Mr.Trump's support base. This also helps achieve a key Trump and U.S. goal of cutting the U.S. trade deficit with China quickly, just as happened decades ago with Japan.  See the related article and link on how for the first time in decades China's trade surplus with the U.S. is now set on a path for permanent decline. It dropped significantly in 2019 by 12.5% even though China's imports from the U.S. dropped by 21%, based on Chinese customs data released for 2019. With China increasing these imports significantly and the U.S. holding on to tariffs of 25% on $250 billon of China's exports to the U.S. which are outside the Phase 1 agreement, the downward course is set for the next few years for correction of a dangerous trade imbalance. That imbalance was allowed to develop over successive Republican and Democratic administrations. China already has the European Union as its first leading trading partner and south east Asia as its second. China plans to not be so closely intertwined with the U.S. in trade, and yet preserve its state sponsored development model and drive to compete in technology. China's increased purchases from the U.S. of $200 billon are broken down in terms of farm products- $32 billion, manufactured goods- $80 billion, energy products- $50 billion, services $35 billion. In effect the U.S. gets its goal of cutting the unsustainable China trade surplus quickly and with certainty in 3-5 years. China uses the period to transition for less trade linkage with the U.S. yet preserving its state sponsored model of development and drive for technological advancement.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US DJT Tariffs impact 1 year later- global trade has held up well with US unemployment at 4.4% and economic growth at 2.1%. China imports down from 20% in 2016 to 10% ten years later in 2026. For DJT that was a promise kept leading to a sharp decoupling of the US economy from the Chinese economy that was leading to huge trade deficits of 1 trillion dollars. Too much of the world's supply chain was tied up with manufacturing in China. It got so bad under Reagan, the two Bushes, Clinton/Obama that the US and EU were facing deindustrialization with huge risks to the future of the US and Europe as industrial powers. 150 years of industrialization and scientific advancement, the great achievements of Europe and the United States since 1860's was going up in smoke over reckless policies of Republican and Democratic elites who gave little thought and barely understood the long run effects of their policies and textbook theories of the economy. Most economists from ivy league universities got it completely wrong. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
 President Trump says China is backing off in negotiations to address U.S. demands for a fair relationship on trade. He says the U.S. will increase tariffs from 10% imposed in September 2018 to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods starting May 10, 2019. China has put tariffs of 10% on $60 billion of American goods exported to China responding to the American tariffs in last September.  The U.S. says since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 with the approval of president Clinton it has unfairly benefited in trade with the U.S., leading to closure of factories and loss of jobs in the U.S. with state subsidized Chinese exports to the U.S. contrary to the spirit of the WTO and its rules. China has made promises to correct this and not kept them says the U.S. side in negotiations led by Robert Lighthizer. The tariffs moves are a tactic of president Trump to get China to relent and make fundamental changes in the way it exports to the U.S.  So far the Chinese response has been tit for tat. But this can change. As this report points out what is already known that China benefits far more and exports far more to the U.S. than the U.S. does to China. The $60 billion of American goods exports on which China placed tariffs represent two fifths of China's imports from U.S. With smaller exports from the U.S. to China, China has not much leverage in trade negotiations in this kind of tit for tat retaliation. It hurts China's exporters and economy much more than it does U.S. consumers. The increase in prices for U.S. consumers are also not expected to be significant, according to this report in the NYT, if China increase tariffs further. Aware of this and China's belief that past administrations have not responded is a guide to what the Trump administration can or will do, has convinced president Trump that there is no other way to get a fair trading relationship that respects U.S. interests, its jobs and workers. As Robert Lighthizer who leads the U.S. negotiating team faced this type of response from the Japanese when he negotiated with them (shoving off U.S. demands to reduce Japan's trade surplus in the eighties before accepting them), the U.S. thinks this strategy will work again. In any case it sees no alternatives to achieve its goal of a fair and balanced trading relationship. The U.S. international trade deficit in goods was up to $891 billion in February 2019 even after the tariffs on Chinese goods in September, showing that it will take a lot more to turn this as well as other trading relationships around.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. trade deficit with China was declining till the coronavirus hit in February. Now it is back on the way up, a warning signal for the Trump administration as it seeks to stop sending American wealth out of the country in an utterly disproportionate way of $346 billion in just 2019 after taking action on tariffs and renegotiating trade agreements.  Imports grew 11% in July to $231 billion. While exports increased but not as much by 8.1% to $168 billion in July, still well below February/s $209 billion. That leaves a trade gap of $63 billion. This is the largest trade deficit since July 2008. The U.S. trade deficit is a major issue and is watched carefully as the Trump administration sets a goal of rebalancing world trade so that the U.S. no longer runs such large trade deficits with China, and Germany, and does not shift wealth overseas. The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2019 was $346 billion, with Japan and Germany it is much smaller close to $70 billion for each country. The Trump administration goal is to all out reduce this deficit through trade agreements and other actions that stop the current outflow of U.S. wealth overseas by $1 billion a day to just one country. For this it seek a level playing field which means other countries have to face tariffs if they unfairly subsidize their industries or violate labor rights for unfair competition, or in other ways seek to unfairly gain an advantage over the U.S. including through transfer of technologies from the U.S. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
