Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Anti-globalization movement and US-china trade war

News Neoliberalism Recommended Links Blowback against neoliberal globalization TTP, NAFTA and other supernational trade treates Brexit revisited: Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as antidote to Neoliberalism Attempt to suppress Huawei using security as the pretext
Anti-globalization movement US-China trade war Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization National Security State National Socialism and Military Keysianism Media-Military-Industrial Complex American Exceptionalism
American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Technological imperialism Judicial Imperialism Cultural imperialism Neocons as USA neo-fascists Gangster Capitalism: The United States and the Globalization of Organized Crime Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism
Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism Predator state Disaster capitalism Ethno-lingustic Nationalism Neoliberal debt slavery Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on crisis of  neoliberalism Etc

From Wikipedia:

Many critics of trade liberalization, such as Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Susan George, and Naomi Klein, see the Washington Consensus as a way to open the labor market of underdeveloped economies to exploitation by companies from more developed economies. The prescribed reductions in tariffs and other trade barriers allow the free movement of goods across borders according to market forces, but labor is not permitted to move freely due to the requirements of a visa or a work permit. This creates an economic climate where goods are manufactured using cheap labor in underdeveloped economies and then exported to rich First World economies for sale at what the critics argue are huge markups, with the balance of the markup said to accrue to large multinational corporations. The criticism is that workers in the Third World economy nevertheless remain poor, as any pay raises they may have received over what they made before trade liberalization are said to be offset by inflation, whereas workers in the First World country become unemployed, while the wealthy owners of the multinational grow even more wealthy.

Anti-globalization critics further claim that First World countries impose what the critics describe as the consensus's neoliberal policies on economically vulnerable countries through organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and by political pressure and bribery. They argue that the Washington Consensus has not, in fact, led to any great economic boom in Latin America, but rather to severe economic crises and the accumulation of crippling external debts that render the target country beholden to the First World.

Many of the policy prescriptions (e.g., the privatization of state industries, tax reform, and deregulation) are criticized as mechanisms for ensuring the development of a small, wealthy, indigenous elite in the Third World who will rise to political power and also have a vested interest in maintaining the local status quo of labor exploitation.

Some specific factual premises of the critique as phrased above (especially on the macroeconomic side) are not accepted by defenders, or indeed all critics, of the Washington Consensus. To take a few examples,[29] inflation in many developing countries is now at its lowest levels for many decades (low single figures for very much of Latin America). Workers in factories created by foreign investment are found typically to receive higher wages and better working conditions than are standard in their own countries' domestically-owned workplaces. Economic growth in much of Latin America in the last few years has been at historically high rates, and debt levels, relative to the size of these economies, are on average significantly lower than they were several years ago.

Despite these macroeconomic advances, poverty and inequality remain at high levels in Latin America. About one of every three people - 165 million in total- still live on less than $2 a day. Roughly a third of the population has no access to electricity or basic sanitation, and an estimated 10 million children suffer from malnutrition. These problems are not, however, new: Latin America was the most economically unequal region in the world in 1950, and has continued to be so ever since, during periods both of state-directed import-substitution and (subsequently) of market-oriented liberalization.[30]

Some socialist political leaders in Latin America are vocal and well-known critics of the Washington Consensus, such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Cuban ex-President Fidel Castro, Bolivian President Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador. In Argentina, too, the recent Peronist party government of Néstor Kirchner undertook policy measures which represented a repudiation of at least some Consensus policies (see Continuing Controversy below). However, with the exception of Castro, these leaders have maintained and expanded some successful policies commonly associated with the Washington Consensus, such as macroeconomic stability and property rights protection.

Others on the Latin American left take a different approach. Governments led by the Socialist Party of Chile, by Alan García in Peru, by Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay, and by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, have in practice maintained a high degree of continuity with the economic policies described under the Washington Consensus (debt-paying, protection to foreign investment, financial reforms, etc.). But governments of this type have simultaneously sought to supplement these policies by measures directly targeted at improving productivity and helping the poor, such as education reforms and subsidies to poor families conditioned on their children staying in school.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jun 19, 2019] Google's Huawei ban exposes an alarming app store duopoly

Jun 19, 2019 | theweek.com

The App Store also instituted the idea of tech products being part of a vertically-integrated, closed platform. Apple and Google (with its Google Play store) became the dominant platform owners for mobile, because their scale and network effects made them the gatekeepers for companies that wanted to enter the mobile market and access the app marketplace. Even a company with as much power as Microsoft could do nothing to break the mobile duopoly .

So whatever your opinion of Google's Huawei snub, it certainly demonstrates just how much power Google has, and how that power is centralized. For phone makers, Google is the only option -- Apple being its own walled garden -- and for app makers and consumers alike, the App Store and Google Play are the only existing choices.

This is hardly a secret or conspiratorial. Huawei has long been attempting to develop its own operating system , precisely to prevent such situations as this. Similarly, despite being the largest Android vendor by far, Samsung still has its own Tizen operating system. Building your business on someone else's platform leaves you at their mercy. There's also the question of user experience: Consumers can't actually buy books on the Kindle app on an iPhone or iPad, because Amazon understandably wants to avoid the 30 percent cut that Apple takes on its operating system.

Perhaps a closed app store linked to a platform has outlived its early usefulness. Not only does it cement power among entrenched companies, it also puts up barriers to competition. This idea isn't so radical. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Apple's customers can sue the company under antitrust law for monopolistic behavior for the way in which it takes that 30 percent of everything on the app store. There are technical avenues forward: Progressive Web Apps, or PWAs, operate in a more open, more platform-neutral manner, and have significantly improved in functionality recently; they could offer a more neutral way for companies to offer apps outside the constraints of an app store.

[Jun 19, 2019] Trump Can't Defend Our Border, So He Should Attack Iran! Wait -- What by James Kirkpatrick

So where is Trump Wall Mr. President?
Notable quotes:
"... Trump lays out non-interventionist U.S. military policy ..."
Jun 17, 2019 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

The border situation is so outrageous it appears like something out of a black comedy. "We are in a full blown emergency," said acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John Sanders, "and I cannot say this stronger: the system is broken". [ 32% increase in migrants encountered or arrested at the southern border in May , by Priscilla Alvarez, CNN, June 5, 2019] Why is this happening? Migrants all over the world from Guatemala to Angola know the loopholes in immigration border enforcement imposed by a treasonous Leftist kritarchy , especially the claim of " credible fear " potentially qualifying people for asylum.

[ While everyone sleeps, the courts are abolishing all immigration enforcement , by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, March 11, 2019] Thus, most migrants are not sneaking across the border: they are eagerly turning themselves in at ports of entry, knowing they will soon be released into the country on the promise, which they intend to break, that they will show up for adjudication.

These invaders are being dumped on local communities, seemingly randomly. Without notice, 350 Congolese were sent to San Antonio recently , leaving the city scrambling for interpreters. Mayors throughout Texas, even the Democrat mayor of Del Rio, are furious because dealing with invading migrants prevents local governments from spending money on streets, schools, and infrastructure. [ Democrat border mayor goes ballistic over 'dumping' of illegal aliens in his town , by Daniel Horowitz, ConservativeReview, June 17, 2019] But the same MSM that wants social media regulated in the name of banning anti-vaccine propaganda is silent about diseases brought by these new arrivals .

The Department of Homeland Security is actually facilitating the invasion, dropping off illegals by bus in communities in the Southwest. [ Five Years Later: Murrietta Residents That Blocked DHS Buses With Illegals Prepare For Round Two , by Beth Baumann, Townhall, May 21, 2019] Even alleged cartel members are claiming asylum right after their gunfights. [ Sinaloa cartel shootout in Agua Prieta leaves nearly a dozen people dead , by Lupita Murillo, KVOA4, June 11, 2019]

Remember, President Trump has the authority to solve this problem without Congress. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the president can impose a travel ban on certain countries . Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz argues the president has inherent powers under Article II to exclude asylum applicants from entering the country, authority that has been reaffirmed by Congress and repeatedly sanctioned by the Supreme Court. [ No judge has jurisdiction to erase our border , ConservativeReview, November 26, 2018]

He also, as we have repeatedly outlined at VDARE.com, has inherent powers to build border defenses that would not require Congress .

But Trump won't do it -- partially because he has inexplicably surrounded himself with political foes who won't back strong action . Instead, he's blaming the Democrats for not undertaking the "simple" measure of closing the "loopholes."

Yet he has to know (at least I hope he does) that Democrats, who have radically shifted left on immigration in recent years, won't help. Besides, the Democrats' plan to simply import a new electorate is working -- for them.

The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in 2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats' extremism. [ Trump Is Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration , by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago -- but essentially nothing has been done.

Instead, the president has been reduced to asking Mexico to solve our problem for us. He supposedly cut a deal with the Mexican government after threatening tariffs , but even that is in dispute. [ Mexico denies Trump's claim of secret concessions in deal , by Jill Colvin, Colleen Long, and Maria Verza, Associated Press, June 10, 2019] The president left powerful negotiating tools on the side, including, most importantly, a remittance tax . As in his dealings with Congress, the president insists on negotiating from weakness in his dealings with Mexico.

In contrast, in the Middle East the president has been extraordinarily bellicose. In April, the Administration revoked waivers that allowed certain countries to buy oil from Iran without violating U.S. sanctions [ U.S. Won't Renew Sanction Exemptions For Countries Buying Iran's Oil , by Bill Chappell, NPR, April 22, 2019]. In early May, the president imposed new sanctions on Iranian metals, a direct threat to the regime's economic viability. [ Trump sanctions Iranian metals, Tehran's largest non-petroleum-related sources of export revenue , by Amanda Macias, CNBC, May 8, 2019] Later that month, the president said a fight would mean "the official end of Iran" [ Trump threatens Iran With 'Official End' by Kenneth Walsh, US News and World Report, May 20, 2019].

The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War , by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign Policy, June 14, 2019].

... ... ...

There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There’s something perverse about even entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It’s akin to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the Rhine.

President Trump ran on a policy of non-intervention and promised it even after being elected. [ Trump lays out non-interventionist U.S. military policy , by Steve Holland, Reuters, December 6, 2016] He repeatedly pushed back against efforts to get more deeply involved in Syria. He must now resist efforts to get involved in Iran, especially from those who may hint it will win him re-election.

[Jun 19, 2019] Dell, HP, Intel and Microsoft Join Forces to Oppose Trump Tariff

Jun 19, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com

Dell Technologies Inc ., HP Inc. , Intel Corp. and Microsoft Corp. are joining forces to oppose President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on laptop computers and tablets among $300 billion in Chinese goods targeted for duties.

The companies submitted joint comments opposing the tariff escalation, saying it would hurt consumer products and industry, while failing to address China's trade practices. The tariffs are poised to hit during the peak holiday and back-to-school sales period, they said.

"The tariffs will harm U.S. technology leaders, hindering their ability to innovate and compete in a global marketplace," the companies said in comments posted online.

Dell, HP, and Microsoft said they account for about half of the notebooks and detachable tablets sold in the U.S. Prices for laptops and tablets will increase by at least 19% -- about $120 for the average retail price of a laptop -- if the proposed tariffs are implemented, according to a study released this week by the Consumer Technology Association .

The companies said they spent a collective $35 billion on research and development in 2018 alone, and tariff costs would divert resources from innovation while providing "a windfall" to manufacturers based outside the U.S. that are less dependent on American sales.

The Trump administration is considering public comments on the proposed duties and hearing testimony from more than 300 U.S. companies and trade groups through June 25. The tariffs could be imposed after a rebuttal period ends July 2.

The U.S. and China said their presidents will meet in Japan next week to relaunch trade talks after a month-long stalemate.

[Jun 18, 2019] American Trade Sanctions Start to Bite

Jun 18, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Clyde Schechter says: June 17, 2019 at 11:55 pm "The long term consequences of our trade sanctions are not yet clear. One possibility will be the break up of the world into two main trading blocs as China, Russia and Europe work to set up a trading system not dependent upon the dollar. "

Yes, this is the crux of it. China, Russia, and Europe are each too small to independently defy the stranglehold that the US exerts over the world financial system. But if they can overcome their past hostilities and work together, they will finally be able to rise off their knees as sovereign nations, not US vassals. For their sakes, I hope they can and will.

But if they succeed, it will spell huge problems for the US. If the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency and the sole currency of petro-commerce, the US will find that there actually is a limit to how deeply it can go into debt. And what on earth will we do when we actually have to start paying our bills?

[Jun 18, 2019] China prepares for economic 'prolonged war' with Trump

Notable quotes:
"... The facts of the US economy and politics show clearly the correctness of the analysis in China that any expectation of 'mercy' from the Trump administration will in reality lead to heightened attacks by the US. ..."
"... The medium-term trajectory of the US economy [is] to slow down during 2019 and 2020 – which is necessarily a negative factor for President Trump's chances of re-election in 2020 and which interacts with the adverse effects of US tariff policy on US consumers such as price rises and falls in prices to farmers. ..."
"... Trump administration already acknowledges in practice that its policies will be a US 'lose', that is they will inflict pain on the US economy, and it is merely attempting to ensure that the 'lose' for China is bigger than the 'lose' for the US. ..."
"... Bloomberg and others calculate that the losses in a full year of the trade war would be $600 billion. ..."
"... In addition to these tariff effects the Trump administration US is equally concerned about the consequences of consumer boycotts, or restrictions, on US companies which would be equivalent to those it has carried out against Huawei. ..."
"... 'Beijing has scope for retaliation. Levers at its disposal include blocking access to its market -- a move that Goldman Sachs analysts estimate could reduce Apple's earnings per share by nearly 30 per cent.' ..."
"... These specific examples clearly illustrate that in practice, despite its claims to the contrary, the Trump administration starts from the framework that its policies will inflict pain on the US economy, but that it will be able to limit this loss. China's route to success is therefore to inflict pain on the US economy to a point that is unacceptable for Trump in seeking re-election. ..."
"... 'If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable losses.' On this logic: 'Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity for Americans' was 'the president's true objective.' ..."
"... Forces in China claiming that the Trump administrations attacks will be stopped by 'appeasement', or by appeals for mercy, are presenting the reverse of the truth – such policies will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive. This flows inevitably from the fact that the Trump administration's policy is not to seek a 'win-win' for the US but to create a 'lose-lose' with the aim that the 'lose' in terms of economic pain for the US should be 'modest'. This logic of the Trump administration's position means that any weakening of China's position, any alleviation of the pain inflicted on the US, will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive, not less. ..."
"... it is also clear that Trump's measure of what is bearable is not the interests of the US people, but whether it affects the President's chances of re-election. In summary, only if the economic pain suffered by the US is sufficiently severe that it endangers Trump's re-election chances will the Trump administration desist from its attacks on China. ..."
"... When the 'lose' or 'pain' in US financial markets is not great the Trump administration proceeds to attack China. When, on the contrary, China's reaction increases pain in US financial markets Trump acts more reasonably. That is, whenever the Trump administration feels in a stronger position it increases its attacks on China, whenever the Trump administration feels weaker due to the pain in US financial markets it acts more reasonably to China. ..."
"... But once the Trump administration embarked on the course of a lose-lose confrontation then such a struggle can only be won by China relying on its own strength. Sufficient pain must be inflicted on the Trump administration that it decides it is better to abandon the lose-lose. And the criteria by which it will judge whether the pain in the 'lose-lose' is bearable is the effect on its chances of re-election. ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | www.learningfromchina.net

'At least two other organizations have more power over [US financial] markets than the White House. They are the US Federal Reserve and the Chinese Communist Party. Trump does not directly control either of them.'

This brutal analysis is particularly significant as it is by one of the most senior and accurate Western specialists on financial markets – John Authers , Senior Bloomberg Editor for Markets and former Chief Markets Commentator for the Financial Times . It encapsulates the interaction of economic and political problems facing President Trump. As will be seen it also summarises the relative strengths of China and the US in the 'trade war', dictates the US administration's tactics in attacking China, and determines the policies which will prevent the Trump administration carrying out its attempt to block China achieving its development goals.

Analysis of these real facts of US financial markets and policy strongly confirms the assessment emphasised by China's President Xi Jinping in his recent speech in Yudu County, the place being highly symbolic as it was the starting point for China's famous Long March, that China has to rely on its own strength in resisting this attempt by the US administration to prevent China achieving prosperity and national rejuvenation.

While the situation of China itself in the trade/economic war is naturally the most important issue there are of course two sides involved in this conflict – the other aspect of the situation is within the US. Analysis of this, which forms the subject of this article, shows clearly why the Trump administration refuses to accept 'win-win' relations with China and what is the inevitable outcome of this administration's 'lose-lose' logic. Such analysis in turn shows that frequent comparisons made in China to the Long March of 1934-35, or to Mao Zedong's famous essay 'On Protracted War', are not simply rhetorical metaphors, or references to the historical traditions of the Communist Party of China (CPC), but provide an accurate framework to understand the situation.

The Trump administration made a very serious miscalculation in launching the 'trade war' with China. It believed that either, or both, the leadership of China would submit to the Trump administrations threats or the Chinese population would not be prepared for a serious struggle with the US. Both calculations have proved entirely wrong. China's leadership did not surrender to but hit back against the US attacks. Furthermore anyone who follows China's domestic discussion, on what is now by far the world's largest internet community, knows that this line was strongly supported by the Chinese population.

The difference to the historical comparisons now frequently used in China, of course, is that this is an economic war and not a military one. Therefore, the weapons are different, and it is necessary to analyse what are the pressure points on the US, and what armaments are most powerful for China. In turn this examination of the situation in the US economy fully confirms the analyses made of the situation in China and the reaction of different social layers to the present conflict with the US.

Trends in China and the US

Examining the Chinese side of the 'trade war' Wang Wen has presented an excellent analysis of the reaction of different social strata in China to the Trump administration's economic aggression. Its analysis can be noted: ' The vast majority of ordinary people are highly supportive of the state's policy of counter-bullying in the United States, and the current fear of the US exists mainly in some social elites.'

But it is particularly striking that this analysis of trends within China, made by a Chinese citizen, is fully confirmed from another 'external' angle – that of the situation in the US and the forces operating on the Trump administration. The facts of the US economy and politics show clearly the correctness of the analysis in China that any expectation of 'mercy' from the Trump administration will in reality lead to heightened attacks by the US.

Trump's economic policy is determined by the coming US Presidential electio. The starting point of any analysis of the situation in the US is that President Trump is already entirely aware of the most important date he faces – 3 November 2020, the next US Presidential election. Securing re-election is his paramount goal and this therefore determines the shaping of the Trump administration's policies. Three time frames are crucial for this.

  1. The impact of events in financial markets, which can occur in a very short time frame – in some cases minutes/hours and almost invariably having a strong impact over a period of days to months.
  2. The medium-term trajectory of the US economy [is] to slow down during 2019 and 2020 – which is necessarily a negative factor for President Trump's chances of re-election in 2020 and which interacts with the adverse effects of US tariff policy on US consumers such as price rises and falls in prices to farmers.
  3. Attempts to slow China's economy in the medium/longer term, through forcing or persuading it to abandon its socialist path of development.

All three time frames however confirm a fundamental reality – that while China's relations with most countries, and indeed with some previous US presidents, can be most successful based on 'win-win' this will not occur with the Trump administration.

This is due to the fact that the Trump administration already acknowledges in practice that its policies will be a US 'lose', that is they will inflict pain on the US economy, and it is merely attempting to ensure that the 'lose' for China is bigger than the 'lose' for the US.

The Trump administration's 'lose-lose' analysis

An illustration on a small scale of the Trump administration's understanding of the need to attempt to limit the extent of economic pain on the US is its recent announcement of $16 billion of subsidies to US farmers – the bill for which will be financed by other US taxpayers as is increasingly understood in the United States. As CNN noted: 'Just as Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, but isn't, now China is supposed to pay for President Donald Trump's plan to bail out US farmers. Neither statement is true, of course.'

Affecting wider sections of the US population, calculations by the Western economics company Oxford Economics, which has no connection with China, found: 'Chinese manufacturing lowered prices in the United States for consumer goods, dampening inflation and putting more money in American wallets trade with China saved these families up to $850 that year.' Regarding the overall impact on the global economy, including the adverse effect on US allies, Bloomberg and others calculate that the losses in a full year of the trade war would be $600 billion.

In addition to these tariff effects the Trump administration US is equally concerned about the consequences of consumer boycotts, or restrictions, on US companies which would be equivalent to those it has carried out against Huawei. The Financial Times noted for example that the immediate goal of the US sanctions against Huawei are not simply or primarily to stop the supply of chips and software but to destroy the consumer market for Huawei's products in the West – where customers want guaranteed access to Google dependent products: 'Google's decision this week to stop selling its Android operating system to Huawei for new handsets makes little difference in China, where Huawei should be able to convince buyers to switch to its operating system, now under development.

But customers are more wedded to Android in international markets. Independent analyst Richard Windsor estimates it will lose all those sales.' But the Financial Times simultaneously noted that consumer retaliation against China would have a devastating financial effect on Apple, one of the US's core and most valuable companies: 'Beijing has scope for retaliation. Levers at its disposal include blocking access to its market -- a move that Goldman Sachs analysts estimate could reduce Apple's earnings per share by nearly 30 per cent.'

These specific examples clearly illustrate that in practice, despite its claims to the contrary, the Trump administration starts from the framework that its policies will inflict pain on the US economy, but that it will be able to limit this loss. China's route to success is therefore to inflict pain on the US economy to a point that is unacceptable for Trump in seeking re-election.

