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
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
Trade and economic relations between Germany and China are deteriorating. See the video on Economy minister Habeck "The Naivety towards China is over," in this DW.com report. Habeck said this at a G7 economy ministers meeting in September- "the naivety towards China is over." Habeck has denied the VW group guarantees for investments in China in May. German companies business in China was supported by government guarantees for exports and investments in China. Germany has about 90 billion euros of investments in China. The relationship began in 1972 when China was a poor developing country, and surged particularly in the Merkel years when China was no longer a developing country. Today Germany and the US face technological competition from China and the reappraisal of global supply chains overly dependent on one country.

LyrArc Article Gist
US president Biden's multi-trillion dollar spending plans for infrastructure, climate change plans, education and healthcare, are based on a changing perception about the effectiveness of the public sector spending initiatives. The Reagan period idea that the public sector is not as efficient as the private sector that lingered through the Clinton, Bush and Obama, Trump administrations is no longer accepted. After the pandemic another perception is taking root that when it comes to health infrastructure the government has a leading and indispensable role to play. Gone are the doubts about this that hung like a cloud over the nation's plans for infrastructure in health, education and supply channels. Following the global competition with China a new factor is also playing its part. The need for government to play an active role in trade, in protecting technological resources, and in supporting US technological firms in competition with other countries. There is a new perception that the government should be determined to play this role. In the effort to be self-reliant after the pandemic the government is expected to play a role in redesigning the supply channels and providing the direction and incentives for supply channels worldwide that give America a competitive advantage and less dependence on other nations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
That India is meeting and exceeding goals set under the paris Climate Change agreement is a great achievement of the last 6 years says this Hindustan Times editorial. India's achievements in solar and other forms of renewable energy have been achieved with a bold vision and strong effort of its own showing that climate change agreements are not the only way to tackle climate change. As one of the major users of energy from coal and fossil fuels India's bold action makes a huge difference for the world. As China, EU, Britain and Japan commit to a net zero carbon target India is now one of many countries in the competition to reduce fossil fuels. This also means HT says that India must now be prepared for technological competition as well as shift to renewable energy sources. The return of the U.S. to the climate accords now positions both countries to benefit from each others advances in renewable energy. Partnership with Britain and Japan also offers new possibilities for technology access and sharing so that more gains can be made to benefit India's and the global environment for clean skies, clean air and clean waters. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
German foreign policy is seen as too dependent on China and too China focused, in this conversation of DW.com with experts at German Council on Foreign Affairs (DGAP), European Council on Foreign Relations. Germany had little focus on India and no clear policy to expand ties under Merkel. German foreign policy should take the example of France and other Scandinavian nations in building strong ties with India, says this report. Relations with China of the US and EU countries are strained following trade and technological competition. Merkel continued old policies from 2000-2010 in 2010-2020 even as the EU was losing its technological edge with China. This report says a new German federal government after the upcoming election has to decide what relations it wants to build with India, following the example of France, and Scandinavian nations. And what role the EU will play in India's rapid development in industry,  technology, shipping, transportation, renewable energy, other fields, and opportunities for co-operaton in many fields in 2020-2030. This is also about "Whats at stake for Germany?" in new foreign policy under a new chancellor from SPD or Greens, or some other coalition. And what role Germany will play in the rapid modernization transformation that is now likely to take place in India in the next 10 years. ...