US and China agree on the first step to a broader trade deal. US offers to take in Chinese students at American Universities, something DJT says he was good with.  “Chinese students using our college and universities,” adding that such attendance has “always been good with me.”  China for its part will not slow move export of magnets and rare earth minerals on which it has established a near monopoly of the supplies. These rare earth minerals are needed for technology products made in the US. US tariffs of 55% will still say in place as "deterrance" that the other side keeps its promises and to cut the trade deficit with China not simply talk about it has has happened for a decade of Bush, Obama, Biden. Treasury Secretary Bessent and Jamieson Greer US Trade Representative were at London talks with Commerce Secretary Howard Luttnick to find ways to get an impasse resolved. Both sides lack confidence in what the other is doing so that theis the first step to clarify the direction of talks for achieving a broader deal.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
EIA says half of the benefit of higher fuel efficiency standards for Automobiles 2010-2020 in US was lost because of SUV's and the incentivizing of SUV's in the 2006 CAFE standards have made things worse. The first SUV's came in the 1980's. By 2004 SUV's made up half of car sales and by 2025 outsold cars 2 to 1. What if we took all SUV's and large cars off the roads, or even some of these SUV's by deincentivizing of SUV's in the US CAFE corporate fuel efficiency standards? What would be the savings in crude oil and in carbon footprint? Would it be about the same as releasing an additional 400 million barrels of oil into the markets in addition to the 400 million barrels that are now released through EIA and member countries? This New Yorker essay touches on this idea. During the Iran war the volatile Middle East as a source of oil supplies is a major problem for countries. Some are rationing supplies and in one country 40 million children are not going to school for 2 weeks starting this week because of the sources of oil are so precarious, government offices will only have half of the employees, the rest working from home (almost like Covid pandemic). Many other countries face that situation. The International Energy Agency recently reported that, if “SUVs were an individual country, they would rank sixth in the world for absolute emissions in 2021, emitting over 900 million tonnes of CO2.” The agency says governments must redesign their CAFE standards and their policies so that it would reduce S.U.V. sales, tax gas guzzling vehicles. EIA cites governments in the EU doing this- “Some governments have already started introducing relevant measures, such as France and Germany, which have put a tax on large and high-emissions cars.” Within SUV's also there is an opportunity to reduce the size and make more efficient space utilization designs. Small savings also add up. One has to realize that the current freedom to use energy freely in places like the US with self sufficiency in oil comes with a sense of responsibility for using it wisely so that it can be exported to cut the trade deficit, precisely what the president is doing with India, to cut a trade deficit of $58 billion before it gets to $100 billion. Section 301 is already in place for investigations by the US of 18 countries for a new basis to use tariffs after the Supreme Court decision. A similar approach is taken with EU for hundreds of billions of reductions in trade deficit that will only strengthen the US dollar and the US economy in the long run , and be good for stock markets and jobs as it reduces oil prices and increases the manufacturing capacity/cost for the Nation. Europe, India and China can do the same. Remember that in 2010 SUV's made up 17% of total world sales, and by 2025 SUV's made up 46% of world vehicle sales. This would create another 400 million barrels for the oil markets, which would triple what was released through EIA  this week to 1.2 billion barrels and this would create 120 days of supply replacement for the 10 million b/d lost from Straits of Hormuz, and effectively end the Iran War as it would be clear that prices can be kept low even in the $50's. Essentially buying time till the SU can get more production in Venezuela and other parts of the world to replace much of the Middle Eastern oil that is ending up in a quagmire. This is the best way for the US and Europe, India, China to ensure jobs growth, economic growth with low cost crude oil in the $50 range and ensure much of the poorer countries like Egypt and Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, have access to oil at prices they can afford and eliminate poverty. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A look at the deficit/imports deficits divided by imports ratio formula used by DJT in Rose Garden chart Liberation Day April 2, 2025 shows the importance of deficits and total imports by country. The criticism in NYT of this formula centers on- Why not the use of manufactured goods plus services and why exclude services. This is easily answered the whole idea is to bring manufacturing back to the US. US Trade Representative Jamieson and president DJT say 5 million manufacturing jobs were lost and 90,000 factories closed over 2 decades of outshoring by American companies, most of it to China. Only by focusing on manufactured goods can this be corrected. What about using a five year average of the trade deficit instead of most recent 2024 trade deficit used by the president DJT? NYT says it distorts the ratio for Equatorial Guinea? But it shifts it only slightly by less than 1 percent for China and even less than that for the European Union. US is focused on correcting the unfair treatment of American workers and factories inside America that led to this loss of 5 million jobs and tens of thousands of factories, destroying the Nation's industrial base. Most of it to China, What that has to do with Equatorial Guinea is beyond comprehension and shows the ignorance that is fueling much of the criticism of the efforts to support American workers who are the best in the world when given the opportunity and management is doing it's job right. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