US financial markets

A decisive reason that such pain for the US is possible is that while the sums noted in relation to US consumers, farmers, and allies above sound large the Trump administration can in fact deal with amounts such as $16 billion to farmers. But even such sums as the $600 billion loss for the global economy are small compared to potential impacts on the size of US financial markets. The loss of $600 billion in a year for the global economy is less than the amount that can be lost in US financial markets in a single day, while a loss of $16 billion can occur in seconds.

Due to the sheer scale of US financial markets the Trump administration does not remotely have the resources to control the more than $30,000 billion US share market or the $16,000 billion US Treasury bond market. Pain inflicted on the US in such financial markets is therefore on a scale which is destabilising to the Trump administration.

Examination of all three time frames operating on the Trump administration considered above would require three separate analyses or an inordinately long article. Therefore, due to their sheer scale, this article examines only the first, most short term, but extremely powerful of these issues – the impact of the trade war on US financial markets.

The real situation facing US presidents

John Authers' blunt comment cited at the beginning of this article, reveals accurately the real domestic economic situation of a US President – which is very different to the frequent perception in China. Unlike China, under the US governmental system the President has little direct control over the most powerful levers of the economy – there is no large state owned economic sector which can be instructed by the President to increase its activity, the Federal budget is decided by the Congress not by the President, and interest rates are controlled by the Federal Reserve which under US law cannot be instructed by the President.

The new factor in the trade war which Authers drew attention to, which is also outside the US President's control, is China itself. The facts amply confirm that the impact of China's statements and actions on US financial markets is now very large – as will be demonstrated.

Larry Summers, former US Treasury Secretary, clearly spelt out this numerically in a commentary for the Washington Post: 'On Monday [13 May], China announced new tariffs on $60 billion of US exports, and the United States threatened new tariffs on up to $300 billion of Chinese goods. These actions were cited as the principal reason for a decline of more than 600 points in the Dow Jones industrial average, or about 2.4 percent in broader measures of the stock market. With the total value of US stocks around $30 trillion, this decline represents more than $700 billion in lost wealth.'

This $700 billion loss to US shareholders directly resulted from China's response to President Trump's announcement he was raising US tariffs against China from 10% to 25%. To illustrate this direct impact Authers' accurately noted the difference on US share markets between the week following Trump's announcement of raising tariffs against China, during which there was no announcement of a precise Chinese response, and the US financial markets' reaction when China announced its counter tariffs: 'It's fair to say that Wall Street did not anticipate China's retaliation to US tariffs. Last week, the negative reaction to President Donald Trump's announcement of new tariffs on China was oddly muted. On Monday, after China's response was announced just before the market opened, the S&P 500 fell by more than it had done in the entire previous week.'

Authers similarly noted the increasing skill of China's response and its impact on US markets: 'The problem is that China knows how to respond. China knows it can attack the presidential weak spot by acting in a way that damages the Dow. Hence, it not only retaliated with tariffs of its own, but announced them just as the New York market was about to open, at night in China, for maximum effect.'

As already noted, the $700 billion loss in a single day on US share markets was larger than the projected loss to the world economy for an entire year due to the trade war – and over 40 times the $16 billion bill for Trump's subsidies to US farmers. But even this sum is small compared to losses on US financial markets that can occur due to others of China's economic actions. As Authers noted: 'In the last five years, the event that scared the US market the most, by a wide margin, was the surprise Chinese yuan devaluation in 2015.'

The impact of this RMB devaluation was clear. Between 10 August and 24 August 2015, only 14 days, the RMB's exchange rate fell by 3.0%. The US S&P500 tracked the RMB down falling by 11.2% by 25 August. In terms of current valuations of US share markets this was equivalent to a loss of $3.8 trillion – more than six times the total projected loss to the global economy of the trade war in a year, or over 200 times Trump's subsidies to farmers.

The real aim of Trump's policy

This identification of the degree of pain which can be inflicted by China on US financial markets, and on the US economy, is crucial because Trump's tariff policies cannot, indeed are not intended to, improve the situation of the US itself. Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith summarised the Trump administration's real aim very accurately under the self-explanatory headline 'The Grim Logic of Trump's Trade War With China – Maximizing American prosperity probably isn't the goal.' Apart from comprador apologists for the US within China, noted by Wang Wen, this logic of Trump's policy is by now well understood in China. But, nevertheless, it is worth quoting this Bloomberg analysis at length as it summarises very accurately from a US perspective the logic of the Trump administration:

'The trade war has cost to the US. Economists have shown that the actual burden of tariffs has fallen mostly on American consumers -- in other words, the prices consumers pay for imported goods has risen And higher prices on capital goods and intermediate goods is raising expenses for US manufacturers, making them less competitive. Meanwhile, Chinese retaliation has hurt US farmers

'So with losses mounting, it looked like there was little reason to continue the trade war. Yet Trump is doubling down. Why?

'If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable losses.' On this logic: 'Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity for Americans' was 'the president's true objective.'

In other words, as was already shown in the case of farm subsidies, the Trump administration quite accurately does not believe that tariffs and other forms of economic aggression against China aid US economic prosperity – on the contrary they cause economic pain. But it decides to inflict this pain on US citizens and companies in order to pursue neo-con policies trying to block China's prosperity and national rejuvenation. But this policy requires that 'the harm to the US is modest.' The problem is that the more tariffs are imposed , and above all if China retaliates, the greater the pain not only for US financial markets but for US consumers – that is US voters. As Authers noted: 'Meanwhile, the US can still impose more tariffs, but the goods it has chosen to attack have been largely invisible to consumers. Any further tariffs will take it into consumer products where price rises will be visible and painful, and might even, again, act as a spur to raise [interest] rates.' The effect on US financial markets, as already noted, can be far more severe than the direct effect of the tariffs.

Why win-win will not work with the Trump administration

Understanding the Trump's administrations real aim shows not only why its goal is not to improve the economic position of the US economy or US citizens but simultaneously makes clear why its policies will not be stopped by appeals to reason or 'win-win'. Forces in China claiming that the Trump administrations attacks will be stopped by 'appeasement', or by appeals for mercy, are presenting the reverse of the truth – such policies will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive. This flows inevitably from the fact that the Trump administration's policy is not to seek a 'win-win' for the US but to create a 'lose-lose' with the aim that the 'lose' in terms of economic pain for the US should be 'modest'. This logic of the Trump administration's position means that any weakening of China's position, any alleviation of the pain inflicted on the US, will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive, not less.

This makes clear while most countries seek a 'win-win' with China, and can therefore rightly be approached on this basis, and indeed this forms the basis of China's foreign policy, this will not work with the Trump administration because it is not seeking a 'win' – it is merely seeking that the 'lose' for the US it knows will occur should not be sufficiently large to threaten Trump's re-election.

It follows from this situation that the only thing that will deter the Trump administration, and force it off its path of attacks on China, is if the 'lose' for the US is bigger than it had anticipated – that is if the economic pain is too large to be bearable from the point of view of the interests of the Trump administration. From what has already been analysed, it is also clear that Trump's measure of what is bearable is not the interests of the US people, but whether it affects the President's chances of re-election. In summary, only if the economic pain suffered by the US is sufficiently severe that it endangers Trump's re-election chances will the Trump administration desist from its attacks on China.

The only 'win' which the Trump administration takes into account is, therefore, if the 'lose/pain' of the confrontation with China is seen as endangering Trump's re-election chances and the 'win' is then simply the lessening of that pain to a point where it is no longer seen as endangering Trump's election campaign.

Confirmation of the forces acting on the Trump administration

This situation of the Trump administration which flows from its 'lose-lose' logic is fully confirmed even in the extremely short term by the chronology of President Trump's own personal responses to events in US financial markets in announcing the increase in tariffs against China from 10% to 25%.

The short term pattern was therefore extremely clear. When there was no reaction from China, US financial markets did not fall, and Trump continued his aggression against China. When, on the contrary, China responded strongly, US financial markets fell and Trump attempted to present a picture he was lessening his attack on China.

In addition to these short-term movements analysed above the same process over a longer term also explains the dynamic of the 'hardening' and 'softening' of the Trump administration's positions in the course of its negotiations with China.

This therefore clearly reflects the 'lose-lose' framework in which the Trump administration operates. When the 'lose' or 'pain' in US financial markets is not great the Trump administration proceeds to attack China. When, on the contrary, China's reaction increases pain in US financial markets Trump acts more reasonably. That is, whenever the Trump administration feels in a stronger position it increases its attacks on China, whenever the Trump administration feels weaker due to the pain in US financial markets it acts more reasonably to China.

What is the Trump administration's bottom line?

While the above clearly shows why the Trump administration will not respond to a 'win-win' framework, but only to economic pain, to avoid any misunderstanding it should be made clear that it does not lead to the conclusion that the US and China are locked in a 'war to the death'. All the evidence is that President Trump is less interested in the long-term interests of the US than most Presidents. The precise economic pain which is unacceptable to his administration is that which would lead to endangering his re-election in 2020.

A relevant comparison which helps understand this dynamic is that is to a real war, not just a trade one, which the US lost – the Vietnam war. Vietnam's tactics in this were skilful in that political impacts guided military goals. The two largest Vietnamese offensives of the war, the Tet Offensive in 1968 and the Easter Offensive in 1972, were launched in US presidential election years. Neither resulted in US military defeat but the political damage done to US presidents ensured Vietnam's victory – Johnson was forced to abandon as hopeless any attempt to run for re-election as president after Tet, and Nixon was so convinced that his position as president would be threatened by the war that he started a progressive US military withdrawal after 1968 and decided on a total US withdrawal of US forces after the 1972 Easter Offensive.

In short, the 'bottom line' for Vietnam's victory against the US was not total military defeat of the US, which was never achieved, but inflicting such pain on US presidents that to safeguard their own position they were forced to withdraw. The military struggle in Vietnam was the means by which the decisive political victory in the US was achieved.

But the precondition for that US political defeat was the military struggle in Vietnam. If Vietnam had ceased inflicting pain on the US, both economic in terms of the gigantic cost of the war and in terms of losses of American forces, then the US instead of withdrawing would have increased its attacks on Vietnam. This can be clearly seen in the opposite case in which the US achieved a great victory – the destruction of the USSR. Gorbachev attempted to appease the US and beg for mercy. The US did not lessen but increased its attacks as a result – culminating in the catastrophic disintegration of the USSR itself, characterised by Putin as 'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century'.

After this tremendous defeat of Russia this again did not lead to a lessening but to further intensification of attacks on Russia by the US – incorporating almost all of Eastern Europe and large parts of the former USSR into NATO and launching of attacks on Russia's position in its strategically decisive neighbour of Ukraine.

The strategic conclusion of the present US attacks on China fully confirms the speech by Xi Jinping emphasising that the most important thing is to rely on ourselves. China has not been seeking a confrontation with the US, a lose-lose. On the contrary China has been seeking a win-win. But once the Trump administration embarked on the course of a lose-lose confrontation then such a struggle can only be won by China relying on its own strength. Sufficient pain must be inflicted on the Trump administration that it decides it is better to abandon the lose-lose. And the criteria by which it will judge whether the pain in the 'lose-lose' is bearable is the effect on its chances of re-election.

Fortunately, the present struggle is an economic war and not a real war. The 'small arms' in that economic war are not rifles and revolvers but tariffs against farmers and the subsidies these require, its medium weapons are consumer boycotts, its heavy artillery are such issues as the impact on US financial markets analysed above. It is a measure of the gigantic historical progress made by China since 1949 under the People's Republic that it now only has to deal with economic attacks by the Trump administration – for a century before that China had to deal with actual military invasions.

The sacrifices made by the heroes of the Long March were far greater than anything the people of China face today in the economic attacks by the Trump administration. But the comparisons made by Xi Jinping to the Long March are entirely apposite and not at all merely references to the CPC's historical tradition.

The Kuomintang's Fifth Encirclement Campaign, the origin of Long March, was designed by the KMT to destroy and annihilate the forces opposing it – why it is also called the 'Fifth Extermination Campaign'. It was purposeless to have attempted to appease or beg for mercy from the KMT, which was determined to destroy the forces which later created the New China. Any appeasement, or appeal for mercy, would have been met by the KMT crushing and massacring the forces they opposed. Only resistance to the KMT created the possibility to later create the People's Republic of China and lay the basis for China's national rejuvenation.

Similarly, the Trump administration is determined to block China's national rejuvenation. As already shown, there is no point to attempt to appease it or beg for mercy from it, this will merely lead to it becoming more aggressive. The ultimate aim of the neo-cons at present directing the Trump administration's policies is to block China's national rejuvenation and the final way to ensure that is to ensure that that China should suffer the same historical catastrophe as the USSR under Gorbachev.

Who is the 'elite' of Chinese society?

Analysis in China shows it is ordinary people who have understood the aggressive actions of the Trump regime and supported the firm positions against this taken by President Xi Jinping and other CPC leaders.

It is some parts of the 'social elite' which have entirely misunderstood the situation and believed that appeasement and appeals for mercy would lead to the Trump administration lessening its attack on China. The latter forces are the exact opposite of an 'intellectual elite' – because to be an intellectual elite means to see the situation accurately and, as seen, they are entirely in error. It is the ordinary people of China who have shown they are the 'intellectual elite' in accurately understanding the Trump administration and supporting the positions taken by the CPC leadership. Those who wrongly analysed the situation may or may not be a social elite but they are an intellectual 'non-elite' – those who fail to see the situation accurately and have naďve illusions.

Conclusion

The analysis of the situation of the US economy and financial markets therefore fully confirms the analysis made by others of the situation in China.

It shows why the Trump administration cannot be dealt with on the basis of 'win-win' but only on the basis of China's strength and through ensuring that the Trump administration suffers severely in the 'lose-lose' path it has unfortunately chosen. Only after the US administration has found that it suffers pain from its present path will it be possible to return to a 'win-win' framework between China and the US.

* * * The Chinese version of this article appeared at Guancha.cn .

[Jun 18, 2019] US-China Trade War Stepping Away from the Brink - FPIF

Jun 18, 2019 | fpif.org

US-China Trade War: Stepping Away from the Brink

Trump's trade war with China could quickly morph into a shooting war.

By Emanuel Pastreich , June 14, 2019 .

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint

Shutterstock

President Donald Trump has announced that he will decide whether or not to add another $300 billion in tariffs on imports from China, in addition to the $200 billion he has already imposed, and that he will do so in the two weeks following the G20 summit in Osaka. Trump's "Art of the Deal" pressure tactics are familiar. He wants to try to make China give even greater concessions, perhaps following a frosty meeting between the two leaders on the sidelines of the G20, or perhaps no meeting at all.

China, however, is in no mood to make concessions.

Behind Trump's impulsiveness can be glimpsed a profound shift in U.S. trade policy, and in US diplomacy, which has transformed the nature of international relations, with particularly disturbing implications in the case of U.S.-China ties.

Donald Trump, acting on the advice of U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, is making demands of China -- or for that matter Mexico, Germany, or France -- in a unilateral manner. He has attempted to immediately implement tariffs and other forms of punishment (such as bans for reasons of national security in the case of Huawei phones) without any institutional consultative process.

The U.S. constitution has a "commerce clause" that clearly assigns to Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." Since 2002, the trade promotion authority (an upgraded version of the fast-track authority established in 1974) gives the president the right to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can vote for or against, but cannot amend.

Over the last 20 years, fast-tracking has become the center of trade policy to a degree that undermines the balance of powers and the constitution.

Although the executive's usurpation of trade authority has a long history, only now is the president making such a transparent move to exclude the legislature -- not to mention economic experts, let alone citizens -- from the formulation of trade policy. That means that a handful of people can make decisions that impact every aspect of the U.S. economy.

Newspapers rarely mention the role of Congress in trade negotiations with China. It's almost as if the various congressional committees involved in formulating trade policy have no role in this process.

Equally striking is the absence from the policy debate of multilateral institutions that address trade issues according to common practices and international law. For instance, the World Trade Organization was established in 1993 with an explicit mandate to address trade and tariff issues. The WTO and its trade experts once played a central role in U.S. trade discussions -- when U.S. policy ostensibly conformed to established global norms, and Washington even set new models for the world to follow.

Trump's unilateral demands of China make it crystal clear that Trump, and Trump alone, is empowered to decide trade policy. What institutions and mechanisms remain to assure that the president's authority in trade negotiations will not be abused and that trade is conducted with the long-term interests of the country in mind?

But it goes further than that. Now Trump is demanding "detailed and enforceable commitments" from China as a condition for a trade deal, suggesting that the United States alone determines whether or not China is conforming with the agreement. Such an approach makes sense in Washington these days. After all, the U.S. Commerce Department imposed an export ban on the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE last year because it did not pay fines for violating U.S. sanctions against sales to North Korea and Iran. In other words, the United States thinks it can unilaterally set sanctions and punish violators without any consultation with multilateral institutions.

This step goes beyond what the Chinese can tolerate.

"China is not a criminal. Nor is it making any mistakes. Why does the US want to supervise us?" remarked Professor Wang Yiwei of Renmin University of China in a recent interview , "If there's a supervision team to oversee the implementation, just like what happened to ZTE, it is definitely directed at sovereignty and can't be accepted."

These "enforceable commitments" are offensive to China for a reason. This approach to trade seems little different from the sanctions regimes that the United States put in place against Iraq before its military invasion, or against Iran as part of an increasing military buildup that could end in a military conflict. Moreover, the increased U.S. military drills off the Chinese coast has given the trade negotiations process a negative spin.

The recent comments about the political protests in Hong Kong by secretary of state Mike Pompeo suggest that those tariffs could quickly become sanctions -- which require even less adherence to international norms.

And then, in the midst of all that tension, the U.S. military released an Indo-Pacific Stategy Paper that refers to Taiwan as a "country," the first time the United States has done so officially in 40 years. The agreement between the United States and the People's Republic of China, after the normalization of diplomatic relations, required that the United States not recognize Taiwan as a country, and the People's Republic of China has stated explicitly that military action was an option in the case of U.S. interference in the Taiwan question.

The combination of these actions threatens to erase all established norms between the two nations.

The United States is now considering ending agricultural exports to China, and China is considering cutting off the sales of rare earth elements to the United States. The latter are essential for the guidance systems and for sensors in missiles and advance fighter planes. A F-35 Fighter, for instance, requires 920 pounds of rare earth elements like neodymium iron boron magnets and samarium cobalt magnets, according to the Asia Times .

The risk of a rapid acceleration in tensions is no longer theoretical. Remember: the U.S. decision to end the sale of scrap metal and copper to Japan in 1940, followed by the oil embargo on August 1, 1941, transformed a trade war into a real war.

Trade should remain separate from security concerns. Moreover, it should not be the plaything of a small number of men in the White House. The United States and China need to open a broad dialogue on common concerns, from climate change and rapid technological evolution to the growing concentration of wealth globally. That dialogue should rely more on citizen-led dialogues and scholar-led conferences in order to move beyond the narrow negotiation process that has brought the two countries to the brink of war.

[Jun 17, 2019] How Americans Are Losers In The US-China Trade War

No matter who pay them, tariffs improves government revernues. They are in essence another form of "value added tax".
Jun 17, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Kevin Fa , 1 week ago

Jimmy carter : US is the most warlike nation in the history of the world.

john hanrahan , 1 day ago div tabindex="0" role="artic

le"> Tariffs raise the cost of goods. Higher generate the opportunities for alternative sources as well as incentivize domestic production. Never forget that the higher price of domestic production is offset by the reduction in the costs associated with domestic unemployment. The reduction of wealth leaving the nation is a primary goal and responsibility of the federal government. As is maintaining a secure border and civil and economic well being of it's citizens.

[Jun 17, 2019] Why China Doesn't Want Your Trash Anymore

Jun 17, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Magnificent Birb , 2 months ago

How ironic that western countries condemns the other countries to not pollute, yet they are exporting waste to Asian countries..

huiyuforever , 1 month ago

US: Send all the trash to China and blame China for pollution. China: No more trash. US:?????????????

mr. phantom , 2 months ago

Wow China taking care of trash unlike US which is creating trash I support your decision

Dante X , 2 months ago

Enjoyed that report. It's refreshing to see a seemingly non-biased examination of Chinese Economic and Geopolitical relationships. Enjoying the improved air in quality Beijing.

Asim Alharbi , 3 weeks ago

lol Americans are 4% of worlds population, yet they preduces 25% of the world trash. Is that even possible to happen?

[Jun 16, 2019] The Misadventures of 'Tariff Man' by John Feffer

Jun 05, 2019 | fpif.org

For Donald Trump, tariffs are a substitute for diplomacy, just as harassment in his personal life is a substitute for normal human interaction

Trump has two tools at his disposal as president. The first is his mouth: the insults and threats that he issues verbally or by Twitter.

The second is the tariff. Trump has imposed trade restrictions left and right, on allies and adversaries, for economic and political reasons, as part of a long-term offensive and out of short-term pique.

If Trump could use tariffs even more indiscriminately, no doubt he would. He would delight in slapping trade penalties on the Democratic Party, on Robert Mueller, on the mainstream media, on all the women who have accused him of harassment, even on the First Lady for slapping away his hand at the airport in Tel Aviv.

Trump the man favored the legal suit as his attack of first resort; Trump the president has discovered the tariff.