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

LyrArc Article Gist
The World Trade Organization is about to choose a new director-general to succeed Mr. Azevedo, a career diplomat from Brazil. The two candidates are a former finance minister from Nigeria,  Ms. Okonjo-Iweala supported by the European Union and the trade minister of South Korea, Ms. Yoo Myung-hee, supported by the U.S. Japan supports the Nigerian candidate because of its trade disputes with South Korea. The role of head of WTO is important today because of trade issues between countries particularly the trade issues between China and the U.S., U.S. and other countries. And the sense that the WTO arrangement is not working for many countries in recent years without a level playing field in many industries from improper subsidies. Before the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization not much attention was given by the U.S. to how it had changed after new elections. As a result non profit foundations like the Gates Foundation from the U.S. played a leading part in representation of American interests and China played a leading role leading to the crisis facing WHO today. During the coronavirus pandemic the WHO lacking adequate influence of U.S. or European Union countries was not able to act in a way that met the needs and concerns of these countries with advanced health systems. In the past pandemics were better addressed worldwide when the U.S. and EU played a major role from the beginning because of long experience and technological resources,  a role that was missing in the current pandemic. Ebola and other virus were tackled in Africa only when the U.S. or European countries played a leading and critical role. This role was sorely missed in the current crisis. This is why changes at the World Trade Organization matter. World trade is important for the world economy and can best operate when the concerns of U.S. and European Union about a level playing field and fair competition are met. This level playing field and fair competition also meet the interests of developing countries such as India which are industrializing rapidly and need to protect their own markets from unfair dumping, as well as Indonesia and other parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa that are part of the supply chain for the world economy. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China chooses periodic blockades or air-sea coordinated exercizes around Taiwan's 12 mile waters as a strategy to respond to US Indo-Pacific strategy of keeping lanes of sea traffic and navigation on oceans open to all nations. This is seen as less risky than an outright invasion. Military exercises in August 2022 are seen as preparing for such a strategy.  The US is the destination for $541 billion and Europe $521 billion in products Made in China in 2021, which make China the manufacturing powerhouse in the world. Without the export of $1 trillion in Chinese products thousands of factories and millions of Chinese workers would remain idle. It is unbelievable that China is risking so much with its Taiwan policy with no idea of what the consequences would be years from now. It took China three decades after the gradual opening by 1990 and a willingness on the part of American and European governments and business to give up much of their own manufacturing leading to loss of jobs in communities across both America and Europe and much pain from this loss, for China to get to $1 trillion in exports. This situation may never come back as the supply chains shift and jobs return home and to countries that are becoming competitive in infrastructure and capabilities in Asia. Such competition between nations is not unknown as it was with Imperial Japan in the Pacific just 100 years back. The US maintains its position as keeping navigation on the oceans of the world open and rule of law, and it is on these foundations that China was able to get the strong manufacturing and exporting position it has now that no nation has enjoyed in history to this extent. Only the British come close in the nineteenth century. So much of China's progress in the twentieth century was a result of cooperation and support from America, from the first university Tsinghua in Beiijing, to the war against imperialist forces of Japan, to the rebuilding of China's manufacturing and technological competitiveness with American business cooperation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This commentary in the WSJ says it is essential that the U.S. get back manufacturing of all technological goods back to the U.S. or its allies. The dangers of depending on China or other countries not clearly allied with the U.S. is quite clear especially after the pandemic. The U.S. and European supply chains need to be completely remade, restructured, to avoid dependence on China or countries that are not allies. This is what supply chain renewal is about. Yet initiatives alone with hundreds of billions of dollars price tag re not the answer to the problem. What is needed are specific targeted actions such government direct assistance to key sectors to ensure U.S. technological advantages in worldwide competition. Giving a hole range of incentives and direct financial support to industries making everything from electronic and computer components to high tech parts that go to defense and civilian production.   The U.S educational component in this puzzle is university students in all high tech courses which should be kept for U.S. citizens or from key allied nations at American universities. The manufacturing base would mean securing incentives and aid to manufacturing industries, component by component, part by part, to secure American leadership and distinct advantage.  Job losses have to be reversed and industries relocated back to the U.S. And only in cases where it is advantageous to manufacture overseas to relocate in allied countries India, Japan or South Korea. U.S. labor has to be brought into the picture as a key participant in the national interest and given an important role. R& D efforts have to be developed component by component, technological part by part, and technology by technology, so that a systematic plan can be followed to secure American leadership for the rest of this century, is what experts including this one say is required today. ...

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
Kevin Maurer looks back at 15 years of covering Afghanistan since 2004, and asks was it worth it.  The conflict has cost 145,000 lives for the U.S. period of the war alone. Not counting the war in which the Russians were involved in the decade before the U.S. involvement. In fact the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was costly enough to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union and bring Gorbachev to power to unwind the war and make the changes that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.  2400 U.S. servicemen dead and 20,000 Americans wounded. The cost to the U.S. is $737 billion for this war, according to a report in 2018 from Brown University's Costs of War Project. Just as the Soviet Union showed the damage from this war the U.S. has seen the cost of this war and foreign entanglement in another war that started accidentally with international interventions in the Iran-Iraq region as a cost that was borne with consequences. This includes the neglect of infrastructure and the damage to the middle class prosperity built up in the 1950's and 1960's after the Second World War. The U.S. got into this war with 9/11 attacks on New York City. By 2010 what began as a war fought by a few Special Operations teams turned into a war with troop levels reaching 100,000. Presidents Bush and Obama both failed to end the war by winning it. In 2014 finally combat operations stopped and American troops mainly conducted anti-terrorism operations and trained Afghan forces. In recent years the war has gradually disappeared from the national discussion in the U.S. and is barely talked about. President Trump wants to end the war even if it means talking to the Taliban and negotiations directly with the Taliban are ongoing.  One result of this war is the aversion to costly international entanglements and the highly unpopular nature of the conflicts. There are serious costs of the conflict in terms of neglected domestic priorities including infrastructure, loss of U.S. technological edge in key industries, and the competition from China, an the investments in health, education, services that were not made, the increase in inequalities and the diminishing of the middle class. The global financial crisis of 2008, the result of faulty banking, added an economic dimension through the loss of middle class savings in the U.S., worsening the financial situation of the middle class in the U.S.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump escalates the trade battle with China by increasing tariffs on $200 billion Chinese goods from 10% to 25%. The U.S. says China went back on its commitments in a 150 page agreement at the 11th hour or last minute, by deleting these commitments in all 7 chapters of this agreement. These are firm commitments sought by the U.S. in a number of areas of deep concern to the U.S. and the U.S. Trade Representative Mr. Lighthizer had already conveyed the determination of the U.S. to not relent on this. In the past China was seen to go back on its commitments and the U.S. side now wanted to ensure promises were kept. The U.S. concerns cover- theft of intellectual property and trade secrets, forced technology transfers, competition policy, access to financial services and currency manipulation.  The situation has been building up fro a decade with the Trump campaign honing in on this issue of China stealing U.S. jobs, and factory closures in the U.S., because of unfair trading practices. It also led to Mr. Trump's winning election campaign in the American midwestern states. With China seen as gaining an unfair technological advantage over the U.S., most recently over 5G telecom networks, the U.S. is not likely to back down. The U.S. is less dependent on trade with China. China is more dependent on the U.S. and a lot of manufacturing jobs in China are affected by the U.S. tariffs. This is why president Trump has decided to take a strong stand, including putting on tariffs on and additional $300 billion of Chinese goods.   ...