So much for political campaigning and talk of inflation, inflation comes in lower in September after DJT tariffs of 10-15% on EU, Japan and other trading partners. The higher tariffs on China are action needed to reduce trillion dollar trade deficits the world has with China, deficits that are economically destabilizing for the world economy, with supply chain concentration a serious problem. US inflation in September came in at 3.0 percent lower than expected.  One reason is that the headline numbers are high but in actual practice the tariffs are on average at 12.5% not 17% or 25% as headlines show. The tariffs vary by country and the US was careful to keep them at 10% for the EU and Britain and 15% for Japan, the key trading partners. China is an exception at 47% because it is US policy to reduce the world's 1 trillion trade deficit with China and cutting this is a major goal. For decades the US tried every possible way to bring it down to no avail till this effort with tariffs. Another is exceptions in products- for India this includes semiconductors, smartphones and pharmaceuticals. Another factor is that postpandemic inflation in 2021-2022 created higher profit margins in auto, retail and other sectors of the economy. As a result only 30-40% of the tariff gets passed onn to consumers. In autos only about 20% because buyers cannot afford the high prices. Some tariffs are still being negotiated and are a foreign policy tool to get India to stop funding Russia in the Ukraine war knowing that India was importing most of its oil from non-Russian sources till 2019. China is also funding Russia, that is true but the US can insist on exercising its leverage with Asian partners not China. With China the tariff on fentanyl and the overall 47% tariff- down from 57% after meetings in Busan, South Korea between Xi and DJT last month- shows the US takes the Chinese role in distorting world trade to its benefit seriously.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Washington Post Analysis and details of Census Bureau trade information in September 2025 -showing the country by country and product tariffs by US and which tariffs are waiting for final trade agreements. China, India and Switzerland, Mexico face high tariffs. UK, EU, South Korea, Japan have made trade agreements with the US, China, India Swiss are still to finalize trade agreements leading to the uncertainty. The North American Trade Agreement is being renegotiated leading to uncertainty for Mexico and Canada which have both benefitted from trade with the US to detriment of US manufacturers.  China has huge surpluses that keep growing over time to $1 trillion ($992 billion) a year in 2024.  DJT Tariffs are designed as a bold step to remake the international trading system so that it does not work to the benefit of other nations gaming the system over decades as US administrations Clinton, Bush, Obama, paid no attention. Trade Deficits and the National Debt are a problem not just the National Debt. On the National Debt Republicans have pushed through cuts in parts of the budget where costs had escalated tremendously. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Where did the numbers in the US president DJT's charts come from wjen shown in the Rose Garden on Liberation Day April 2 2025? The number for example 68% for China comes from a ratio- deficit by country divided by total imports to US.  The numerator reflects the US concern about trade deficits. It is exports minus imports for China in this instance. In 2024 China's exports were $438 billion to the US. It's imports were $143 billion. The difference is the surplus or deficit China has with the US. China's surplus is $295 billion. China's surplus is also America's deficit with China when turned around and seen from the viewpoint of America. The denominator reflects the US concern about how much it is importing from each country- this is how much it is not making inside America and which it has to get from another country. The more that it imports from another country the less it makes at home. If labor in the US gets too costly and is not cooperative to make well designed reliable products more factories close and are build outside in another country. This has consequences- serious consequences over time as it spreads to different industries. FOr the first time in history. A foreign nation makes practically everything and US acts only as a consuming nation- this means the workers jobs and incomes in the US are destroyed. It is often a sign of serious decline in the Nation. $295 billion/$438 billion is 67%. This is the China number shown on DJT's chart in the Rose Garden. The tariff and non tariff barriers and currency manipulation that China conducts in trade with US is measured in this way as an estimate, much higher than actual tariffs which is why US products don't get the treatment they deserve in China's market.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This is a report on unfair trade with China. China and unfair trade resulting in a $295 billion trade surplus with US. China and unfair trade resulting in a $1 trillion trade deficit with the world. This has devastated manufacturing communities, workers and families, for 1 billion people in the US and Europe, and deprived India of opportunities in manufacturing for 1.4 billion people. Alongside this article we have CPA article showing losses in manufacturing and the cost to the American people using estimates of three types of losses in jobs, other jobs, and taxes that provide public services and infrastructure. The massive blow to America over the last decade of unfair trade and overconcentration of manufacturing in  China was for 25 million in job losses and $250 billion in local infrastructure and public services lost for workers and families in communities and towns across vast parts of America.