With his penchant for naming names, Trump calls himself "Tariff Man," as if boasting of a new superhero power. It's all-too-reminiscent of the cult film Mystery Men where the superpowers are either invisible or risible (Ben Stiller's character, Mr. Furious, for instance, gets really really angry).

Trump uses tariffs like a bad cook uses salt. It covers up his lack of preparation, the poor quality of his ingredients, the blandness of his imagination. It's the only spice in his spice rack.

The latest over-salted dish to come out of the White House kitchen is the president's threat to impose a 5 percent tariff on all Mexican goods on June 10. The threat has nothing to do with what Mexico has done economically (that's a different set of threatened tariffs). Rather, it's all about immigration. This time, Trump will keep inflating the cost of Mexican goods "until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP." The tariffs will, supposedly, rise 5 percent every month until they reach 25 percent in October.

Trump promised as a candidate that Mexico would pay for the wall he wanted to construct along the southern border. Now, it seems, Mexico will pay for the lack of a wall as well.

The escalation is quite clear. What Mexico has to do to avoid these tariffs is not.

"So, there's no specific target, there's no specific percent, but things have to get better," Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told Fox News Sunday . "They have to get dramatically better and they have to get better quickly."

Such is the usual Sunday morning quarterbacking that happens with White House officials as they scramble to explain the inexplicable to a baffled news media.

Although they remain in the dark about what's expected of them, Mexican leaders have warned that they will apply counter-tariffs if necessary and that the United States will suffer economically from such a tariff war.

These are not idle threats. Mexico is the third largest U.S. trading partner. Even congressional Republicans, desperate to avoid this spat, are talking about trying to block the tariffs. Trump has called them "foolish" to do so. He plans to move forward anyway.

Full Spectrum Offensive

Mexico is only the latest country to feel the wrath of Tariff Man.

In 2018, Trump used Section 201 of the Trade Act to impose tariffs on solar cells and washing machines, targeting primarily East Asian countries. Shortly thereafter, he upped his game by assessing a 25 percent tariff on all steel imports, with Canada, Mexico, and the EU getting hit the hardest.

China, however, has borne the brunt of Trump's animosity. In early May, the Trump administration announced a surge in tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. He has also threatened to apply tariffs to the remaining $325 billion worth of Chinese goods entering the country.

The escalation tactics don't seem to have done much to improve the prospects of a trade deal between the two countries. China has naturally countered with its own tariffs.

When Trump lashed out against countries competing against the U.S. steel industry, one of the major exceptions was Australia. That probably won't last long. Just before his Mexico decision, the president was planning on imposing a tariff on Australian aluminum as well. His advisors managed to dissuade him , at least temporarily.

Canada and Mexico, meanwhile, continue to get a pass on the steel tariffs as long as the two countries sign a replacement deal for NAFTA. But Trump's latest move against Mexico may throw that pending agreement into jeopardy.

Push Back

The threat and even the reality of retaliatory tariffs seem to have little effect on Trump. He likes such geopolitical games of chicken. Congressional opposition only whets his appetite for more confrontation, for he holds even his Republican allies in contempt.

He disregards the more level-headed advice of economic mandarins -- as well as seven former ambassadors to Mexico -- because he relishes flouting conventional wisdom in favor of his own unconventional stupidity. If farmers in swing states protest that the markets for their soybeans have dried up, Trump will just authorize another massive government purchase of their product -- and suddenly prisoners all over America will be surprised by tofu and edamame on their cafeteria menus.

Republican voters overwhelmingly support Trump's trade policies -- and the president really doesn't care a fig about anyone else.

The only pushback that might have some influence with Trump might be the business community. The auto sector is forecasting billions of dollars in costs associated with the Mexico tariffs. The Chamber of Commerce, which has come up with a more precise annual price tag for U.S. consumers of $17.3 billion for a tariff level of 5 percent, is considering a legal challenge.

If the stock market goes into bearish hibernation, then the president is out of luck. Tweeted Ian Shepherdson, the chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, "he's going to have to blink on tariffs, because the market can't live with this level of crazy."

Shepherdson is wrong. The market has lived with this kind of crazy for more than two years. And there are plenty of people who see profit in precisely the kind of volatility that Trump has brought to financial markets.

When Trump went on a fundraising tour of New York recently, some big-name financiers leapt at the opportunity to fete the president. Howard Lutnick, the head of Cantor Fitzgerald, predicted in 2017 that Trump would provide a big bump for the world of finance (and, therefore, his own bottom line). Last month, as a reward for that bump, Lutnick invited Trump to his triplex penthouse in Manhattan and raised over $5 million toward his reelection.

That's the kind of crazy that the market is entirely comfortable with.

Misunderstanding Trade

Tariffs make sense for certain countries.

For instance, East Asian countries used tariffs very successfully to protect their infant industries -- steel, shipbuilding, information technology -- against the overwhelming market advantages of more advanced economies. Those tariffs raised the price of imports and encouraged consumers to buy domestic. Tariffs can be part of a smart industrial policy of picking potential economic winners.

Tariffs can also protect a way of life -- Japanese rice culture, Mexican tortilla makers, Vermont dairy farmers. Without some kind of trade protection, cheaper goods from outside will completely overwhelm domestic producers and destroy long-standing traditions. Of course, there are other methods of preserving such traditions, from government price supports to geographical designations (think: champagne).

Trump's tariffs have nothing to do with either of these aims. U.S. steel is not an infant industry in need of protection. Trump doesn't care about protecting traditional lifestyles. He has neither a progressive industrial policy of picking winners and losers in the economy nor a conservative approach to ensuring the integrity of communities.

For Donald Trump, tariffs are a substitute for diplomacy, just as harassment in his personal life is a substitute for normal human interaction. Tariff Man can think of only one way of dealing with other countries: grabbing them by their trade policies until they squeal.

He believes, mistakenly, that trade is zero-sum (if they lose, American wins). He also labors under the misconception that the U.S. Treasury somehow grows fat with the proceeds of tariffs (it doesn't). He is as ignorant of the relations among nations as he is of the relations among people.

Tariff Man's superpower is even more ridiculous than that of Mr. Furious. It's worse than impotent. It's self-defeating. Let's hope that principle applies ultimately to the 2020 elections as well. Share this:

John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel Frostlands.

[Jun 15, 2019] Hollywood becomes unlikely victim of Trump's trade war

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's declaration of economic war against China is like everything he does - impulsive, ill-considered, ill-prepared, and without any coherent strategy or series of tactics to achieve that strategy. ..."
"... NOTE - I am not pro-China, but anti-stupid, anti-disorganized, and anti-clueless, which is how everything gets done in the Trump WH, especially since his "economic advisors" really do not know anything about economics. ..."
Jun 14, 2019 | www.washingtonpost.com

Last month, "Avengers: Endgame" became the highest-grossing American film in the history of China. It was a seminal moment, suggesting the partnership between China and Hollywood, which over the years has moved in fits and starts, was finally firing on all cylinders. But the $614 million that Disney-Marvel booked may turn out to be an outlier.

As the United States ups the stakes in a trade war, there are growing signs that China is quietly retaliating against the U.S. entertainment business.

Beijing is now constricting Hollywood's ability to peddle its product in the country, say four people who conduct business in China or closely monitor its relations with Hollywood.

"I don't want to use the words 'total freeze,' but it's real," said John Penotti, the producer of "Crazy Rich Asians" and head of SK Global who specializes in Asian productions. "They're not saying it officially, but the industry is operating as if it's close to a total shutdown."

In contrast to many countries, distribution in China requires government approval, and according to these sources, the Chinese government is unlikely to offer distribution slots to more than a small handful of movies. The latest Spider-Man, Secret Life of Pets and Toy Story movies appear likely to get the nod, but most other summer and even fall hopefuls face being locked out of the world's second-largest film market.

Hollywood relies on China to power its foreign box office, which in turn powers its film revenue, and the standoff reflects how much of a conundrum China represents for Hollywood.

The availability of so many overseas ticket-buyers at a time of intense entertainment competition at home has been a boon for U.S. studios. But at the same time, the mercurial ways of Chinese regulators and the ways that market penetration is subject to geopolitical crosswinds also make the nation a vexing place for studios to do business.

If the trade war wears on and the market remains cut off, it could result in a reduction of the budgets of studio movies, since it's Chinese yuan that make them possible.

"I think this poses a dire situation for Hollywood," said Aynne Kokas, a professor at the University of Virginia and author of "Hollywood Made In China," about the complicated relationship between the two entities. "There definitely will be a trickle-back effect. It's a very dangerous financial position to be reliant on Chinese box office to recoup profits."

The Chinese market has become a place of increasing importance to the American movie business. As the country has rapidly built theaters -- it now has more than 65,000 screens, a dozenfold increase compared to a decade ago -- it has become a cash cow for American studios. Three of Hollywood's top five movies at the worldwide box office last year -- "Avengers: Infinity War," "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" and "Aquaman" -- each collected more than a quarter of their overseas dollars in China.

Other movies owe the country even more of their success. The underwater adventure "The Meg" notched 40 percent of its foreign total in China, while Steven Spielberg's gamer-themed hit "Ready Player One" approached 50 percent. China could become the biggest film market as soon as 2020, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

But to keep the dollars flowing, studios need those distribution slots. And that's where matters get dicey.

China officially has a quota allowing in several dozen Hollywood movies per year -- 38 in 2019, 35 the year before. Those numbers are up by more than 20 percent in the past five years.

The Film Bureau and its China Film Group division determine what movies are given a distribution slot. But with blackout periods, 11th-hour allowances and other unpredictable factors, even those who study the market say it can be impossible to parse what makes the cut. And lately, with the trade war raging, few movies are.

Vanamali, 6 hours ago

As they say, "Everything is fair in love and war" - the Chinese are using whatever means they have at their disposal
Trump is using Tariffs to hurt the Chinese economy and business and the Chinese of course are going to retaliate with whatever weapon they have

But gotta love the Trumptards "logic" - "They need our exports, without them they will starve, there will be rioting in the streets" and "We are doing them a big favor by importing their products, if we shut off our market, their companies will collapse, massive unemployment, there will be rioting in the streets"
Bizarre "logic"

jayster, 12 hours ago (Edited)

Trump's declaration of economic war against China is like everything he does - impulsive, ill-considered, ill-prepared, and without any coherent strategy or series of tactics to achieve that strategy.

China will defend its interests and retaliate as necessary, especially as they know Trump is an absolute moron.

NOTE - I am not pro-China, but anti-stupid, anti-disorganized, and anti-clueless, which is how everything gets done in the Trump WH, especially since his "economic advisors" really do not know anything about economics.

ES175GC 12 hours ago

Trump is such a vengeful, hating person that it wouldn't surprise me at all that he deliberately wants to hurt all those Hollywood liberals who despise him so much. "When I get hit, I hit back 10 times harder" is a famous Trump saying.

He operates on a juvenile level, as we all know, like a spoiled whining brat who has to get even with anyone who slights him. It makes perfect sense that Trump will do everything he can to destroy Hollywood's business with China.

buhaobob, 12 hours ago

I agree except your premise that Trump would do this deliberately would require that Trump have a plan, and he has demonstrated that his attention span is about the same as that of the average goldfish.

Zop1066, 15 hours ago (Edited)

We certainly do not need Chinese government influence in Hollywood or in any US media, period. Several films recently have shied away from any even marginally critical reference to China for fear of losing Chinese box office receipts or Chinese investment.

And the Chinese investors have not even tried to hide that they do indeed influence film scripts to suit the Chinese government. Enough of that. Best they keep their money and invest perhaps in even harsher great wall internet controls, internment camps, and super creepy internal population controls.

That'll sure keep the cinema in China boring and nonthreatening. Certainly wouldn't want anyone there to think for themselves and question their government, no siree.

derek13, 3 hours ago

But the economy needs the dollars.

[Jun 15, 2019] Trump's Trade Threats are really Cold War 2.0 by Michael Hudson

Notable quotes:
"... Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce. ..."
"... China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together, driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to Europe. ..."
Jun 13, 2019 | www.unz.com

President Trump has threatened China's President Xi that if they don't meet and talk at the upcoming G20 meetings in Japan, June 29-30, the United States will not soften its tariff war and economic sanctions against Chinese exports and technology.

Some meeting between Chinese and U.S. leaders will indeed take place, but it cannot be anything like a real negotiation. Such meetings normally are planned in advance, by specialized officials working together to prepare an agreement to be announced by their heads of state. No such preparation has taken place, or can take place. Mr. Trump doesn't delegate authority.

He opens negotiations with a threat. That costs nothing, and you never know (or at least, he never knows) whether he can get a freebee. His threat is that the U.S. can hurt its adversary unless that country agrees to abide by America's wish-list. But in this case the list is so unrealistic that the media are embarrassed to talk about it. The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could accept. What appears on the surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold War 2.0.

America's wish list: other countries' neoliberal subservience

At stake is whether China will agree to do what Russia did in the 1990s: put a Yeltsin-like puppet of neoliberal planners in place to shift control of its economy from its government to the U.S. financial sector and its planners. So the fight really is over what kind of planning China and the rest of the world should have: by governments to raise prosperity, or by the financial sector to extract revenue and impose austerity.

U.S. diplomacy aims to make other countries dependent on its agricultural exports, its oil (or oil in countries that U.S. majors and allies control), information and military technology. This trade dependency will enable U.S. strategists to impose sanctions that would deprive economies of basic food, energy, communications and replacement parts if they resist U.S. demands.

The objective is to gain financial control of global resources and make trade "partners" pay interest, licensing fees and high prices for products in which the United States enjoys monopoly pricing "rights" for intellectual property. A trade war thus aims to make other countries dependent on U.S.-controlled food, oil, banking and finance, or high-technology goods whose disruption will cause austerity and suffering until the trade "partner" surrenders.

China's willingness to give Trump a "win"

Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce.

It is easy to see what China's answer will be. It will stand aside and let the US self-destruct. Its negotiators are quite happy to "offer" whatever China has planned to do anyway, and let Trump brag that this is a "concession" he has won.

China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together, driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to Europe.

Trump may be too narcissistic to realize the irony here. Catalyzing Asian and European trade independence, financial independence, food independence and IT independence from the threat of U.S. sanctions will leave the U.S. isolated in the emerging multilateralism.

America's wish for a neoliberal Chinese Yeltsin (and another Russian Yeltsin for that matter)

A good diplomat does not make demands to which the only answer can be "No." There is no way that China will dismantle its mixed economy and turn it over to U.S. and other global investors. It is no secret that the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the late 19 th and early 20 th century by heavy public-sector subsidy of education, roads, communication and other basic infrastructure. Today's privatized, financialized and "Thatcherized" economies are high-cost and inefficient.

Yet U.S. officials persist in their dream of promoting some neoliberal Chinese leader or "free market" party to wreak the damage that Yeltsin and his American advisors wrought on Russia. The U.S. idea of a "win-win" agreement is one in which China will be "permitted" to grow as long as it agrees to become a U.S. financial and trade satellite, not an independent competitor.

Trump's trade tantrum is that other countries are simply following the same economic strategy that once made America great, but which neoliberals have destroyed here and in much of Europe. U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its competitive industrial advantage and become a high-cost rentier economy. Its GDP is "empty," consisting mainly of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) rents, profits and capital gains while the nation's infrastructure decays and its labor is reduced to a prat-time "gig" economy. Under these conditions the effect of trade threats can only be to speed up the drive by other countries to become economically self-reliant.


nsa , says: June 14, 2019 at 5:04 am GMT

The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely. Get it? The Chinese won't let the Jews in to loot the place and the Jews are pissed. Trumpstein, the cryto Jew, has promised his sponsors to rectify the situation. The Chinese witnessed what happened when Yeltsin allowed the IMF to parachute Jeffrey Sachs and his Jew Boys into Russia in 1991 Jews looted the place mercilessly, calling it democracy and capitalism, and Russia is still recovering. The Chinese have a bright future, as long as they keep the Jews out.
sally , says: June 14, 2019 at 5:35 am GMT
I agree.
I am afraid spokes person Trump and those he is speaking for have it wrong. They believe external trade is interfering with the La-Zi-Faire fat cat monopoly powered corporations the CPI (congress, president and Israeli governance represent.
Few western companies can compete because only monopoly endowed Global corporations are allowed or licensed to compete. Individual ability, the creative mind of the lone rangers with highly disruptive inventions and ideas, are not allowed access to the knowledge or money to play. Making people pay for sleazy operating systems when better ones are free, allowing big corporations to hack the data of everyone, and on and on.

Even when a person finds a way to play and actually produces a product or concept, the financial condition of the inventor is so weak or the barriers to promote his product is so strong that as soon as the idea or product is patented or copyrighted it somehow absorbed into one of the monopoly powered giants; in other words, competition is only allowed if the competitor gives the profits to one of the monopoly powered giants. China should be complaining, at least their competitors can produce, in the USA governed America unlicensed competition is denied.

Copyright, patents, standardized testing and licensing every breath have terminated competition in America.
America still competes with Americans as long as the business does not compete with the global corporations.

The problem Trump thinks he can solve, is not sourced in India, China, Iran, Russia, or any other nation. The problem is at home, in government policy, laws that turn capitalistic competition into monopolistic fat-cat wealth storing private domain havens. Education by degree and license by examination and standardization of performance are used to restrict competition. Education, is a bureaucracy and no matter its efficiency; a degree cannot provide competitive performance. The USA governance over America has served only the interest of monopoly endowed corporations and their oligarch owners and investors. Trump is trying to overcome foreign competition, by threat and blocking maneuvers, to deny foreigners the fruits of their competitive successes I do not believe he can be successful. Already the Russian and Chinese have developed a new currency and banking system to circumvent the Trump block. Work around-s are in progress everywhere.. Soon even the USA will not be allowed to compete I fear.
It is not a matter of where the competition comes from, its that the monopoly powers have used the behavior enforcing rule making capacity of the USA to deny native American creativity; creativity that America needs to be competitive. USA policy continues to be to enrich a few by channeling and encapsulating all effort within the confines of the monopoly holders instead of encouraging every back yard to be a new competitor. It will be many years before Americans will be able to compete..

Trade is not the issue, competition is!

schrub , says: June 14, 2019 at 6:15 am GMT
What Trump is now demanding reminds me of the brutally efficient system that Trump grew up in: New York City business. (Author Tom Wolfe has a great line in his book The Bonfire Of The Vanities that the strange, unrelenting background droning sound one hears in NYC is that of "people constantly braying for money").

New York City real estate in particular is an area of business that is so brutally competitive, unscrupulous , and backstabbing that it is best described as war under another name. It is a business arena where a close friend one day can turn into a staunch enemy the next. Trust is rare.

New York real estate, in fact, brings to mind the old saying about sausage making: You would never eat it if you saw it being made. Yet deals are made. In fact, a lot of them. This is the milieu Trump comes from.

Trump isn't one of those more genteel, old-time American negotiators of prior years the author of this article speaks fondly of. These are the very same people who so readily agreed to disasters like NAFTA or allowed, for instance, Or allowed Japan to levy two hundred percent duties on things like American made Harley Davidson motorcycles while the USA was pressured (or bribed) to apply few if any comparable duties on Japanese motorcycles or automobiles (or virtually anything else Japan sold in the USA). These toothless. genteel types also stood back for decades and allowed Japan to use red tape (like obscure safety regulations for instance) to make it almost impossibly difficult to sell American products like automobiles in Japan.

These very same US negotiators, politicians, and bureaucrats have more recently stood back and allowed China to absolutely devastate American manufacturing.

Screw China, It's now payback time. The Chinese are shaking in their boots because the previously hoodwinked and comatose Americans are finally waking up. No more wimpy Obama or Bush looking out for our interests. It is now Truly Scary Trump instead.

Wait until the negotiations are concluded to see if they are successful. The sausage that comes out of them might be very appealing for the first time in many, many decades.

Sam J. , says: June 14, 2019 at 6:38 am GMT
" His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce "

I get that the US financial system is up to no good with their positions on China but the criticisms Trump made of China are correct. They have lots of tariffs on finished goods from the US. They require technology transfer to do business there. Their government and industry are tied at the hip and they are manipulating their currency. All these things are true and if we keep trading with them with the same terms we have been we would lose ALL our industrial infrastructure. Now we hear over and over how we can't build anything but the Chinese went from being dirt farmers to the largest industrial power in a fairly short period of time. Could we not do the same at least for our own countries market? Certainly global trade destruction between countries is not a good thing but we'd be fools to keep on as we are now. At some point when you dig a hole you have to stop to get yourself out.

I don't think we have a choice if we wish to continue to be an industrialized country. All those that say China will do fine without us are not taking into account how all the other countries who are being handled the exact same way as we are, are going to handle China's trade with them. Will they keep allowing China to have large tariffs on their products while they Chinese ship whatever they wish into theirs? I'm not so sure they will. If the US starts refusing the Chinese free entry without reciprocal trade then I can easily see others following our lead.

We should have stopped this many years ago but as bad as the situation is now it will only get worse if we don't act.