LyrArc Article Gist
China's president Xi Jinping visiting a trade fair in Shanghai, says China will shift to larger imports as it responds to calls from the U.S. and Europe to further open its markets, and buy more rather than focus on selling to the world. He said "it is China's sincere commitment to open the Chinese market." More than 80% of China's trading partners have trade deficits with China with severe complaints and tariffs imposed on Chinese goods by the U.S. president Trump.

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson says the bill in the U.S. Senate is symbolic because it allows companies to cite the undervalued renminbi as an illegal subsidy and have the Commerce Department impose duties on Chinese products. This would have to be done on a case by case basis, making it largely ineffective in dealing with the large trade deficit with China. He also cites the differences among economists that show a range between 1 million and 2.8 million jobs lost. The 2.8 million jobs estimate is from the Economic Policy Institute for the period 2001-2010. The 1 million is an estimate for 1990-2007, which estimates a loss of quarter of all manufacturing jobs. By WTO rules subsidies that are not targeted at specific industries or firms are allowed, according to lawyers. Which means China could appeal to the WTO, and impose retaliatory duties. In the meantime the trade deficit with China, with imports of $364 billion in 2010, and $86 billion in exports, would remain largely unaffected. This is the reason some Senators, including Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah), see this move as political posturing by President Obama and the Democrats, because the administration has no new proposals to address the trade deficit and the gradual erosion of America's manufacturing base. Samuelson cites Arvind Subramanium of the Peterson Institute, and his book "Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China's Economic Dominance." Subramanium says what is at stake is not a temporary imbalance in world trade a happened with Japan in the 1980's, but a gradual shift to a system of trade in which China has preferential access to raw materials (oil, grain, minerals), subsidizes exports in new industries as it moves upscale from shoes and textiles to automobiles, aircraft and alternative energy, and changes the very nature of the global trading system as it becomes the dominant trading nation in the world. By Subramanium's estimate China's share of global trade increased from 1.6% to 9.8% in the 2 decades from 1990 to 2010. In two more decades he estimates China could increase this to 15% of global trade, significantly larger than the U.S. In a response to Congressmen, businessmen and policymakers wary of starting a trade war, Samuelson says there already is a trade war as a "fixed" system of trade undermines America's manufacturing and industrial base. The only difference being that today only one side is fighting that war, and America is slow to grasp the implications or its policymakers are clueless how to respond....

LyrArc Article Gist
With the strong positions taken by Clinton and Trump on China in the 2016 election campaign, U.S. relations with China enter a new phase. The strident tone in the campaign on China on trade deficit, women's issues, human rights, comes with the issues relating to China's role in the South China Sea and cyber espionage already in the background.

LyrArc Article Gist
As the trade problems with the U.S. escalate in tit for tat tariffs, China looks back at its history for parallels. The period of the "unequal treaties" imposed by the Western powers on China in the period 1850-1900, the Korean War of the 1950's, and other analogies that come up to people. Yet China's planners and leaders are looking at another situation the Plaza Accord of 1985 in which the western nations pressured Japan into accepting a significantly higher exchange rate to reduce its trade surplus and the Japanese yen appreciated by 50%. Japan cut interest rates from 5% to 2.5%, and introduced huge fiscal stimulus, banks opened up to lend vigorously. The result was a boom by 1990's followed by a bust that led to another decade of lending to loss making firms called "zombie" businesses, that led to a stagnant economy. This has persisted for three decades. This China sees as an unacceptable situation when China has still not achieved developed economy status in terms of per capita incomes. It fears getting into a middle income trap as the economic growth slows and the aging population makes a recovery more difficult.  The difference with Japan in the 1985-1990 period is that Mr. Trump lacks the kind of five nation economic coordination that put pressure on Japan. Today there are differing views on China in Europe and the U.S. and different policies. Mr. Trump is known for his style of deal making and could settle early, as feared by some Republican leaders in Congress who see in China a challenge to America's technological dominance. There are no calls to appreciate China's currency. Only calls for China to change its state subsidies model and put in writing and through laws that change the way of doing business that does not require American companies to hand over advanced technology. This is also a concern for Japan and the European Union countries such as Germany, and is something all nations try to protect in global competition. Japan is still facing the consequences in creating a new competitor in high speed train technology after building the first high speed trains in China and transfer of the high speed train technology by Kawasaki. The Household Survey by the Federal Reserve showing the financial fragility of 40% of American families shown on this page today shows how this situation is likely to evolve as working class families in the U.S. support a trade stance that protects American jobs and technology. Job losses over three decades and a $891 billion trade deficit in 2018 are seen as unacceptable to the U.S. in 2019. A stronger U.S. dollar helped increase the U.S. trade deficit by 10% in 2018, nullifying some benefits of Mr. Trump's trade actions. Mr. Robert Lighthizer was a negotiator in the trade dispute with Japan in 1985, and runs the negotiations with China with support from president Trump. This alone has kept the Japanese situation in 1985 uppermost in the minds of China's leaders as they try to come up with a way to settle the trade dispute with Mr. Trump.     ...