Let them remove their tariffs. We should take every single anti-trade act and tariff they have on us, weigh them on China and "then" negotiate. If they don't wish to it's their country they can do what they please and so can we.

animalogic , says: June 14, 2019 at 6:39 am GMT
"The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely. Get it? "
Absolutely. Like inviting a handful of worms into your apple -- economy hollowed out in an eye blink.
However, there is another side to this "trade dispute" coin.
FIRE want to economicly destroy China. The neocon', MIC, security sector wants to destroy China's 2025 plan to become high-tech world leaders. 5G, AI, semi conductors etc are some of the areas that China's public/private sectors are voraciously pushing. Hence, the (wonderfully "free market") US attacks on Heiwai.
These short term US gambles are more than likely to pay off by the medium-long term undermining of US hegemony via Eurasian integration led by China & Russia.
And all the time we are left wondering whether the US will choose the "Samson Option" rather than accept reduced status. (Insane with power lust, the US can't even accept "first among equals")
Justsaying , says: June 14, 2019 at 9:54 am GMT

The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could accept. What appears on the surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold War 2.0

.

Typical mobster protection racket threats. Now the US has moved from waging military wars on behalf of their Jewish owners to aggressively push their neoliberal economic warfare for them. The facade for promoting democracy and human rights is no longer required.

And to call attempts at starving the population and murdering children by denying them essential medicines as has happened in Iraq and now is going on in Iran and Venezuela, a Cold War 2.0 is a gross understatement. It is a flagrant act of war. America is launching a war of attrition on the world and who better to spearhead that war than an idiot manipulated by Zionist Jews? The fact that many countries remain silent is testament to their surrender. But China may prove to be a different proposition.

PeterMX , says: June 14, 2019 at 10:51 am GMT
"the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the late 19th and early 20th century" That is a myth. The US may have had the highest GDP because it was the leader in manufacturing, as China is now, but Europe and in particular Germany was far ahead of the US in technology and science. If you compare China to the US today the situation is very similar to comparing the US to Germany before 1939. Germany was far ahead of the US in the number of Nobel Prizes received thru 1945 and very few of the Americans that did receive the Nobel Prize were native born. The US received a few Nobel Prizes starting in the 1940's because some recent European immigrants that became US citizens received it for work they had done in Europe. The three biggest technological breakthroughs of WW II were the jet, the rocket and the atomic bomb. Germany invented the jet, built the first modern rockets and the German scientist Otto Hahn split the atom in 1939 (for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1944) kicking off the USA's atomic bomb project and Germany's limited attempt. The people that eventually achieved success in the US were almost all recent European immigrants (Bethe, Teller, etc.), many being Jewish.

I basically agree with the rest of the article. I believe Trump's tactics make sense. The problem is it's too late. The US economy can't be fixed by anyone. The US has 22 trillion dollars in debt and will never be able to pay it back. The dollar is going to take a deep dive within the next few years and it will lose its status as the reserve currency. I believe this based upon what people like Peter Schiff, Paul Craig Roberts, David Stockman and Ron Paul say.

I think the two biggest events of the last 75 years were WW II, completely changing the countries that run the world and the emergence of a backwards and dirt poor China to become an economic powerhouse and I think they will get stronger.

Sean , says: June 14, 2019 at 11:02 am GMT

The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could accept.

Yes country. If the world was one big free trade area, it there were no bloks or even no countries in the sense we understand them then the population of the would be wealthier, on average. But countries are not primarily economic units, even if one can look at them as such.

Nation states exist and have the emergent quality that they to survive against other nation states and the best way to do that is to gain extra power relative to other states, or at least maintain their position. Why would America agree to terms of trade that do not maintain its position relative to China.

U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its competitive industrial advantage

There is no absolute standards by which such an advantage could be judged. The terms of trade that are finally settled on will be a compromise and reflect the interests of both, and the total balance of forces between the two.

Sally Snyder , says: June 14, 2019 at 11:48 am GMT
As shown in this article, both Russia and China have plans in place to work around American sanctions:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/06/putin-and-xi-defeating-american.html

The combination of both nations will make it extremely difficult for Washington to impose its hegemonic agenda without serious repercussions as two of the world's leading military forces seek to increase the level of co-operation between their nations.

Incitatus , says: June 14, 2019 at 11:50 am GMT
Trump's Trade Tariff Theatre 2018 results:
Country/Trade Balance/2018 vs. 2017

Mexico: trade DEFICIT -$81.5 billion; up 14.9% from 2017;
Canada: trade DEFICIT -$19.8 billion; up 15.8% from 2017;
China: trade DEFICIT -$375.6 billion; up 11.6% from 2017;
South Korea: trade DEFICIT -$17.9 billion; down 22.4% from 2017;
Japan: trade DEFICIT -$67.7 billion; down 1.8% from 2017
Germany: trade DEFICIT -$68.3 billion; up 7.2% from 2017;
France: trade DEFICIT -$16.2 billion; up 5.8% from 2017;
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: trade DEFICIT -$10.5 billion; up 313.3% from 2017;
Russia: trade DEFICIT -$14.1 billion; up 40.9% from 2017;

Asia: trade DEFICIT -$622.2 billion; up 8.8% from 2017;
Europe: trade DEFICIT -$202.4 billion; up 16.6% from 2017;
World: trade DEFICIT -$795.7 billion; up 10.4% from 2017

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/index.html

'Art of the Deal'?

rafael martorell , says: June 14, 2019 at 11:57 am GMT
To all of the "free traders", the media ,and academia ,i have this simple question:
why i cant purchase a Toyota work van(the best and must popular of the world),neither here in the USA nor abroad and bring it in?
how come that even in Cuba there are more of those Toyota work van than here in all continental USA.
In 25 year i has to purchase more than 6 work vans,and like Penelope i have been waiting for the Toyota ,and still waiting.
They ,the free traders,did not has allowed not even one.
DESERT FOX , says: June 14, 2019 at 12:27 pm GMT
The problem with the zio/US is the control of the US by the zionists and this control is derived via the zionist privately owned FED and IRS that they got installed in 1913 and then came the debt and wars and the hijacking of the foreign policy by the satanic zionists and the US gov was started on a down hill slide pushed started by the zionists!

The trade policy of the zio/US has turned Russia into the largest grain exporter in the world and turned Russia into an agriculture miracle , this can be shown by watch videos of Russian agriculture on youtube. Germany is also in Russia building cars and other industrial products for Russia thus bypassing the zio/US trade sanctions and last but not least Russia is trading in non dollars in trade with more and more countries such as China thus effectively rendering the dollar non and void in international trade.

So the people of the zio/US can thank their zionist masters for the demise of America and true to form the zionist parasites are killing their American host

Agent76 , says: June 14, 2019 at 1:08 pm GMT
May 14, 2019 Trade Wars: The Truth About Tariffs

Join Mike Maloney as he examines the latest moves in the US/China trade war, and visits some compelling arguments from the Foundation for Economic Education.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/c1r7uO0D-R0?feature=oembed

Aug 26, 2015 How the West Re-colonized China

The "Chinese dragon" of the last two decades may be faltering but it is still hailed by many as an economic miracle. Far from a great advance for Chinese workers, however, it is the direct result of a consolidation of power in the hands of a small clique of powerful families, families that have actively collaborated with Western financial oligarchs.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WxFSvPUY_oc?feature=oembed

Realist , says: June 14, 2019 at 1:15 pm GMT
@Thinking Out Loud Plus E-verify.
George , says: June 14, 2019 at 1:20 pm GMT
"Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. "

Tariffs are taxes and both governments like collecting taxes.

Farmers. Farmers sell a commodity so if they cannot sell to China one result is they will sell to other customers while China buys more from other producers.

Cost of living. DC does not care. There is a solid inflation lobby in the fed that supports increasing the cost of living.

"Walmart and much of the IT sector against him." I am not buying it.

Rogue , says: June 14, 2019 at 2:20 pm GMT
@PeterMX

Germany invented the jet

Well, more accurate to say that Germany and Britain invented the jet engine independently of each other. Just as they both invented radar independently of each other as well.

As it is, the post-war jet engine was based primarily on the British design of Frank Whittle, though some of the German ideas were also later incorporated.

But, overall, the British design was superior.

Miggle , says: June 14, 2019 at 2:26 pm GMT
@schrub It wasn't the Chinese who hoodwinked the Americans, it was American financiers who hoodwinked the Americans.

[Jun 12, 2019] Huawei asks Verizon to pay over $1 billion for over 230 patents source by David Shepardson

Jun 12, 2019 | finance.yahoo.com

Huawei Technologies Co Ltd has told Verizon Communications Inc that the U.S. carrier should pay licensing fees for more than 230 of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker's patents and in aggregate is seeking more than $1 billion, a person briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

Verizon should pay to "solve the patent licensing issue," a Huawei intellectual property licensing executive wrote in February, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier. The patents cover network equipment for more than 20 of the company's vendors including major U.S. tech firms but those vendors would indemnify Verizon, the person said. Some of those firms have been approached directly by Huawei, the person said.

The patents in question range from core network equipment, wireline infrastructure to internet-of-things technology, the Journal reported. The licensing fees for the more than 230 patents sought is more than $1 billion, the person said.

Huawei has been battling the U.S. government for more than a year. National security experts worry that "back doors" in routers, switches and other Huawei equipment could allow China to spy on U.S. communications. Huawei has denied that it would help China spy.

Companies involved, including Verizon have notified the U.S. government and the dispute comes amid a growing feud between China and the United States. The licensing fee demand may be more about the geopolitical battle between China and the United States rather than a demand for patent fees.

Huawei and Verizon representatives met in New York last week to discuss some of the patents at issue and whether Verizon is using equipment from other companies that could infringe on Huawei patents.

Verizon spokesman Rich Young declined to comment "regarding this specific issue because it's a potential legal matter."

However, Young said, "These issues are larger than just Verizon. Given the broader geopolitical context, any issue involving Huawei has implications for our entire industry and also raise national and international concerns."

Huawei and U.S. wireless carriers T-Mobile US Inc and AT&T Inc did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment. Sprint Corp declined to comment.

The United States last month put Huawei on a blacklist that barred it from doing business with U.S. companies on security grounds without government approval, prompting some global tech firms to cut ties with the world's largest telecoms equipment maker.

Washington is also seeking the extradition of Huawei Chief Financial Executive Meng Wanzhou from Canada after her arrest in Vancouver last December on a U.S. warrant.

China has since upped the pressure on Canada, halting Canadian canola imports and in May suspended the permits of two major pork producers.


(Reporting by Arjun Panchadar in Bengaluru and David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by Anil D'Silva, Sriraj Kalluvila and Sandra Maler)

[Jun 11, 2019] How neoliberalism created huge immigration flows: If you live in a vassal country like Ukraine, saddled with World Bank, IMF Debt and currency with ever-declining value pegged to the us dollar immigration might be the best option for you and your falmily.

Jun 11, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

fastfreddy , Jun 11, 2019 10:51:55 AM | 133

The MoA Week In Review - OT 2019-32

The common migrant cannot be tasked with improving the politics, the financial aspects, the pay scale, the opportunities for work, the safety of his family in his home country.

The USA has prepared his country the way that it endeavors it to be. That is a vassal, saddled with World Bank, IMF Debt and currency with ever-declining value pegged to the us dollar.

Often the US controls his country via election rigging, coups, military intervention, black ops, etc.

He must do that which best serves his family. That is find the most efficient solution - which is migration.

[Jun 11, 2019] In reality localists, sovereignists etc. don't really want de-globalisation for the sake of it, they mostly want to increase exports and decrease imports, and in fact these localists desires are stronger in countries (USA, UK) that are big net importers, and therefore think they are losing in the globalisation race.

Jun 11, 2019 | crookedtimber.org

MisterMr 06.11.19 at 11:16 am

@nastywoman 26

" -- seems to me a very complicated explanation for: If a country doesn't produce what it consumes Such a country is entirely F ed!"

This is totally NOT what I said, so I'll restate my point differently.

IF people (localists, sovereignists etc.) really wanted less globalisation, without global supply chains, etc., then it would be possible, at a price (in terms of productivity).

BUT in reality localists, sovereignists etc. don't really want de-globalisation for the sake of it, they mostly want to increase exports and decrease imports, and in fact these localists desires are stronger in countries (USA, UK) that are big net importers, and therefore think they are losing in the globalisation race.

The reason localists want to increase exports and decrease imports is that it is a form of mercantilism: if exports increase and imports decrease, there are more jobs and contemporaneously there are also more profits for businesses, so it's natural that countries want to import less and export more.

BUT exports are a zero sum game, so while this or that country can have some advantages by being a net exporter, this automatically means that some other country becomes a net importer, so onne can't solve the problem of unemployment by having everyone being net exporters (as Krugman once joked by having everyone export to Mars).

So the big plan of localists cannot work in aggregate, if it works for one country it creates a problem for another country. This is a really big problem that will cause increasing international tensions.

We are seeing this dinamic, IMHO, in the Brexit negotiations, where in my opinion many brexiters had mercantilist hopes, but of course the EU will not accept an accord that makes it easy for the UK to play mercantilist.

I'll add that I think that Brexiters don't really realise that they are mercantilists, but if you look at the demands and hopes of many Brexiters this is their "revealed preference".

This is also a problem because apparently many people (not only the Brexiters, see also EU's policies towards Greece) don't really realise what's the endgame for the policies they are rooting for, it seems more like a socially unconscious tendency, so it is difficult to have a rational argument with someone that doesn't really understand what he wants and what he is in practice trying to do.

The reason that every country is trying to play mercantilist is that in most countries inequality rose in the last decades, which creates a tendency towards underconsumption, that must be countered through one of these 3 channels: (1) Government deficits; (2) Easy money finance and increased levels of financial leverage; (3) net exports.

The first two channels lead to higher debt levels, the third apparently doesn't but, as on the other side of net exports there has to be a net importer, in reality it still relies on an increase in debt levels, only it is an increase in debt levels by someone else (sometimes known as the net exporter -- "vendor-financing" the net importer)

The increase in leverage goes hand in hand with an increase of the value of capital assets VS GDP, that is an increase of the wealth to income ratio.

So ultimately the increased level of inequality inside countries (as opposed to economic inequality between countries, that is falling) leads to a world where both debt levels and asset prices grow more than proportionally to GDP, hence speculative behaviour, and an economy that is addicted to the increase of debt levels, either at home or abroad (in the case of net exporting countries).

The countries that seriously want to become net exporters have to depress internal consumption, which makes the problem worse at a world level. The countries like the USA, where internal consumption is too much a big share of the pie relative to what the USA could gain by exports, are forced to the internal debt route, and so are more likely to become net importers.

However, in this situation where everyone acts mercantilist, by necessity someone will end up a net importer because import/export is a zero sum game, so it doesn't really make sense to blame this or that attitude of, for example, Americans for they being net importers: they are forced into it because otherwise they would be in perma-depression.

nastywoman 06.11.19 at 11:31 am ( 30 )

“But it is unquestionably and unarguably true that American conflict (which may or may not be of a military nature) with a rising China is literally inevitable”

As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable to a (real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese conflict –
(just the games which are going on currently) – and just never forget – all of my Chinese friends are really ”tough gamblers”.

Mike Furlan 06.11.19 at 2:30 pm ( 31 )
@30

“As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable to a (real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese conflict “

Crash, then conflict?

One possibility is a US market crash entirely due to domestic shenanigans, followed by demagogue blaming it all on “Chiner.”

[Jun 10, 2019] Can globalization be reversed Part 1 Trade (wonkish)

Jun 10, 2019 | crookedtimber.org

Lupita 06.09.19 at 6:02 pm

The first explicit reaction against globalization to gain popular attention was the Battle of Seattle in 1999

Why not the Zapatista uprising in 1994? It was explicitly against Nafta and neoliberalism. The 1997 Asian financial crisis also triggered a very strong reaction against the US centered globalized financial system, its hedge funds, and the IMF.

the neoliberal ideology on which it rested, didn't face any serious challenge until the Global Financial Crisis of 2008

In 2003, the unified challenge of the poorer countries was so serious that it the collapsed the WTO talks to the point that it has never recovered. 2008 was simply catastrophic.

More than globalization being challenged, I think it is US hegemony. Trump is definitely uniting its challengers with his media circus in Venezuela, disruptive tariff threats against Mexico, and the blacklisting of Huawei.

Likbez 06.09.19 at 11:38 pm (no link)

Trump election in 2016 was in essence a rejection of neoliberal globalization by the American electorate which showed the USA neoliberal establishment the middle finger. That's probably why Russiagate hysteria was launched to create a smoke screen and patch the cracks.

The same is probably true about Brexit. That's also explains Great Britain prominent role in pushing anti-Russia hysteria.

I think the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 (along with the collapse of financial markets) mortally wounded "classic" neoliberal globalization. That's why we see the conversion of classic neoliberalism into Trump's "national neoliberalism" which rejects "classic" neoliberal globalization based on multinational treaties like WTO.

As the result of crisis of neoliberal ideology we see re-emergence of far-right on the political scene. We might also see the emergence of hostile to each other trading blocks (China Russia Turkey Iran; possibly plus Brazil and India ) vs G7. History repeats

I suspect that the USA neoliberal elite (financial oligarchy and MIC) views the current trade war with China as the key chance to revitalize Cold War schemes and strategically organize US economic, foreign and security policies around them. It looks like this strategic arrangement is very similar to the suppression of the USSR economic development during the Cold War.

The tragedy is that Trump administration is launching the conflict with China, while simultaneously antagonizing Russia, attacking EU and undermining elements of the postwar world order which propelled the USA to its current hegemonic position.

[Jun 10, 2019] Chinese in the US are reporting harassment and interrogations by US immigration authorities

Jun 08, 2019 | off-guardian.org

On June 4th the Chinese government issued a travel alert for Chinese tourists thinking of visiting the United States, a day after it issued a similar advisory to Chinese students thinking of studying in the US over concerns for their safety and security.

Chinese in the US are reporting harassment and interrogations by US immigration authorities and many now have the impression they are not welcome in the US.

The Global Times , speaking on behalf of the government stated:

The Chinese people find it difficult to accept the fact that they are being taken as thieves. The US boasts too much superiority and has been indulged by the world. Due to its short history, it lacks understanding of and respect for the rules of countries and laws of the market.

The Americans of the early generations accumulated prosperity and prestige for the US, while the current US administration behaves like a wastrel generation by ruining the world's respect for the US."

... ... ...

The situation has become so tense that the Global Times on June 6,th in an op ed by Wei Jianguo, said:

China is able to withstand US maximum pressure, due to the country's economic resilience, and Chinese people's resolute determination. Suffering from a century of humiliation, the Chinese nation has been accustomed to such pressure, as shown in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, as well as the Korean War or the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea. The unity of Chinese people is a vital reason for the country's fundamental victory in history."

The Peoples' Daily stated, "America is the enemy of the world."

[Jun 10, 2019] China to roll out export controls on sensitive technology

Trump is not a thinker, and never was. He is an impulsive narcissist. So the question is whether the USA committed a blunder by unleashing open trade war with China, the war which now extent the Cold War 2 to another nation (cementing emerging alliance between Russia and China which is a death sentence to the USA global hegemony) and where the USA faces very resilient and inventive opponent. And they will lose even if they win.
I actually am amazed by the level of reclines and arrogance the USA democratic is such topic. I do not see multiyear preparation, mobilization of engineering talent and resources that is needed for successfully procuring such a war. It looks like completely impulsive decision partially based on the attempt to get some additional concessions from China. That attempt which spectacularly failed and fueled very dangerous for the USA a wave of Chinese nationalists within mainland china.
The key issue here is that is current stage of neoliberal decine the USA can't rely on loyalty of its own key players and citizets ("greed is good" is the motto of neoliberalism; plus Chinese have probably a very good access to Taiwan high technology industry, the access which is impossible to cut). Such a low level loyalty previously existed just before the USA collapse, when the CIA was able to tranfere to the West a mid level cipher officer from KGB headquarters ( Sheymov defected to the United States in May 1980) and recruit at least one general (Kalugin). Actually KGB was at the center and the main driving force of neoliberal counterrevolution in Russia (Trojan Horse so to speak), as under Andropov they switch sides. So they were naturally allied with CIA at this point
the point is that it does not take too much efforts for foreign intelligence agency now to recruit the US citizens as the collapse of neoliberal ideology creates fertile ground for such an efforts, much like the collapse of Bolsheviks ideology did for the USA. Some can just volunteer appalled by the actions of neoliberal empire. In this sense cases of Manning and Snowen should serve the US administration a stern warning sign that it is a very dangerous to rock the boat if the country experience a collapse of imperial ideology (Neoliberalism). In this case the trade war might be more difficult then they think.
China has more people and produce per year more engineers in STEM. So the USA does not hoild allthe cards. it it has some advantages over the USA in the long term. Also the current technologies are pretty established and "innovation" is often is limited to shriking the silicon die and adding more core for CPUs.
Actually Intel CPUs have a horrible really outdated CISC instruction set and there might be chance to use different instruction set with better overall chanracteristics. Only the billions that Intel get from sales allow it to outpace the rivals. Failed stqrtup Transmeta, for exampel, in late 1990th tried to emulate it via RISK. If throwing out emulation layer speeds up things twice or more, why not to use this path giving enough man power, money and level of animosity toward the USA?
Jun 10, 2019 | businesstelegraph.co.uk

The mechanism would "prevent and resolve national security risks", Xinhua said. Details would be released soon, it added.

The announcement comes amid a souring of relations with the US after the most recent round of trade negotiations ended without a deal in May.

Since then, the Trump administration has blacklisted Chinese telecommunications equipment maker Huawei, while China has threatened to punish foreign companies that cut off ties with Huawei by listing them as "unreliable".

The new Chinese regulations could prove similar to US export controls on strategic technologies. Those controls -- covering military equipment, some encryption technologies, and some dual-use products -- have long irked China. Chinese negotiators have often claimed that their trade surplus could be trimmed if the US would relax controls on high-tech goods.

The mechanism will be developed by the National Reform and Development Commission under the guidelines of China's national security law , passed in 2015, Xinhua said.

"This is a major step to improve [China's system] and also a move to counter the US crackdown," tweeted Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a nationalist tabloid that is sometimes used to float ideas that are not official policy. "Once taking effect, some technology exports to the US will be subject to the control." Last month, the NDRC implied it would block exports of rare earths , a material with many strategic applications. After the trade talks broke down in May, Chinese president Xi Jinping visited a manufacturer of rare earths magnets, used in electric vehicles and other new technology applications, as a reminder that China holds some trump cards of its own. READ Massages and free fish help east Europe tackle labour shortages

Rare earth are used in smartphones, lasers, instrument panels, wind turbines and MRI machines and more than 90 per cent of hybrid and electric cars.

[Jun 10, 2019] China Threatens 'Dire Consequences' If Tech Giants Comply With Trump Ban

Notable quotes:
"... Now, each of the two superpowers appears to be crafting new economic weapons to aim at the other. What was once a fraught, but deeply enmeshed, trade relationship is threatening to break apart almost entirely, raising the specter of a new geopolitical reality in which the world's two superpowers would compete for economic influence and try to freeze each other out of key technologies and resources. - New York Times ..."
"... "This is now extremely delicate [time] because the Trump administration, through its brinkmanship tactics, has destabilized the entire relationship, commercial and otherwise," according to China expert Scott Kennedy - senior adviser at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies who studies Chinese economic policy. ..."
Jun 08, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Beijing put big tech on notice last week, threatening 'dire consequences' if companies such as Microsoft, Dell and Samsung comply with the Trump administration's ban on sales of key American technology to Chinese companies, according to the New York Times . Any companies which cooperate with the new policy ' could face permanent consequences ,' according to the Times. Chinese authorities also suggested using DC lobbyists to resist the government's moves.

China - which is already ditching Microsoft Windows for military applications - held a flurry of meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday after tech firms for discussions amid the backdrop of Beijing's planned blacklist of blacklisting of US firms on an "unreliable entities list."

Also participating in meetings were semiconductor companies Arm of Britain and SK Hynix of South Korea, according to the report, which cites a KPMG estimate that around 60% of all semiconductors sold are connected to China's supply chain, so maybe by that new computer sooner than later.

The breakneck unraveling of the world's most important trade relationship has left companies and governments around the world scrambling . While the dispute had already been nettlesome for Chinese-U.S. relations, the sudden ban on Huawei last month caught many by surprise , raising the stakes by striking at the heart of China's long-term technological ambitions.

Now, each of the two superpowers appears to be crafting new economic weapons to aim at the other. What was once a fraught, but deeply enmeshed, trade relationship is threatening to break apart almost entirely, raising the specter of a new geopolitical reality in which the world's two superpowers would compete for economic influence and try to freeze each other out of key technologies and resources. - New York Times
"This is now extremely delicate [time] because the Trump administration, through its brinkmanship tactics, has destabilized the entire relationship, commercial and otherwise," according to China expert Scott Kennedy - senior adviser at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies who studies Chinese economic policy.

More broadly, the warnings also seemed to be an attempt to forestall a fast breakup of the sophisticated supply chains that connect China's economy to the rest of the world . Production of a vast array of electronic components and chemicals, along with the assembly of electronic products , makes the country a cornerstone of the operations of many of the world's largest multinational companies. - New York Times

"The Chinese government has regularly resorted to jawboning multinationals to try to keep them in line when there are disputes between China and others that could lead these companies to reduce their business in China."

For example, in 2015 Xi dropped by Seattle before heading to meet with President Obama. While there, he had a chat with Amazon executives and Chinese tech executive in order to woo them on the prospect of future business, while the Obama administration was reportedly trying to push back against China's anticompetitive trade practices .

That said, China is far less likely to succeed this time around , according to Kennedy, who says that " American companies aren't going to violate American laws, especially in such a high-profile context where their actions are scrutinized."

"The companies are between a rock and a hard place, but that hard place will win out."

Three Chinese government bodies are involved in the recent discussions; the National Development and Reform Commission (China's central economic planning agency), the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. The Times posits that the fact that the three are all involved suggests the meetings came from the top-down in an attempt to rally support for Huawei - which was not specifically named.

" There is a strong perception in Beijing that the U.S. government is intent on blunting China's technology rise , and that if this process is not slowed or stopped, the future of China's entire digital economy is at risk," said Eurasia Group head of geotechnology, Paul Triolo, adding "Mr. Xi and the party will be seen as unable to defend China's economic future" it Huawei's 5G rollout is derailed by the Trump administration.

As the trade relationship between the United States and China has broken down, fears have risen in China that major companies will seek to move production elsewhere to avoid longer-term risks . In the meetings this week, Chinese officials explicitly warned companies that any move to pull production from China that seemed to go beyond standard diversification for security purposes could lead to punishment , according to the two people. - New York Times


SuzSez , 31 minutes ago link

"China Threatens 'Dire Consequences' If Tech Giants Comply With Trump Ban"

"And US Threatens Jail If They Don't"

Love it love it love it. Reminds me of the great line from Pride & Prejudice, "You're mother will never speak to you again if you marry him, and I (your father) will never speak to you again if you don't."

john.b , 49 minutes ago link

In R&D spending, China ranks 2nd place after US. China has over 8M new grads each year. Do you really believe stealing can make a country great. The trade war is about suppressing a new rising power of technology and economy.

VisionQuest , 4 hours ago link

There's a whole lot more to what China is up to than buying and selling. They've been working on how to rule the whole earth for 5000 years and the CCP thinks maybe now is the time. Here's a brief history of Chinese power games. They play for keeps. https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189701&sec_id=189701

straightershooter , 6 hours ago link

China's fightback strategy is simple: Force non-us corporations to abandon us-sourced technologies, and, hence, non-us corporations will not be bound by US laws, and, hence, won't subject to us blackmail laws.

The strategy already worked. ARM's founder said it will have to abandon US-sourced technology ( eventually abandon US-located headquarters) to keep the Chinese market, and, so other non-us corporations, such as Europe, Japanese, or Korean based corporations will have to follow. They have no other feasible choices.

In short, the world is divided into two groups: US group and non-us group. Congratulations to Trump: He has succeeded in isolating US from the world.

First step is to encourage, urge and force non-us corporations to make the choice using the gigantic china market.

Second step is to drive out us corporations at the time when there is alternative for US-made parts. Whenever US corporation is not the sole supplier, then China will declare that any product containing that part will be forbidden in the Chinese market. And, to make the situation even worse for US-sourced technology, any parts produced by non-us corporations using US-sourced technology will not be allowed in the Chinese market.

This is the reverse of the entity list.

In this game, one that has a bigger market prevails. China just happened to have 1.4 billion consumers while US has less than 0.4 billion. China wins. By poisoning American sourced technology, China will succeed in isolating US corporations.

LifeLibertyProperty , 5 hours ago link

You seem to be confused. ARM created a separate joint venture in China called ARM mini China that will license existing tech to China as a way to circumvent US rules. However, this creates a Chinese ARM license separate from the rest of the world. So it is China that is actually separated from further innovation outside of China.

JeanTrejean , 8 hours ago link

Today China, tomorrow EU.

Washington had always saboted what could be a strong competitor for the USA

Cheap Chinese Crap , 11 hours ago link

The Roman Emperor Caligula is best known for appointing his horse to one of the vacant consulships. Given the current quality of professional politicians on offer in the western world, he does not seem as crazy as he once was thought to be.

But he is also known for something else-- the phrase "Oderint dum Metuant" -- which is Latin for "Let them hate (us), so long as they fear (us)."

Not my favorite motto but I'll take it over "Here's my wallet. Don't you like me now?"

[Jun 09, 2019] Much More Than A Trade War

Notable quotes:
"... The US has decided that China can't be allowed to become a technological power any more than it is now. It's fine if all they do is make T-shirts, and low-tech crap, but anything more advanced then a digital alarm clock can not be allowed. ..."
"... Anytime you weaponize something (the dollar), countermeasures will be invented to neutralize that weapon........only a matter of time. ..."
"... We're so balls deep in debt la la land now that having a conversation about wealth creation via production feels a lot like making balloon animals while wearing a clown suit. ..."
"... Much More Than a Trade War ..."
"... it signals the implosion of America's tinsel, derivative-based economy ..."
"... the high dive of the middle class into serfdom ..."
"... Politicians here in the US are desperate for me to believe it is all China's fault. Not the lying, stealing politicians and MBAs that have stolen my future but China. I am not buying it. Even if China has stolen America's wealth, who let them? Who helped and got rich? That's right, US politicians and MBAs. ..."
"... The only reason why this is a trade war in the first place, is because we're attempting to undo the shitty deals signed by Bill Clinton. Let this be a lesson: Don't sign shitty deals. No matter how much they donate to your campaign. ..."
"... Asking this of a politician is like asking a leech to stop living off blood. ..."
Jun 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
frankthecrank , 12 minutes ago link

I watch Fox News Sunday and today all of the usual suspects were blaming Trump for everything under the sun--including committing crimes and needing to be put in jail. It bears repeating that they said the same things about Reagan and his trade wars--which benefited Americans immensely.

Trump will win unless the Dems can get rid of him. China is a paper tiger and always has been.

They are a totalitarian communist state and as such are a sworn enemy of the US and its historic peoples. They must be taken down and that is not hyperbole--they never should have been allowed to trade with the civilized world in the first place without first shutting down the Kims in Norkland and dismantling their communist state.

Russia would have been more in order in 1992 than China. ******* Clintons.

sgt_doom , 21 minutes ago link

America's Wall of Shame:

(Those companies and organizations which have contributed to and/or financed the creation of the Chinese Communist Party's ultra-Orwellian system for command and control: Social Credit System.)

Recommended Reading:

Recommended Viewing:

Further sources and reading:

Tiananmen Square referenced:

blueseas , 22 minutes ago link

Is it so hard to understand that the chinks KNOW that the yuan is trash and that's why both the CB and the public are stacking gold. They're preparing for what comes next. According to Jim Willie, that will be an Asian gold trade note as proposed by the PM of Malaysia.

monty42 , 21 minutes ago link

Which would mean war if the D.C. regime's past behavior is any indication.

quesnay , 23 minutes ago link

"China and its citizens would greatly benefit from eliminating barriers."

It's too bad they never did this, but now it no longer matters. The US has decided that China can't be allowed to become a technological power any more than it is now. It's fine if all they do is make T-shirts, and low-tech crap, but anything more advanced then a digital alarm clock can not be allowed.

China would do best to forget about the US and hope that it can make due with it's domestic market. With 1.3 billion people this seems like it should be possible.

bshirley1968 , 9 minutes ago link

They need dollars to buy US goods and services. They also need them to buy oil from Saudis. They have dollar based loans that require payment in dollars.

bshirley1968 , 24 minutes ago link

"The United States has discovered the Achilles heel of China. The same one Japan had in the 80s when it seemed that it was going to invade the world. Its dependence on the US dollar to maintain its large domestic imbalances, a very fragile house of cards of excess capacity, real estate bubble and unproductive spending."

Oh, yeah. .......we just "figured" that one out. It's not like we haven't used that scheme on.......well, EVERYONE. Even our own citizens are slaves to a debt dollar system. It is all we got left......well that and the A-bomb. But at the same time, it is our biggest weakness because if we can't get the world to expand dollar debt, 5 hen we will have to do it ourselves. Hence the, "China is not the largest holder of US bonds in the world, not even close. It's the US . In fact, China has already reduced part of its holdings in US bonds and yields fell ."

We are the largest holder of our own debt.....and can print up what we need to buy what is necessary to drive yields down. But at some point it will be like playing monopoly with yourself......a zero sum game. Anytime you weaponize something (the dollar), countermeasures will be invented to neutralize that weapon........only a matter of time.

schroedingersrat , 23 minutes ago link

Yeah like the US is any less totalitarian than China.

bshirley1968 , 18 minutes ago link

Indeed. Anyone pushing that narrative is part of the totalitarian regime or is dumb as a bag of hammers. Either way, they lose all credibility in my opinion.

Scipio Africanuz , 28 minutes ago link

Propaganda is also a tool of warfare, but in war, resilience wins, cheers...

Mustafa Kemal , 19 minutes ago link

"**** Communism"

**** Finance Capitalism

smacker , 12 minutes ago link

China went from communism to fascism in 20 years. It wasn't a big step. Do try to keep up ;-) 🙄

Mike Rotsch , 9 minutes ago link

They still seem to use the hammer and sickle though. . . the conniving sneeky bastards.

He–Mene Mox Mox , 31 minutes ago link

The author has never been to China to know anything about it, much less write about it, and he knows even less about the trade relationships of the two countries.

For instance, He says: " China has a trade deficit with most of its other partners".... WRONG!!!! It is the U.S. who has the deficits with other countries, not China! China has a manufacturing economy, not a consumer economy, so the trade balance is in its favor, as manufacturing economies are in demand and have very little deficit.

And the author also reveals his biases about China by saying: "China's Achilles heel has been to try to be a reserve currency whilst maintaining capital controls and increasing state intervention...." What do you think the U.S. Federal Reserve does, if it is not the very same thing? Weren't they the ones who sets interest rates, control the rates of inflation, dictating the supply of money, and doing economic bailouts to the banks in 2008 and 2009 with our money?

Secondly, he is just regurgitating the same old propaganda already put out about China, and really doesn't provide anything new. Why can't ZH find better writers to publish than this?

Marman , 20 minutes ago link

You are correct. China usually runs surpluses. But not with everyone.

In 2018, China posted a trade surplus of USD 351.76 billion, the lowest since 2013, as exports increased 9.9 percent, its strongest performance in seven years, while imports were up 15.8 percent. The biggest trade surpluses were recorded with Hong Kong, the US, the Netherlands, India, the UK, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia. China recorded trade deficits with Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Germany, Brazil and South Africa.

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/balance-of-trade

Author is wrong here.

"China's Achilles heel has been to try to be a reserve currency whilst maintaining capital controls and increasing state intervention...."

This is impossible. One cannot institute strong capital controls and have a reserve currency at the same time. China knows this and has never tried to become the reserve currency.

francis scott falseflag , 36 minutes ago link

wait till Muricans have to pay Trumps Tariff Tax

monty42 , 35 minutes ago link

yeah, they said they'd work on "migration" into their country, and try to do something about those staged caravans..but what they didn't do is say they'd stop their citizens from invading the US like they have been doing for decades, and they didn't say they'd secure their side of the border between the US and Mexico. So, how is the border more secure exactly? Oh, and they didn't say they'd pay for a wall.

These same games go on, round and round, between both parties, with people twisting everything, including nothing burgers and actual defeats into some kind of bizarre "winning" ********, to avoid legitimate criticism of their idol in the White House. Trumpets and Obamabots are peas in a pod in more ways than they realize, but watch out, you'll get an eye jab if you walk between them, with all the fingers pointing.

DingleBarryObummer , 28 minutes ago link

Winning, like alcohol, is addictive. Sometimes you find yourself all out of booze, so you find yourself taking swigs of Aqua Velva. Lots of Aqua Velva heads around here.

Marman , 43 minutes ago link

Same old script: China bad. China steals. China need to shape up or else. USA good. USA too soft on China. USA will be great again when China surrenders to US slavery. Think that about sums up these articles.

medium giraffe , 26 minutes ago link

It's a battle between rich assholes who just want you to pay your taxes and stfu.

Duc888 , 18 minutes ago link

I agree. The "investor" class. And by that i do not mean all investors, just the non productive LEECHES at the top playing games with fake "financial instruments"

They are non producers. They are lampreys. Same as on the bottom. I have absolutely no problem with rich people. I am blessed to hang with many self made millionaires who are all about designing / manufacturing unique products sold all over the world. They produce wealth and a product, not by skimming.

medium giraffe , 5 minutes ago link

Lampreys is right.

We're so balls deep in debt la la land now that having a conversation about wealth creation via production feels a lot like making balloon animals while wearing a clown suit.

Duc888 , 2 minutes ago link

But.... it actually works. There will ALWAYS be a market for well engineered quality products . ALWAYS.

Don't chase that race to the bottom. That is what was sold to the Us Consooooooooooooooooooooooooooomer (**** I hate that name, I am not a consumer) for the last thirty year. They bought the ****, they own it. **** em, let 'em choke on the icrapple and other swarf.

Ha.

I am not balls deep in debt. My total life debt so far is $800. USA incorporated... THEY have debt. That is not my debt.

Deep Snorkeler , 45 minutes ago link

Much More Than a Trade War

  1. it signals the implosion of America's tinsel, derivative-based economy
  2. the high dive of the middle class into serfdom
  3. the permanent collapse of the real estate circus
  4. the end of family farms
  5. the attack of robot droids on jobs
Marman , 35 minutes ago link

Yes.

Politicians here in the US are desperate for me to believe it is all China's fault. Not the lying, stealing politicians and MBAs that have stolen my future but China. I am not buying it. Even if China has stolen America's wealth, who let them? Who helped and got rich? That's right, US politicians and MBAs.

rickv404 , 31 minutes ago link

Yes, we have Democrat and Republican pols at the federal level spending this country into decline by trillions, and financing it all with inflation, which is why we're paying higher prices for virtually everything now, than we've ever paid.

francis scott falseflag , 29 minutes ago link

You forgot 6.

The annual Thank You Big Brother Day parade

frankthecrank , 4 minutes ago link

you just make **** up. 93% of American farms that do more than $1,000,000.00/year in business are family owned . even higher percentage below that.

Mike Rotsch , 55 minutes ago link

The only reason why this is a trade war in the first place, is because we're attempting to undo the shitty deals signed by Bill Clinton. Let this be a lesson: Don't sign shitty deals. No matter how much they donate to your campaign.

sticky_pickles , 45 minutes ago link

Asking this of a politician is like asking a leech to stop living off blood.

HideTheWeenie , 38 minutes ago link

Everybody bitches about tariffs but domestic tariffs, in the form of legislative monopolies are ok ?

[Jun 09, 2019] Xinhua Headlines Long-arm jurisdiction exposes U.S. law-of-the-jungle mentality - Xinhua English.news.cn

Jun 09, 2019 | www.xinhuanet.com
by Xinhua writer Zhao Wencai

BEIJING, June 9 (Xinhua) -- For years, non-U.S. transnational firms, vying to carve a niche in the global market with cutting-edge technologies or products, often find themselves fronting an opponent far more powerful and brutal than any commercial rival they have ever contested with -- the U.S. government.

Many foreign entities, whose business may seem irrelevant to the United States, have been forced by Washington with threats of sanctions to comply with U.S. domestic laws and regulations.

"After so many years fancying itself as the champion of the Rule of Law, the U.S. seems to be making headway in forging a world under the rule of law," said Zhou Qing'an, an analyst of international relations at China's Tsinghua University. "Only it's the American law of the jungle."

WEAPONIZED JURISDICTIONAL SYSTEM

In recent years, the U.S. government has slapped sanctions on and posed threats to an increasing array of foreign entities under the pretext of infringements of its tailor-made rules and regulations concerning anticorruption, taxation, investment and arms exports, crafting a long-range weapon with its jurisdictional system, the very foundations undergirding a country's authority.

Citing Cuba as an example of the U.S. jurisdictional overreach, Mauricio Santoro, head of the Department of International Relations at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said that for many times, the United States has enacted new laws and regulations to justify its punishments on foreign companies having commercial contacts with Cuba, a country that has long been taken as a thorn in the flesh by Washington.

In the latest round of sanctions against the Caribbean country, Washington activated Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, which put companies operating on properties confiscated by the Cuban government at risk of being sued in U.S. courts.

It's not just the entities from countries deemed by the United States as rivals or competitors that were exposed to the arbitrary abuse of Washington's jurisdictional power. Firms of its allied countries which refuse to yield to the U.S. supremacy can also find themselves under fire of such an overstretched jurisdictional "weapon."

In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice fined Alstom, a French power and transportation conglomerate, 772 million U.S. dollars, alleging the French company has broken America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which eventually led to the partial acquisition of Alstom by General Electric, its arch rival in the United States.

Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department put Huawei, a Chinese company that has taken the lead in 5G technology, and its affiliates on a blacklist that requires the federal government approval for any sale and transfer of U.S. technologies to the Chinese firm.

Up to now, the United States is still lobbying other countries to exclude Huawei from 5G networks construction over groundless accusations of spying.

"What is the most effective way to win a losing race? You change the rules and draw a foul on your competitors, rude but effective," Zhou explained with a metaphor. "That is exactly what the United States is doing to its competitors, even allies."

UNABASHED INTERNATIONAL DARWINIST

For decades, the United States has been touting itself as the flag-bearer of "freedom, equality, justice and humanity," but in recent words and deeds, the Washington government is exposing itself as an international Darwinist who sees the world as a jungle where the powerful preys on the vulnerable.

By overstretching its jurisdiction and applying unilateral sanctions, the United States is challenging the sovereignty of other countries, said Philippe Bonnecarrere, a French senator, denouncing the U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction as power logic.