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
It is no surprise what we see in the US today- the loss of the middle class, the unaffordability crisis for education, healthcare, childcare, and poor, broken infrastructure. Over 10 years the US trade deficit with China has led to loss of about 25 million jobs and $250 billion in taxes that support local infrastructure and public services. Where 20% of the people do 80% of the spending, 80% of the people only 20% of spending (Moody's Analytics). This is how the uneven trade led to the destruction of manufacturing centers and communities across the 51 states in America, devastating families and young people. This is no longer Washington's, Lincon's or FDR's land of opportunity. Each $1 billion in additional imports to the US costs 4252 jobs. (CPA) This can be read as how many jobs are being lost in the additional trade of goods when one side is exporting more than the other.  There are three levels of losses. There is also an indirect job loss in the number of jobs created by that one job in manufacturing to serve the needs of these factory families in communities. This can be estimated at 1 job that depends on 1 manufacturing job. Together this means 8500 jobs lost for every $1 billion of goods in a trade deficit. US trade deficit of $295 billion in 2024 with China translates into about 2.5 million jobs lost every year. Over 10 years this is about 20-25 million jobs, enough to decimate America's entire manufacturing capabilities and manufacturing infrastructure, whole communities and towns disappearing or suffering destruction across the country.  With the loss of these jobs comes a third cost, the taxes paid that maintain small town infrastructure and public services like libraries, schools and health centers where these factories are located. At $10,000 in taxes lost per job, for 8500 jobs lost per $1 billion in uneven trade there is a loss of $85 million.  For the $295 billion deficit the US has with China this loss adds up to $25 billion per year. Over 10 years this means taking out this much in local infrastructure and public services like libraries, schools and health centers worth $250 billion.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ looks at the result of changes in supply chains away from China, and the new trading relationship with China to 2028. He says the shift to a new global supply chain that diversifies it away from concentration in China is taking place. Would taking the tariffs from 30% to 60% under a new Trump administration be a good idea? Greg Ip thinks it is a bad idea as the change is gradual and is actually taking place. It may have the unintended effect of worsening US China relations essential for global stability when it is coupled with erratic or retaliatory rhetoric. Rhetoric that appears to China that it is being singled out in world trade beyond what are changes that have taken place with Japan in the past in trade. The Biden administration is for good reasons working to restore a balanced yet stable relationship with China. Apple is shifting production of 25% of iPhones to India. Samsung is investing more in Vietnam. The trade deficit with Mexico has reached $151 billion twice as large as in 2017. And $100 billion with Vietnam three times as large as 2017. The US trade deficit with China has dropped from $381 billion to $281 billion in the last 12 months, the Commerce Department reports show. And from $1.1 trillion with the whole world from $1.2 trillion for the last 12 months, 4% of US GDP. Overall the Trump era tariffs of 30% have not reduced the US  trade deficit substantially but has shifted American and European foreign investment to India, Vietnam, Mexico and other countries as well as to the home country. Over time the supply chain would become truly diversified as India makes great strides to become the third largest economy with new infrastructure by 2030. The head emeritus of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, Joerg Wuttke, says the pressure to export will be high for China as its economy shifts more to manufacturing from construction. Most Chinese companies are producing more than internal demand in China, and most companies in solar are losing money, in wind turbines and solar all are losing money, Wuttke says. This means China will double down and increase its investments in Mexico, Vietnam, Morocco and other countries so that it can send its products to the US through third countries that do the final export. One expert even says removing a few screws here and some there, find a different supplier, and shipping to a third party for final export that makes it not 100% Chinese content, the pressure for that is high. ...