Echoing the senator's words, Swaran Singh, professor at School of International Studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University, noted that extending jurisdiction of U.S. domestic laws beyond its border "has no legal standing whatsoever."

"It's only its position of power in international system that has allowed the United States to arbitrarily impose its domestic laws abroad while rejecting several other universally recognized international laws and norms," said the professor.

However, it is also the "universally recognized international laws and norms," which the United States once paid, even sacrificed so much to build several decades ago and now is turning its back on, that helped the country build its advantages over other countries.

Thanks to economic globalization, large European firms all have capital from different countries, including the United States, and due to Washington's threat of sanctions, they have to comply with American rules, said Bonnecarrere.

Even though an international Darwinist's obsession with the jungle law can not be changed overnight, if the past is any prologue, "the obsession with power relations," as the French senator put it, "is mortifying."

BACKLASHES FROM ALL AROUND

In a world where multilateralism and win-win cooperation are still the mainstream of the times, an international Darwinist with zero-sum mentalities like the United States is bound to face backlashes from within and outside the country.

David S. Cohen, a former deputy director of the CIA and former undersecretary of U.S. Treasury Department, warned in an article published in April that the U.S. sanctions will not only weaken countries being punished, but "breed resentment and alienate would-be international partners."

"In the long run, it works against U.S. foreign policy interests and threatens the American economy," said the article.

As the world's biggest economy, the United States enjoys "an outsize role in business transactions around the world." The U.S. extraterrestrial jurisdiction, a typical prelude to economic sanctions, would certainly cast a bigger shadow over the whole world.

Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde said earlier this week that the existing and potential tariff hikes resulted from the U.S.-initiated trade tensions with China could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.5 percent in 2020.

Earlier this year, The Economist sounded a warning in an article for Washington. "Far from expressing geopolitical might, America's legal overreach would then end up diminishing American power," it said.

(Xinhua reporters Tang Ji and Ying Qiang in Paris, Hu Xiaoming in New Delhi, Zhou Xingzhu in Brasilia contributed to the story.)

[Jun 09, 2019] The looming 100-year US-China conflict by Martin Wolf

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Across-the-board rivalry with China is becoming an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies. ..."
"... An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened. ..."
"... The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers, attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order. ..."
Jun 04, 2019 | archive.fo
The disappearance of the Soviet Union left a big hole. The "war on terror" was an inadequate replacement. But China ticks all boxes. For the US, it can be the ideological, military and economic enemy many need. Here at last is a worthwhile opponent. That was the main conclusion I drew from this year's Bilderberg meetings.

Across-the-board rivalry with China is becoming an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies.

Whether it is Donald Trump's organizing principle is less important. The US president has the gut instincts of a nationalist and protectionist. Others provide both framework and details. The aim is US domination. The means is control over China, or separation from China.

Anybody who believes a rules-based multilateral order, our globalised economy, or even harmonious international relations, are likely to survive this conflict is deluded. The astonishing white paper on the trade conflict , published on Sunday by China, is proof. The -- to me, depressing -- fact is that on many points Chinese positions are right.

The US focus on bilateral imbalances is economically illiterate. The view that theft of intellectual property has caused huge damage to the US is questionable . The proposition that China has grossly violated its commitments under its 2001 accession agreement to the World Trade Organization is hugely exaggerated.

Martin Wolf chart on US/China

Accusing China of cheating is hypocritical when almost all trade policy actions taken by the Trump administration are in breach of WTO rules, a fact implicitly conceded by its determination to destroy the dispute settlement system .

The US negotiating position vis-ŕ-vis China is that "might makes right". This is particularly true of insisting that the Chinese accept the US role as judge, jury and executioner of the agreement .

A dispute over the terms of market opening or protection of intellectual property might be settled with careful negotiation. Such a settlement might even help China, since it would lighten the heavy hand of the state and promote market-oriented reform.

But the issues are now too vexed for such a resolution. This is partly because of the bitter breakdown in negotiation. It is still more because the US debate is increasingly over whether integration with China's state-led economy is desirable. The fear over Huawei focuses on national security and technological autonomy.

[Neo]liberal commerce is increasingly seen as "trading with the enemy".

Martin Wolf chart on US/China

A framing of relations with China as one of zero-sum conflict is emerging. Recent remarks by Kiron Skinner, the US state department's policy planning director (a job once held by cold war strategist George Kennan) are revealing. Rivalry with Beijing, she suggested at a forum organised by New America , is "a fight with a really different civilisation and a different ideology, and the United States hasn't had that before".

She added that this would be "the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian". The war with Japan is forgotten.

But the big point is her framing of this as a civilizational and racial war and so as an insoluble conflict. This cannot be accidental. She is also still in her job. Others present the conflict as one over ideology and power.

Those emphasising the former point to President Xi Jinping's Marxist rhetoric and the reinforced role of the Communist party . Those emphasising the latter point to China's rising economic might. Both perspectives suggest perpetual conflict.

Martin Wolf chart on US/China

This is the most important geopolitical development of our era. Not least, it will increasingly force everybody else to take sides or fight hard for neutrality. But it is not only important. It is dangerous. It risks turning a manageable, albeit vexed, relationship into all-embracing conflict, for no good reason. China's ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy in the way the Soviet Union's was. Rightwing demagogues are far more dangerous.

An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened.

Moreover, the rise of China is not an important cause of western malaise. That reflects far more the indifference and incompetence of domestic elites. What is seen as theft of intellectual property reflects, in large part, the inevitable attempt of a rising economy to master the technologies of the day. Above all, an attempt to preserve the domination of 4 per cent of humanity over the rest is illegitimate.

Martin Wolf chart on US/China

This certainly does not mean accepting everything China does or says. On the contrary, the best way for the west to deal with China is to insist on the abiding values of freedom, democracy, rules-based multilateralism and global co-operation. These ideas made many around the globe supporters of the US in the past.

They still captivate many Chinese people today. It is quite possible to uphold these ideas, indeed insist upon them far more strongly, while co-operating with a rising China where that is essential, as over protecting the natural environment, commerce and peace.

Martin Wolf chart on US/China

A blend of competition with co-operation is the right way forward. Such an approach to managing China's rise must include co-operating closely with like-minded allies and treating China with respect.

The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers, attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order.

Today's attack on China is the wrong war, fought in the wrong way, on the wrong terrain. Alas, this is where we now are.

martin.wolf@ft.com

[Jun 09, 2019] The unintended consequences of Trump's ban on Huawei are starting to appear

This is end of the classic neoliberal globalization and the start of isolation of the USA from China and forming an alternative, led by China trading block, unless the deal is reached. WTO rules were the door openers, which allowed Google and Facebook pollute millions of smartphones outside the USA. By rejecting them the USA start the process of self-isolation. Now local government who were afraid to act might want to get even and you can get a stronger backlash then anticipated.
The only factor here is that while the USA citizens are afraid of their own government snooping more then snooping by Chinese's government, the same is true to many foreign countries too. Citizens of those countries move to Gmail because they care less about the USA snooping then the snooping of their local government by the local webmail providers. This is a widespread illusion. They should use foreign based ISP for that.
Removal of Facebook is actually a big plus which increases attractiveness of Huawei phones. But truth be told the value of smartphone is exaggerated. Combination of a tablet and basic flip flop phone works even better. The same but to lesser extent is true with Google spying applications, especially Gmail. Only complete idiot uses Gmail as Web client, as Gmail is the central point of collection of data for both Google and the US government (actually all "Five eyes" goverments). It is like giving keys for you home or apartment to them. Not the Microsoft is much better. Using your own Internet Service Provider (ISO) is the best option in the current environment. It also allows more effectively to combat spam. Unless you want to be a bug under microscope -- no Google on you your phone is a good, sound policy
Notable quotes:
"... These actions add to the potential fallout for American companies to reckon with. US tech enterprises will lose out on sales to Huawei ..."
"... Restrictions could boomerang back on Google and Facebook, which count on their apps being widely installed around the world to collect data and sell advertising against. And then there's the potential for damaging retaliation by China, which could blacklist important US companies like Apple that do business there. ..."
"... And if the crackdown lasts (an important if -- some expect the Huawei restrictions to be lifted should a trade deal be reached) and the Chinese telecom comes out intact, it could emerge even stronger, having been forced to develop new technology in-house. If the American blacklist fails to strangle Huawei, it could come out stronger and more innovative than it was before. ..."
Jun 09, 2019 | qz.com

The US crackdown on Huawei was bound to have unintended consequences. Some of them are starting to come to the surface.

The Trump administration is looking to shut out the Chinese telecom company from selling its technology in the US, as well as banning American firms from selling products to the company. Now Google, which banned Huawei from updates of its ubiquitous Android operating system, is warning that the restriction could become a national security issue, according to the Financial Times (paywall). That's because Huawei, the world's No. 2 handset maker, will likely move quickly to develop its own parallel version of Android, which could have more software bugs and be more susceptible to hacking.

That's just one of many potential consequences as the US clampdown ripples through everything from semiconductor supplies to ambitions for self-driving cars. The American government blacklisted Huawei for long-simmering espionage concerns after trade talks between the world's two largest economies broke down. The Trump administration has since given companies a 90-day window to adjust to the new restrictions.

In the meantime, chipmakers including Qualcomm, Intel, and Xilinx are reportedly halting sales of technology (paywall) to Huawei. The embattled Chinese company has responded by stockpiling chips and components and ramping up its development of alternatives.

Facebook, which has more than 2 billion users around the world, will no longer allow its app to come preinstalled on Huawei phones, according to Reuters . Huawei phone buyers can still download the app from the Google Play store for now, but that option will go away if Google's relationship with the Chinese company is severed.

These actions add to the potential fallout for American companies to reckon with. US tech enterprises will lose out on sales to Huawei, and the ban could also slow the implementation of new technologies around the world. The rollout of self-driving cars, for instance, may get a boost from 5G gear, and Huawei appears to be the only supplier that can provide reliable 5G kit widely and at low cost. Restrictions could boomerang back on Google and Facebook, which count on their apps being widely installed around the world to collect data and sell advertising against. And then there's the potential for damaging retaliation by China, which could blacklist important US companies like Apple that do business there.

And if the crackdown lasts (an important if -- some expect the Huawei restrictions to be lifted should a trade deal be reached) and the Chinese telecom comes out intact, it could emerge even stronger, having been forced to develop new technology in-house. If the American blacklist fails to strangle Huawei, it could come out stronger and more innovative than it was before.

[Jun 09, 2019] The US and China on a collision course

Jun 03, 2019 | www.wsws.org

In a series of provocative actions, the United States is making clear it is prepared to fight a war to block Beijing's rise as an economic and geostrategic competitor.

The "cold war" between the United States and China took a major step toward becoming a "hot" war over the weekend at the annual Shangri-La defense summit in Singapore. The Financial Times, not known for hyperbole, wrote that "The growing dispute between the US and China on trade and technology is increasing the risk of military conflict or outright war."

At the summit, representatives of the Pacific nations that would be caught in the crossfire of such a conflict warned of the imminent possibility of a new Pacific war.

"Our greatest fear, therefore, is the possibility of sleepwalking into another international conflict like World War One," said Philippines Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana. "With the untethering of our networks of economic interdependence comes growing risk of confrontation that could lead to war."

US officials used the summit to continue their efforts to encircle China militarily and strangle it economically, with acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan declaring China to be "the greatest long-term threat to the vital interests of states across this region."

Just days earlier, Vice President Mike Pence, addressing the graduating class at West Point, predicted war in the Pacific, in Europe and in the Americas within the graduates' lifetimes.

"It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life Some of you will join the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific, where North Korea continues to threaten the peace, and an increasingly militarized China challenges our presence in the region. Some of you will join the fight in Europe, where an aggressive Russia seeks to redraw international boundaries by force. And some of you may even be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.

"And when that day comes, I know you will move to the sound of the guns and do your duty, and you will fight, and you will win."

The United States' actions are extraordinarily reckless and provocative. Seeing a challenge to its dominance, it is seeking to use every tool at its disposal, including military force, to compel China's submission to its will. The United States is simultaneously escalating conflicts around the world -- including its regime change operation in Venezuela and its dispatch of additional troops to the Middle East to "counter" Iran -- to shore up its flagging global hegemony through military means.

Chinese Defense Secretary Wei Fenghe responded to the US threats with militarist bluster of his own, saying, "Should anybody risk crossing the bottom line, the [People's Liberation Army] will resolutely take action and defeat all enemies." He warned the United States against encouraging Taiwanese separatism, declaring, "If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs."

The divisions between the United States and China are centered on the Chinese state initiative called "Made in China 2025." The plan envisions a substantial expansion of Chinese industry into high-value-added and high-technology manufacturing, areas traditionally dominated by the United States and its allies.

In recent decades, Chinese companies have made substantial developments in the high-technology sector, including robotics, mobile phones and IT infrastructure. This development was expressed most directly in the growth of Huawei, the Chinese mobile phone and telecommunications firm, which was on track to become the world's leading smartphone maker by the end of the year.

Last month, the United States moved to effectively destroy Huawei as a global competitor to Apple and Samsung by banning US companies from selling it software and components. Google locked the company out of the Android operating system and associated services, while Broadcom and Qualcomm announced they would no longer sell the company chips it needs to continue production.

The move enjoys broad bipartisan support beyond the Trump White House. There is an emerging consensus within the American ruling class that China must be prevented from becoming a global technological, and thus military, peer of the United States.

The growth of US-China tensions has overshadowed the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. At the summit, Wei defended the bloody crackdown against the 1989 protests by workers and students, declaring the protests were "political turmoil that the central government needed to quell, which was the correct policy."

He continued, "Due to this, China has enjoyed stability, and if you visit China you can understand that part of history."

But three decades of "stability" -- the effective transformation of China into a gigantic sweatshop for American and world capitalism -- have come at a tremendous cost. China is not an imperialist country. It remains dependent on foreign corporate investment and finance. Now, it is once again in the crosshairs of a nuclear-armed United States determined to go to any lengths to secure its global hegemony.

In the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the International Committee of the Fourth International wrote, "The repression in China is being carried out in the direct interests of the imperialists. In attacking the Chinese workers, the bureaucracy is acting as their agent, seeking to restore 'labor discipline' and to repress the mass opposition of the working class to the policies of capitalist restoration and the rampant exploitation and social inequality which it has engendered."

While publicly condemning the massacre, the first Bush administration secretly made clear to the Chinese government that the event was an "internal affair" and affirmed the value of the Sino-American relationship "to the vital interests of both countries."

The ICFI statement continued, "Imperialism gloats over the broken bodies of the Chinese workers, seeking to exploit them for the purpose of crude anticommunist propaganda, while at the same time calculating that the brutal state repression will translate into higher rates of exploitation and even greater profits from the tens of billions of dollars worth of direct investment and joint ventures already operating on Chinese soil."

This is precisely what happened. Following Deng Xiaoping's Southern Tour of 1992, in which he encouraged Chinese entrepreneurs to "get rich," US investment in China ballooned, leading to a profit bonanza for American corporations, along with the fantastic enrichment of the upper echelons of the Chinese Communist Party, through the exploitation of the Chinese working class.

The arguments by leading Chinese figures that an accommodation and partnership with US imperialism would offer a peaceful road toward China's national development have proven to be a pipe dream.

If Chinese officials accept US demands, it will be a massive blow to the Chinese economy, causing mass unemployment and engendering protests and political turmoil. But to stand up to the United States means, sooner or later, to fight a war between nuclear powers, in which millions dead on both sides would be an optimistic scenario.

Thirty years after the Tiananmen Square massacre, all the arguments that the laws of imperialism identified by Lenin after the outbreak of World War I had been superseded by globalization and technological development have proven false. The capitalist system, riven by a new scramble for a re-division of the world, is hurtling toward a new world war.

The only thing standing between humanity and this catastrophe is the international working class. It is urgently necessary for the workers of China, the United States and the whole world to unify their struggles in a common fight against the capitalist system, which is the root cause of imperialist war. This means building sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International in China and all over the world as the vanguard of a working class movement against imperialist war.

Andre Damon

[Jun 09, 2019] US defense secretary issues military threat against China by Nick Beams

Jun 03, 2019 | www.wsws.org

The US trade war against China, which started just over a year ago, has now escalated to a full-scale economic confrontation backed by the military might of American imperialism.

The rapid acceleration of the US drive against China and its increasingly bellicose character was underscored in a major speech delivered by the acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan on the weekend.

Over the past month, the US has hiked tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods, threatened the imposition of new imposts on all Chinese imports and virtually black banned the telecoms giant Huawei from the supply of US-made components in an attempt to cripple its global operations.

Speaking at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which included participants from China, Shanahan delivered a 40-minute blast against Beijing in which he emphasised US readiness to use military power to secure its interests.

The speech coincided with the release of an Indo-Pacific Strategy Report by the US Defense Department accusing China of seeking "Indo-Pacific hegemony in the near-term and, ultimately global pre-eminence in the long-term."

The report called China a "revisionist" power that sought to undermine the international system from within, attempting to exploit its benefits while eroding the values and principles of the "rules-based order" -- the standard reference to US dominance.

While claiming that the US "does not seek conflict," Shanahan said "we know that having the capability to win wars is the best way to deter them." The US had already committed $125 billion for "operational readiness and sustainment" for the next financial year and is preparing to allocate an additional $104 billion for research and development of emerging technologies.

"This finding will boost the depth and capacity of our armed forces, and also help expand our training -- including with allies and partners -- to improve mission readiness critical to meeting this region's challenges" he said.

The read out of his remarks provided by the Defense Department said the Indo-Pacific was "our priority theatre." The US Pacific Command had four times more assigned forces than in any other area, with more than 370,000 service members devoted to the region.

The US had "more than 2000 aircraft, providing the ability to project power across the vast distances of this region" together with "more than 200 ships and submarines to ensure freedom of navigation."

The integrated character of the US offensive -- on the economic, diplomatic, political and military fronts -- was emphasised in remarks clearly directed against China.

"[Some] actors undermine the system by using indirect, incremental actions and rhetorical devices to exploit others economically and diplomatically, and coerce them militarily. They destabilise the region, seeking to reorder its vibrant and diverse communities towards their exclusive advantage."

This characterisation most closely fits the actions of the United States, extending over decades -- from the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan in the dying days of World War Two, the launching of the Korean War in 1950 in which an estimated 2.5 million people lost and the Vietnam War in which killed more than three million.

US intervention has not been confined to military action. In the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, the International Monetary Fund, at the direction of Washington, imposed an economic "restructuring" program across the region which plunged it into a crisis, equivalent in scope and depth to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The enduring image of that intervention is the photograph of IMF managing director Michel Camdessus standing over seated Indonesian president Suharto as he signed a so-called IMF bailout program to impose what was known as the "Washington consensus."

Economic devastation resulted in Indonesia and across the region as "structural adjustment" was imposed. Indonesian real wages feel by 30 percent, the incidence of poverty doubled and more than 20 million workers were made jobless. Unemployment rates in South Korea and Malaysia tripled.

In the years since then, the IMF policies -- directed by the US Treasury Department -- have been branded as a "mistake." They were anything but. The economic firestorm was a consciously directed operation.

At that point the US feared its economic supremacy in the region was being threatened by Japan. When the crisis broke in July 1997, with the devaluation of the Thai baht, setting off currency devaluations and a financial crisis across Southeast Asia, Tokyo intervened with a proposal to set up a $100 billion Asian Monetary Fund in order to safeguard its economic interests in the region.

This was forcefully rejected at a September 1997 meeting of the IMF and G7 in Hong Kong. Faced with the prospect of a conflict with the US, Japan withdrew its proposal, opening the way for the imposition of Washington's "restructuring" demands, based on the breaking up of the economic and financial ties between the countries of the region and Japan.

However, the Asian crisis was to bring about a major economic shift in which China was to become the major global manufacturing centre. Following Deng Xiaoping's southern tour in 1992, foreign capital flowed into the country, secure in the knowledge that, as the Tiananmen Square Massacre of June 1989 and the far broader suppression of the working class in all the major industrial centres had demonstrated, the regime would act as the guarantor of its profit interests.

By the end of the 1990s, China had become integrated into the global circuit of capital and on that basis its entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was backed by the Clinton administration. After China's admission into the WTO in 2001, the flow of global capital increased as the regime committed itself to further market opening.

The policy of the US was grounded on the premise that collaboration with China would be encouraged so long as it remained a producer and assembler of consumer goods, boosting the profits of US and other corporations that used it as a base for their manufacturing operations. A new term was coined to describe this collaboration "Chimerica."

However, the eruption of the global financial crisis in 2008, centred in the US financial system, marked another major turning point, with far-reaching consequences in China as more than 23 million workers lost their jobs. Fearful of an eruption in the working class, the Chinse regime undertook a massive stimulus program, spending more than $500 billion and opening up credit for the provision of vast infrastructure projects.

This policy, based on a rapid expansion of credit, could not continue indefinitely and under President Xi Jinping a new turn was initiated. In order to maintain economic growth and prevent a crisis that would call into question the legitimacy of the regime, a new policy had to be initiated.

This was the origin of the "Made in China 2025" plan in which China would move up the value chain, not only producing cheap consumer goods and relying on infrastructure spending but also moving into the development of high-tech manufacturing in areas such as telecommunications, health and pharmaceutical products and artificial intelligence.

This, however, is regarded by the US as an existential threat to its global economic and military dominance, which, as the latest strategic report by the Defense Department and the speech by Shanahan has underscored, it is determined to crush by all means necessary including war.

[Jun 08, 2019] Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border.

Jun 08, 2019 | www.unz.com

Ace , says: June 7, 2019 at 1:20 pm GMT

@Tired of Not Winning

... As a wag on ZeroHedge observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border.

And while every month 100,000 invaders are released into the interior of the US.

[Jun 08, 2019] US-China Trade War The New Long March

Notable quotes:
"... The short-term impact on China could be smaller than previously expected. Factories that sold only to the United States have developed new markets over the past year. Even if those factories stop exporting to the U.S., they will not go bankrupt immediately. It helps that the service sector is experiencing a labor shortage and could absorb some slack. For example, in China a delivery man sometimes makes more than an average office worker. ..."
"... Shipments to the United States and shipping prices have dropped since the new tariffs were announced. ..."
"... Researchers at the New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese products will cost the typical American household an additional $831 per year. ..."
"... "China has been slaughtering USA" It is American corporations not China. ..."
"... “The Communist Party didn’t fight Japan,” said the sprightly 97-year-old, who once served as a translator with the storied Flying Tigers aviation brigade. “They made up a whole bunch of stories afterward, but it was all fabricated.” ..."
Jun 08, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

... ... ...

...The main takeaway from our notes below: The Chinese are buckling up for a long ride.

The consequences of a protracted trade war are manifold. The economic impact includes a drag on economic growth, import price inflation which will allow U.S. domestic and other foreign policy makers to raise prices, and the knock-on effects to other trading partners as the shuffle begins to find new sources and markets for different products. Researchers at the New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese products will cost the typical American household an additional $831 per year. Trade barriers between the world's economic superpowers will slow global growth and put political pressure on all affected governments, stoking increasing nationalism and protectionism overseas while increasing inflation and reducing living standards at home.

The investment implications of a protracted trade war are still playing out. We have seen how sensitive markets have been to the trade news, with a strong risk-off bias resulting from adverse developments in the fourth quarter. While volatility will continue, there is no indication that the Chinese will attempt to liquidate their large holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. To do so would only drive down the value of the dollar, which would run counter to Beijing's desire for a weaker yuan. There is also no imminent change to monetary policy from the Federal Reserve as a result of trade saber-rattling, but if the financial markets begin to spiral out of control because of tariffs, then we could see a repeat of 1998, when the Fed eased as a result of the Asian financial crisis. With neither side apparently willing to step back from the brink, investors should be discounting a higher probability for a drawn-out fight.

... ... ...

The conclusions are obvious. Unless the current trajectory is quickly changed, the Chinese are digging in for a long fight. The cost to the United States will be high; the cost to the Chinese will be higher. The only question is who will endure and be the most innovative in this battle of wills. As I have written before in "No One Wins a Trade War," the short-term costs are likely to outweigh the long-term benefits regardless of who "wins."

Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down

Tachyon5321 , 13 minutes ago link

Several important point. They are:

1. Guggenheim Partners is based in Chicago and represent Obama's point of view

2. Apr 4, 2018 Scott Minerd predicted at 50% plunge in the stock market

3. Once again Scott predicting a 50% drop in the market in 2020

4. April 29, 2019 Scott predicted a rate hike by the Fed

The Long march is a propaganda piece hoping people will invest more in their bond mutual funds. Scott should spend a lot less time on TV and more time in the office.

The longer this trade war goes on the more and more unstable the Chinese economy will become. Because the current tariffs on China are small peanuts to the remaining $200+ billion which will shut down their electronics industry.

mervyn , 27 minutes ago link

Agreed with the second point, that they are finding new markets and shifting production line to new place. A new leather goods factory just opened in Cambodia, majority owner is a Chinese friend, rest is a Cambodian business group. His products are in every major markets, and third party label for our brand names. Business as usual for him, he can’t close his China shops because he lives there.

john.b , 8 minutes ago link

"China has been slaughtering USA" It is American corporations not China.

mervyn , 13 minutes ago link

You don’t get the point. We are printing worthless paper to exchange the actual products, such as computers, furniture and machines. We don’t “eat” money, we consume products. To an extent that we can maintain dominance is to innovate and turn into “affordable” products domestically and overseas.

Now all the foreigners including not white anglo saxon protestant waking up and will circumvent dollars/sterlings, that’s bad trend. Germany and Russian would be pleased.

OLD-Pipe , 57 minutes ago link

Umm.. If you want to gauge the effect of the Chino - Mericah Trade Tariff Circus, then it doesn't get real until Trump goes after the mid-point trans shipment points....all those mutually accessible ports of call that have equal access to both party's...Geeezzze, is everyone working for CNN, Clown News Network......Trump and Friends are just going to set up different ways to ship goods into and out of the Merikah.... it's that simple!!!!!

BIWEEE , 1 hour ago link

Most 'Muricans think in terms of seconds or minutes. The Chinks think in terms of decades.

LaugherNYC , 1 hour ago link

China - a great society??

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/world/asia/china-journalist-liu-wanyong.html

The LAST man brave enough to publish anything critical of Chicoms throws in the towel. Not worth the prison terms, the violence, the relentless state attacks on journalists and their families. Totalitarian cuks with their asshat trolls. Glad Trump will starve them out with tariffs. Be happy never to trade with China until their people throw out the commie murderous imperialists - let them do business with their like-minded asshat buddies in Moscow -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48561980

Staged arrest with planted drugs, beaten upon arrest, protesters immediately arrested (even though they protested one at a time to avoid the law making group protests illegal - the mark of every totalitarian regime). THIS is your brave PUTIN. Cannot allow any TRUTH about his corrupt kleptostate, lest Russians finally have ENOUGH of the rape and thievery that pillages their national assets and resources for the oligarchs' gain, with their lips on Putin's sphincter as he gives them a reach around.

Tell me again how GREAT China and Russia are, and how the USA sucks. We don't arrest and kill our journalists. In fact, they are allowed to stage absurd, fact-free assaults on the ruling party without end.

I'll take freedom over tyranny every time.

Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago link

Laugher NYC: Best post of the afternoon! This is the type of post that makes Zero Hedge comments worth reading.

Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago link

"As I have written before in No One Wins a Trade War ,” the short-term costs are likely to outweigh the long-term benefits regardless of who “wins.""

Translation: The US should give up fighting the trade war and go back to losing the trade war. Americans don't want to withstand short term pain , so just give up and surrender to the Chinese communist government.

Reality Check: If the US stays the course then the following will happen:

New factories will open up to replace the Chinese suppliers.

More US workers will be employed with rising wages.

The US will reopen critical industries like rare earths making the US much more militarily secure.

Existential menaces like Fentanyl exported from China will be drastically reduced.

Sounds like a win to me.

B-Bond , 1 hour ago link

"New Long March" Cross Rubicon─Save/Lose. The CCP Didn’t Fight Imperial Japan; the KMT Did. While the KMT military defended China against Japan during WWII, the CCP built up strength for the civil war.

This was not by accident but by design. The CCP had a choice: it could have prioritized defending the country against Japan during the war, or it could have prioritized seizing control of China from those who did fight the Japanese. It chose the latter. Meanwhile, by choosing to actually try to defend China against Japan during the war, the Nationalists handed the country to the CCP afterwards.

Which is why Xi and the CCP’s decision to create a national observance day to honor its defense of China during the second Sino-Japanese War represents the height of hypocrisy. It’s one thing to try to suppress all information exposing the Party’s failings, which killed millions of Chinese, while demanding Japan take a correct view of history (which Tokyo should do). It’s another thing altogether to falsely claim credit for one of the defining moments of your country’s modern history. And it’s really something unprecedented to create a national holiday to honor your Party for doing something it consciously avoided; namely, putting China’s defense over the CCP itself. Classy.

https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial-japan-the-kmt-did/

✅ China gives little credit — and less help — to Kuomintang vets who fought in WWII

“The Communist Party didn’t fight Japan,” said the sprightly 97-year-old, who once served as a translator with the storied Flying Tigers aviation brigade. “They made up a whole bunch of stories afterward, but it was all fabricated.”

Most independent historians agree that it was the forces of the Kuomintang, led by Mao’s archrival, Chiang Kai-shek, that led the anti-Japanese struggle and suffered the vast majority of casualties.

Following the war’s end, the exhausted and divided Kuomintang were defeated by the communist s in a renewed civil war and fled to Taiwan, cementing Mao’s claim to having defeated imperialism, unified the country and overthrown the old feudal order.

“This joint victory over the external enemy and the internal one, including the landlord class, is a fundamental component of (the party’s) founding myth,” said Harvard University China scholar Anthony Saich.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/31/asia-pacific/china-gives-little-credit-and-less-help-to-kuomintang-vets-who-fought-in-wwii/#.XPh60IgzaDI

Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago link

B-Bond: Interesting history background. The commies have always been the cowards waiting to pounce on an exhausted opponent. Same formula in Russia 1917. The Czar exhausted his soldiers in WWI which opened the door for Lenin to cowardly sneak in on a sealed train courtesy the German government. That treachery only got the Germans a very temporary victory in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk for a few months. Post war, the commies came close to overthrowing the new Weimar republic. That's what happens when you make deals with a Godless murderous cult based on hate and envy called communism.

Cheap Chinese Crap , 1 hour ago link

So, if I understand this correctly one globalist stooge contacted a bunch of other globalist stooges and asked them to confirm his pre-conceived talking points.

Big surprise, they were happy to do so. As usual, they blather about no winners in a trade war-- then launch into an explanation of how badly the US consumer will lose and how beneficial this will ultimately be to China. That sure sounds like an apportionment of trade war winners and losers if you ask me.

What emerges is a picture of cynical beneficiaries of the current global order trying to frighten the Americans into giving up by harping upon the costs, yet trying to assuage their national pride by suggesting that giving up will actually be scored as a draw, which is the best result they can ever hope for due to the fact that there are no winners and losers in a trade war.

Yet it is China who is comparing this event to the Long March -- not a time of glory but of acknowledgement of crushing defeat and gigantic sacrifice to set the table for a future triumph. They seem to understand that they could lose this war if they are not fanatically dedicated to victory. They sure as **** aren't telling their people that nobody wins a trade war. Wonder why this dichotomy exists?

Well, Scott Guggenheim can tell you. It's because HE LOSES if Trump wins. Him and his profitable Chinese pals. They'd all have to go out and find a new gig rather than keep sucking off their current comfy one.

Creative destruction starts with knocking **** down and it is high time and beyond that we knocked this **** down. Even if it puts Scott and his buddies on the unemployment line.

Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago link

Cheap Chinese Crap:" So, if I understand this correctly one globalist stooge contacted a bunch of other globalist stooges and asked them to confirm his pre-conceived talking points." Good cogent analysis of Scott Guggenheim's real motivation. it's the old WIFFM mentality. What's In It For Me. If Scott is such a cheerleader for the Chinese, then it might be time for him to move to China and 'enjoy' his social credit score.

holmes , 1 hour ago link

I don't give a **** about who wins the "trade war". We are fighting for our national security against the Chinks. That I care about. MAGA

ExPat2018 , 35 minutes ago link

**** the USA and **** you. Bullies and warmongers always get their comeuppance. Its your turn, Americunt asswipe!!!

JibjeResearch , 20 minutes ago link

National security? .... You need to think harder .. How was 911? If you serious about national security... you should inspect DC more often!

libfrog88 , 2 hours ago link

It's not about who wins but about who looses. Chinese are used to hardship, not the Americans. Even if the pain is greater for Chinese, it will be political suicide in the USA for their administration to pursue this policy....

iSage , 2 hours ago link

A centrally planned, in huge debt, social credit focused country like China, will NOT survive the long term damage. They have one billion plebes to feed and keep happy. Think T Square.

JibjeResearch , 2 hours ago link

Are you talking about this debt at $22 Trillions? lolz

hoytmonger , 2 hours ago link

The business of China is business. The business of the US is war. China is better situated to endure a long fight. They've made themselves self sufficient, have ambitious economic plans with the Belt and Road initiative, and are sitting on a mountain of gold. The US depends on an economic hegemony that is dwindling and doesn't think long term. The US empire is in a managed decline

Cheap Chinese Crap , 2 hours ago link

Self sufficient in what? Oil? Raw Materials? Food?

hoytmonger , 2 hours ago link

The Chinese can manufacture anything. The US can't say that. Their agricultural technology is second to none and their energy sector is advancing by leaps and bounds. They are innovative, the US has lost it's innovative curiosity. Too many public education mouth breathers staring at their TVs and phones to be bothered with thinking. Just the way the state like it.

Chinese investment in Africa is solving their raw materials and energy issues, hence the Belt and Road initiative. People think that building roads and ghost cities in the African desert is a bad idea, but they know the desert is greening and are thinking long term. The US, on the other hand, sends troops.

LaugherNYC , 1 hour ago link

"Their agricultural technology is second to none..." Stop reading there.

China can not come close to feeding itself, and its agritech is decades behind the US. TFP ranking, growth..by any measure, China's ag sector, while it has improved, is far behind the US.

Population growth and the "growing middle class" has also reversed the growth in ag acreage, while fewer young Chinese are going in to farming. Even with the most optimistic growth projections from CHINA itself, it won't reach even 75% of its needs domestically by 2030, far less if growth continues to slow.

If China pisses off enough of the world, it will once again starve. That's one way to control population growth.

libfrog88 , 2 hours ago link

You really don't understand Chinese culture. Wishfull thinking does not become reality. Americans will revolt a lot faster than the Chinese will.

Ghost-of-Vince-Foster , 2 hours ago link

Why are all these Democrats and RINOs siding with China instead of Americas?

Simple. It's because like China -- Joe Biden, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Justin Amash, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc., etc., they have all been bought off with Chinese money.

Kayman , 1 hour ago link

@Ghost

The dumb American Political Sellouts have been bought with U.S. dollars. Now how dumb is that, when the Thief that is buying your favor, plucks it out of your right pocket to hand you the loot.

Mustafa Kemal , 2 hours ago link

"n 20 years China has destroyed our manufacturing, and we are supposed to give in to this? "

The US is a victim? Lordy lordy, poor us.

Duc888 , 2 hours ago link

"Why are all these Democrats and RINOs siding with China instead of Americas?"

It's simple. They are not Nationalistic. They are complete Globalist sell outs . In their book, USA comes LAST. Anything that weakens mom and pop USA makes them stronger.

Cheap Chinese Crap , 1 hour ago link

That large scale competitive advantage is moving offshore from China as well. You are suggesting a rust belt world ultimately ruled by Vietnam.,

Dogspurt , 1 hour ago link

Destroyed? Didn't the USA kick itself where it hurts by outsourcing to places such as China? Well now those chickens are coming home to roost.

Cheap Chinese Crap , 1 hour ago link

Yes, and its high time we reversed this disastrous error, don't you agree?

blindfaith , 2 hours ago link

Scott Minerd, Global CIO of Guggenheim

Click bait investment firm with Chinese investments that are not going well, so he wants your support. This should be an add off the the side not a FEATURE Tylers.

mikee2481 , 2 hours ago link

This is a GOOD thing. We have lost our manufacturing to China (and Asia) to benefit Wall street and the globalist and the Rich. There is no solution except to have these tariffs. With our government taxes and structure there is no way we can have 1 or 2 dollar wages. It might take an adjustment, but we MUST stop this cheap stuff from coming in. Sad but True>

RealRussianBot99 , 2 hours ago link

WRONG. you have not LOST, you GAVE IT AWAY

Cheap Chinese Crap , 2 hours ago link

Okay, and now we're taking it back. It's all heading your way instead because you want to be junior partners in the Chinese Empire.

boostedhorse , 1 hour ago link

Good luck pinning your hopes on Trump for bringing jobs back lol. Why would you want those jobs back anyway, I thought you had a ton more job openings than needed?

HopefulJoe , 2 hours ago link

Please, this is not a trade war, this is a trade reset, it is needed to make MAGA. China is dependent on foreign trade to be successful. Well over 40% of their economy is dependent on exporting.

Trump knows the central bank economy is on a path to total destruction. He knows that soon we will have a global reset. Anything he can do to weaken China now will ensure they continue to be weak at the time of the reset. By diverting the USA supply chain away from China by bringing it back to the USA or getting new suppliers from other nations he is helping to ensure a better position for the USA at the time of the reset.

Yes, this is no trade war, it is a trade reset...people are being filled with propaganda like the wording "trade war" even though the truth is right there in front of them...it is a big puzzle, just need to find the pieces and they then fit like a glove (not OJ'S glove) and you have the real truth...

Bull Bear Nice Pair , 1 hour ago link

Only 18% of Chinese GDP is export. Of this, only 18% goes to the U.S. So less than 4% of Chinese GDP is export to the U.S. The fact that you could not set such records straight makes the rest of your post pointless.

blindfaith , 2 hours ago link

Researchers at the New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese products will cost the typical American household an additional $831 per year.

Why is it these so called experts never say what doing nothing HAS cost the American household...like lost jobs?

Duc888 , 2 hours ago link

Correct, NOT doing this has cost Americans billions in lost earnings / revenue over the last 30 years. They certainly don't want to factor THAT wet mess into the equation.

[Jun 08, 2019] Washington's Huawei hypocrisy US government is instrument of American corporations

Jun 08, 2019 | www.rt.com

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubled down on vilification of Сhinese telecoms giant Huawei as "an instrument of government" suggesting that the company was a national security threat by acting as an agent for Beijing. Like his boss, President Trump, and many others in Washington, Pompeo seems blind to an alternative glaring reality. The US government is the consummate instrument of American corporations. Its congenital service to corporate profit-making is the real national security risk to American citizens and a global security threat for all people of the world due to the wars that Washington unswervingly pursues on behalf of US corporate interests.

The irony could not be richer. President Trump has banned Huawei from US markets by executive order on the grounds that the company's smartphones could be spying devices for the Chinese government. This move by a nation whose government espionage agencies were exposed using every US telecom, tech and social media company as a conduit for their global harvesting of private citizens' data as well as that of foreign heads of state.

Also on rt.com 'Naked economic terrorism': China rails against trade war provocateurs & bullies

Moreover, the White House claim that Huawei is an instrument of Beijing state authorities is a risible form of guilt projection. The Trump administration's ban on Huawei is nothing more than US government abusing its state power to hamper a Chinese competitor from outperforming American tech corporations. Huawei's products are reputedly cheaper and smarter than US rivals. Some observers also point out that the Chinese technology is invulnerable to hacking by the American spy agency, the NSA, further adding to its consumer appeal. Outperformed on market principles, the US government takes a legalistic, propagandistic sledge hammer to smash Huawei from the marketplace in order to bestow an unfair advantage to inferior American corporations.

So, just who exactly is being an instrument for whom?

Governments in all nations of course use their legislative, fiscal and policy resources to try to build up key companies for their national economic development. It's standard practice throughout history and the world over. Governments can use subsidies and grants to boost companies, or tariffs to shield them from foreign competition.

Also on rt.com Huawei ban will harm over 1,200 American firms & billions of global consumers, company warns

The US, however, is a stellar example of how government intervenes strenuously at every stage in the market to benefit private corporations. Without massive injections of public money for grants, tax deductions, subsidies, and so on, American corporations would not have risen to the scale they have, as Michael Parenti documents in 'Democracy for the Few'. This relationship, of course, negates the myth of US " free market capitalism ." In reality, American corporations are publicly supported entities whose profits go to private shareholders. The overarching agent for this process of centrally-planned corporate capitalism is the American government.

From its earliest days as a European colony, it was the newfound federal authorities who rolled back frontiers with the native Americans through genocidal wars in order to benefit cattle and cereal companies, mining magnates, transport and telecoms, oil firms, and firearms manufacturers.

In its young years as an imperial power, it was Washington that organized and dispatched federal troops to wage wars in the Caribbean and Latin America – all for the sole benefit of Wall Street and the expanding agro-industry. Retired Marine Major General Smedley Butler, in his 1930s book 'War is a Racket', described the American military as a henchman for US corporate profits. But without the government acting as recruiter, financier and commander-in-chief, the US Army could not function as a henchman for the corporations.

Let's take a few specific examples in history to illustrate the instrumental role of the US government in advancing or defending corporate interests. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized the coup in Iran organized by the CIA and Britain's MI6. A main objective of that intervention was to seize Iranian oil. Five US corporations subsequently exploited the Iranian feast, until the revolution in 1979 kicked them out along with the American puppet dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It's a fair bet that current military threats from the Trump administration against Iran are prompted by a strategic desire to reclaim American corporate interests.

Also on rt.com US-China trade war could cost global economy $600 billion

In 1954, Guatemala's elected leader Jacobo Arbenz set out to nationalize underused agricultural land to benefit the rural poor. His land reforms involved expropriating properties belonging to the American-owned United Fruit Company, as William Blum details in 'Killing Hope.' Acting on United's interests, Washington intervened with a CIA-backed coup against Arbenz, which subsequently led to decades of mass murder of indigenous Guatemalans under US-backed military dictatorships.

Following the Cuban revolution in 1959, one of the main protagonists for US military invasion of the island and for covert sabotage operations was the American soft drinks industry, headed up by Coca-Cola and Pepsi. They feared the nationalization of sugar plantations by the Castro government would hit their profits.

There are also suggestions that President John F Kennedy may have been assassinated by powerful US state forces, working in cahoots with American corporate interests, because he didn't adopt a sufficiently aggressive policy towards Cuba after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Related to JFK's assassination was his reluctance to go to war in Vietnam in the early 1960s, which big oil companies and weapons manufacturers were all avidly pushing. His successor, the Texan Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was close to both industries, duly obliged by paving the way for all-out war in Indochina after 1964. Up to two million Vietnamese were killed, as were some 58,000 US troops. Millions more maimed. The corporations made huge profits from the decade-long slaughter. But the US economy began a long descent that continues today from incurring fiscal debts over Vietnam, which prompted Washington to abandon the gold standard, and heralded the age of funny money with the dollar acting as an overrated international reserve currency.

Many more examples could be cited to illustrate how US government – both the White House and Congress – are agents for corporate profits, often to the horrendous detriment of international peace and the common good of ordinary Americans.

Read more  Trump's backing of Saudi war in Yemen is 'business decision' © Reuters / Naif Rahma Trump's backing of Saudi war in Yemen is 'business decision'

The 2003 war on Iraq – killing over one million civilians and maiming tens of thousands of Americans – was widely seen as a pretext for grabbing Iraqi oil for US corporations like Halliburton, for whom then vice president Dick Cheney was previously an executive board member.

The present warmongering towards Venezuela by Washington is openly touted by White House National Security Advisor John Bolton as being about US corporate lust for the country's oil reserves – which are reckoned to be the biggest on the planet.

Out of the top 12 corporate financial donors to politicians in Washington, three of them are weapons companies: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman; a fourth is oil titan Exxon-Mobil. There is an obvious correlation between corporate bidding and foreign policies embarked on by US governments which leads to conflict and wars, which in turn repays these corporations with soaring profits.

The American government is the best instrument that corporate money can buy.

Thus, when Trump, Pompeo and other Washington political (and media) prostitutes pontificate and rail against Huawei, just remember: these talking heads are bought and paid for – lock, stock and barrel.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[Jun 06, 2019] What A Technology 'Cold War' Could Look Like

Technoimperialism is effective, but what it Huawei can switch to some derivative CPU and chipsets?
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by Fan Yu via The Epoch Times, ..."
"... A wide-ranging ban similar to the one imposed on Huawei and its affiliates would effectively bar other foreign companies whose products contain at least 25 percent U.S.-sourced technology from supplying the Chinese. ..."
"... What does this mean in practice? More companies may begin to adopt localized R&D and manufacturing practices. Instead of Chinese factories supplying the world when labor costs were low, localized operations to directly supply the China market may be set up. ..."
"... Around 33.2 percent of American companies operating in China are delaying or cancelling investments in China altogether, according to the most recent American Chamber of Commerce in China survey released on May 22. If the tariffs are more permanent in nature, U.S. companies will likely move production outside of China, which is increasingly seen as a prudent choice given rising political instability within China and growing labor costs. ..."
"... If Bibi ask Chump to drop the tariffs on China for the security of Israel, What do you think will be Chump's answer? ..."
Jun 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Fan Yu via The Epoch Times,

During the Cold War , around half of the world ran on the technologies, machinery, and political ideologies developed by the Soviet Union. The other half - the free world - adopted those of the United States and its allies.

As trade war tensions between the United States and China escalate, could we be on the cusp of a new version of the cold war, one which is driven by technology and finance?

Since U.S. President Donald Trump has deemed Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies as a national security threat and barred it from purchasing key U.S. equipment, Beijing has engaged in an escalating tit-for-tat that could have lasting ramifications on the technology industry going forward.

And Huawei may just be the beginning. Several other Chinese companies are being considered to join the blacklist with Huawei.

If a technology cold war does come to pass, it would significantly alter the existing technology landscape, dismantle global supply chains, and cleave off the global trade network that has underpinned China's rise as a global economic power .

Decoupling of the Global Supply Chain

Global consumers are used to seeing this familiar description donning Apple products' packaging for years: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China."

That's the model followed by most technology companies during the past few decades. American companies develop new technologies and products in the United States, which are assembled by comparatively cheap labor in China, and then shipped for sale globally.

Going forward, purchase orders would likely need to be rerouted.

A wide-ranging ban similar to the one imposed on Huawei and its affiliates would effectively bar other foreign companies whose products contain at least 25 percent U.S.-sourced technology from supplying the Chinese.

What does this mean in practice? More companies may begin to adopt localized R&D and manufacturing practices. Instead of Chinese factories supplying the world when labor costs were low, localized operations to directly supply the China market may be set up.

Around 33.2 percent of American companies operating in China are delaying or cancelling investments in China altogether, according to the most recent American Chamber of Commerce in China survey released on May 22. If the tariffs are more permanent in nature, U.S. companies will likely move production outside of China, which is increasingly seen as a prudent choice given rising political instability within China and growing labor costs.

Another 35.5 percent of respondents are adopting an "In China, for China" approach to mitigate the impact of tariffs , according to the AmCham survey. That refers to manufacturing products to be sold in China, within China. That strategy may be broadened in a full-on technology cold war, as research and innovation may also need to be localized and companies may need to erect internal information barriers.

Losers, Big and Small

Chinese companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic replacements for many U.S.-sourced components. For example, Huawei's chip-making arm HiSilicon currently derives its Kirin chip architecture on license from UK-based semiconductor firm ARM Holdings. But in May, ARM notified Huawei that it would stop licensing its chip designs to HiSilicon due to having certain U.S.-sourced origins.

Huawei also lost access to Google's Android software platform, which is the main operating system running on all Huawei smartphones. As of the end of May, the U.S. Commerce Department gave Huawei a temporary, 90-day license to provide security patches to existing phones.

In addition, Huawei has been suspended from the Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry standard-setting body for technology protocols.

These events don't just hobble Huawei -- they effectively ground its ambitions to a halt. Without access to these technologies, there's simply no way for Huawei to reach its goal of overtaking Samsung as the world's No. 1 smartphone supplier. And on the networking front, Japan's SoftBank became the latest potential customer to reject Huawei for 5G networking equipment, announcing on May 31 that it would be turning to European telecom giants Nokia and Ericsson instead.

Should similar bans extend to other Chinese companies -- many of which have far smaller operational support and balance sheets than Huawei -- many of them could cease operations altogether.

Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down

holyvanguard , 46 minutes ago link

The article writer seems to be pro trade war. I am no expert but I feel this article is not seeing a bigger picture.

black rifles are cool , 32 minutes ago link

Epoch Times is a Falun Gong newspaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times That's likely why it sounds pro trade war.

MarkD , 1 hour ago link

China's empire is growing and the US empire s shrinking. Unfortunately many can't grasp that and will deny it till the end instead of accepting it and working with the next world power. All empires come to an end.

Our economy is a consumer based economy not a manufacturing based economy like it once was. Can we return to a manufacturing based economy? Not sure if Americans are ready to push their kids into getting a job at the factory making boots, footballs, washing machines...... instead of swaying them into going to college. Don't forget, someone has to work in the factories if we are going to make stuff.

Winston Churchill , 42 minutes ago link

Twenty years lead time on them as well, if you reformed public education tomorrow.

youshallnotkill , 29 minutes ago link

If you study high wage manufacturing driven economies like Germany, you will notice that the productivity of their workers is sky high (as it has to be in order to remain competitive). The plants are highly automated. Workers are very well trained and have expert skills in keeping the production line running at peek pace and quality.

Frankly, I just don't think American workers have what it takes to adopt that kind of model.

Nunny , 24 minutes ago link

Not with the education system we have now....the Fed has killed off the industrial trades, and everyone thinks they will can spend $100,000 a year for an education to sit behind a desk and play solitaire......or become a politician.

Nunny , 27 minutes ago link

Someone has to fix the machines and get their hands dirty. Not all our kids are IT 'coders'. Now we want the gooberment to give them 'free' college for a 'diversity degree' and they graduate with NO SKILLS and no knowledge. So we drug up our youth with drugs imported by China and open the flood doors for worker bees. Sounds like a plan.

frankthecrank , 1 hour ago link

The free world flourished during the cold war. it was great for the West. Technology advanced by leaps and bounds and the middle class grew. Nothing bad about this at all.

youshallnotkill , 28 minutes ago link

We were competing with a command and control economy. Contemporary China is much more dynamic and market oriented.

Bull Bear Nice Pair , 1 hour ago link

So you believe Epoch Times, a Falun Gong publication? What's missing in the article is the most obvious: the trade war will force China to climb the value chain a lot quicker. The most like scenario is that China will become a high-tech manufacturing powerhouse before much, if anything, is moved back to U.S.

DCFusor , 1 hour ago link

What would make any sane person believe that stopping the ARM license would stop them being made in China? Has that ever worked for anything else, ever?

frankthecrank , 1 hour ago link

their tech will fall behind as the US advances. Same thing happened with the Soviet Union once they ran out of Germans and US tech. By '91, they were woefully behind the West--like 35 years.

Winston Churchill , 58 minutes ago link

There was never anything wrong with Research in the USSR, Development was their problem, now as Russia again they remain at the leading edge of Research, and seem to have finally gotten a handle on Development. They have never been behind in Research, any serious scientist in the West can and will read Russian just to keep up.

Its been that way all my life, the US seems to have forgotten it though, because they believe they're exceptional and only they can do research.Hubris will kill you.

The Russians are pulling way ahead because of that Ubermensch stupidity, laughing the whole time at it. That smirk of Putins, its there for a reason.

Shemp 4 Victory , 33 minutes ago link

What would make any sane person believe that stopping the ARM license would stop them being made in China?

No kidding. For instance, take this statement:

Chinese companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic replacements for many U.S.-sourced components.

Propaganda via lies of omission. This could easily be turned around to say:

American companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic replacements for many Chinese-manufactured "U.S.-sourced" components.

But hey, the Epoch Times is a propaganda mill for the Falun Gong cult which the Chinese government banned 20 years ago, so it's kind of the anti-China equivalent of The Gatestoned Institution .

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-13/fighting-communism-yen-shun-evil-cult-or-meditation-group

besnook , 1 hour ago link

the chinese domestic market is the new big dog on the block. it is big enough to dictate what the rest of the world will use. the hubris of the usa is arrogance squared. the consequences are potentially damning to usa tech. this is the dumbest move in business and geopolitical history.

Normal , 1 hour ago link

Western central bankers are not Chinese, but China can now proceed without the West. I think we have a problem.

oneno , 1 hour ago link

The West is in for a big surprise. China has technologically advanced neighbors (Russia, India) and a host of countries who want to do business who are also technologically advanced. The Silk Road is well advanced to supplant trade with North America. Germany is already in place in Russia and China and will not lose sleep with the loss of North America. It is the US that has the most to lose.

Winston Churchill , 1 hour ago link

They cannot see past their own jingo. The Chinese just thanked Trump at the Moscow summit, for forcing them to do what inertia stopped them doing years ago. Seems like its already backfiring, and now full dedollarization is now the official agenda. Yuan futures in most everything, convertible to gold, were just announced at one press conference. The ruble looks around -95% undervalued right now.

frankthecrank , 1 hour ago link

umm--you do know that it wasn't so long ago that Russia defaulted on all of its loans, right? and that no one with a brain is going back into that market again, right?

Nunny , 1 hour ago link

No worries, the PTB in our fed government (both sides) and the globalists want cheap labor from the illiterates that are allowed to flood our country and Europe. We will look much like the cheap labor in China. I find it funny that 'open border' morons like the D's demand $15/hour min wage laws for flipping a hamburger. They are nuts. Can't have it both ways.

The central planners , 1 hour ago link

To the chumptards: If Bibi ask Chump to drop the tariffs on China for the security of Israel, What do you think will be Chump's answer?

Winston Churchill , 1 hour ago link

No they didn't, they were disconnected from Gargoyle Play.Android is open source and HW played a big part in its development. Maybe more than Gargoyle.. This kind of disinformation discredits the whole article, the author is a no nothing hack, probably Mosley moonlighting from his janitors job.

Nunny , 2 hours ago link

My small anecdotal experience was back in 2008 when I worked for a US Company who made large components for nuclear projects. Like AP1000. Within a year of my working there, we were hosting the chinese and actually sending our engineers and quality people to live in China for 6 months at a time to TEACH THEM HOW TO MAKE THE PRODUCT. The quality people came back disgusted because they didn't care about 'tolerances'. I have since left there, but it was eye opening how US companies willingly sell our technology to them.

In the meantime, the corp bosses built a huge addition onto our building with luxurious soundproof walls/doors/windows to move in. Big bucks stuff. No expense spared.

nmewn , 1 hour ago link

Not really, the Chi-Com government OWNERSHIP of businesses is dramatic.

When a chinese government entity (think strawman, shell company, a "holding company") answerable and subservient to the state party apparatus owns the majority of any company's stock and/or gives it direction from on high, it cannot be said to be "a private company". At least not by any kind of western standard of the meaning of the word "private".

They're trying to fake people out (and succeeding to some degree) as the western mind may misinterpret it as merely being crony-socialism but in fact it's communist via the shell corps.

quesnay , 1 hour ago link

What you describe sounds like fascism i.e. capitalism is allowed, private companies are allowed but are directly answerable to government.

Anyways you look at it, China has a strong capitalist element. They have private property now. They have billionaires as a result of these companies FFS. They have a stock market . They have realestate developers. That's no longer 'communism'.

nmewn , 51 minutes ago link

The largest corporations are government owned and a "private company" is not given direction by any government entity in what to supply or in what quantities to supply to "the market", there are no government mandated quotas.

And you are confused (or being evasive) about what socialism and capitalism are, fascism & communism are both Marxist.

With capitalism, the market decides all, from pricing to profits to wages and companies rise & fall on what is sold into that market ...thats why rickshaws never caught on here because people didn't have to eat their horses for meat and we eventually produced affordable cars for transport...lol.

Need I remind you that the CCP means the Chinese Communist Party?

Perhaps they need some better capitalist marketers to "rebrand" their, ahem, operation ;-)

ted41776 , 2 hours ago link

this statement would be true 10 years ago. today there are no secrets or intellectual property left to steal

The central planners , 2 hours ago link

You complain more about China stealing manufacturing secrets than the manufacturers himself.

[Jun 06, 2019] Threatening Europe Over INSTEX Is Insane -

Notable quotes:
"... If the U.S. follows through on this threat, we should expect European governments to react very strongly. As Henry Farrell has explained , the quarrel with the U.S. over the nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions is not just about Iran. The EU and our European allies see this as the latest example of our government's excessive use of secondary sanctions, and they aren't going to give in if the U.S. escalates further. ..."
"... By threatening to sanction them for doing what they can to keep the JCPOA alive, the U.S. is giving them a big incentive to create an alternative system that will protect them from further harassment. Threatening Europe over INSTEX is madness, and carrying out that threat will make our allies even more determined to defy U.S. demands now and in the future. ..."
"... Are we really trading Britain, Canada, Germany, and Japan for … Israel and Saudi Arabia ? ..."
"... Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo are destroying our oldest, best friendships and alliances, and they don’t even pretend they’re doing it to advance American interests. They’re doing it at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Israel, which wield immense power in the form of the huge campaign donations they control in US elections. “Russian meddling” can’t hold a candle to it ..."
"... This is how you lose reserve currency status. The sad thing is they don’t even understand what that means and what the results would be. ..."
"... I predict Europe caves. They are post WW II satrapies, not allies. The refreshing thing about Trump is he doesn’t pretend otherwise. ..."
"... Is Trump insane? Sanctioning Iran at the behest of Israel and Saudi Arabia, two global pariahs, and rubbing the US’s traditional allies’ noses in it would be disastrous in a world where old alliances are still valid. But let’s look at the world through Trump’s eyes. ..."
Jun 03, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Bloomberg reports that the U.S. is threatening major European allies with sanctions over their "special purpose vehicle," formally known as the Instrument in Support of Exchange (INSTEX):

The Trump administration escalated its battle with European allies over the fate of the Iran nuclear accord, threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the U.K. and France to shield trade with the Islamic Republic from U.S. sanctions, Bloomberg News reports.

Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, signaled in a May 7 letter obtained by Bloomberg that Instex, the European vehicle to sustain trade with Tehran, and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into effect.

Europe's INSTEX has been designed first and foremost as a workaround to handle humanitarian trade with Iran that is effectively blocked because financial institutions are afraid of doing any business with Iranian customers as a result of U.S. sanctions. The immediate goal is to allow trade in medicine and food to be processed without risking U.S. penalties. The U.S. is now threatening to penalize anyone involved in this effort to get food and medicine to the Iranian people. European governments assumed that putting their officials in charge of running it would deter the U.S. from attacking it, but they have underestimated just how deranged our government is on this issue.

Threatening to sanction European officials and companies for making use of this mechanism shows just how irrational and destructive U.S. policy is. The Trump administration's Iran obsession is driving it to threaten punitive measures against its own allies because they created a means to engage in legitimate trade in humanitarian goods. That confirms a few things that we already suspected. First, it tells us that the U.S. is determined to cut off all legitimate trade with Iran, including trade in supposedly exempted humanitarian goods. They are actively working to cause the Iranian people as much misery as they can. Second, it tells us that the administration is willing to wreck its relations with some of its closest European allies to pursue their economic war against the Iranian people. U.S. interests and longstanding relationships with important allies are being sacrificed for the sake of a vindictive and outrageous policy of collective punishment against a population of more than eighty million people.

If the U.S. follows through on this threat, we should expect European governments to react very strongly. As Henry Farrell has explained , the quarrel with the U.S. over the nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions is not just about Iran. The EU and our European allies see this as the latest example of our government's excessive use of secondary sanctions, and they aren't going to give in if the U.S. escalates further.

By threatening to sanction them for doing what they can to keep the JCPOA alive, the U.S. is giving them a big incentive to create an alternative system that will protect them from further harassment. Threatening Europe over INSTEX is madness, and carrying out that threat will make our allies even more determined to defy U.S. demands now and in the future.


Spring Hollow, says: May 29, 2019 at 1:29 pm

“Threatening Europe over INSTEX is madness, and carrying out that threat will make our allies even more determined to defy U.S. demands now and in the future.”

Are we really trading Britain, Canada, Germany, and Japan for … Israel and Saudi Arabia ?

Is Trump out of his mind?

Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo are destroying our oldest, best friendships and alliances, and they don’t even pretend they’re doing it to advance American interests. They’re doing it at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Israel, which wield immense power in the form of the huge campaign donations they control in US elections. “Russian meddling” can’t hold a candle to it.

HankP , says: May 29, 2019 at 1:30 pm

This is how you lose reserve currency status. The sad thing is they don’t even understand what that means and what the results would be.

SF Bay , says: May 29, 2019 at 3:10 pm

“Is Trump out of his mind?”

Is the Pope Catholic? Seriously, it’s been clear since he rode down his fancy escalator that Trump is mentally ill. Any one of a number of clinical diagnoses can be made. Not to mention the fact that his core supporters are clearly in the Cult of Trump.

Trump’s complete disdain for our European allies has been evident for years. So, naturally he’s all about threatening them. Remember, it’s a zero sum game for Trump on everything. If Europe isn’t losing, than he is. And that just can’t happen. He has to be the winner 100% of the time. Reality and facts be damned.

Oleg Gark , says: May 29, 2019 at 3:28 pm

This is a gambit to destroy European political opposition ahead of war with Iran. Uncle Sam is going to need unfettered access to NATO military bases if the war becomes protracted (which it will).

The Europeans should realize that knuckling under on INSTEX is not going to be the end of the story for them.

JR , says: May 29, 2019 at 3:42 pm

Just a demonstrated with Swift in relation to Russia and China you can use such threat/action only once. There will be no second time.

Hapless Oaf , says: May 29, 2019 at 5:26 pm

Reasonable countries have to start sanctioning the US for their reckless behavior and reneging on treaties and accords. Should’ve started decades ago.

Fran Macadam , says: May 30, 2019 at 4:18 pm

I predict Europe caves. They are post WW II satrapies, not allies. The refreshing thing about Trump is he doesn’t pretend otherwise.

Martin , says: June 2, 2019 at 8:01 am

Is Trump insane? Sanctioning Iran at the behest of Israel and Saudi Arabia, two global pariahs, and rubbing the US’s traditional allies’ noses in it would be disastrous in a world where old alliances are still valid. But let’s look at the world through Trump’s eyes.

He sees these traditional allies heaping up troubles for themselves by abandoning any immigration quality control in favour of ‘one world’ nonsense, and doing so in the face of palpable discontent from their indigenous populations – in what is arguably an insane case of democracy deficit. Welcoming potential terrorists and culture destroyers into Europe en mass is, for Trump, evidence of a cultural marxist mindset deserving of little of his respect. His body language around Frau Merkel speaks volumes.

On the other hand, Israel’s leadership uncompromisingly champions its culture and national security, and Trump is happy to reward such policy. Netanyahu is tough on Israel’s enemies, not tough of his own people. Trump respects that ‘bigly’, as he would say, while Europe’s policies seem culturally suicidal, inexplicable. Of course, Trump needs campaign funding and support from America’s Israel lobby, and Saudi contracts mean jobs in the important defence sector, but you get the impression that Trump actually despises the current European elites as ideological enemies.

[Jun 05, 2019] US Threatens Europe With Loss Of Access To US Financial System Over SWIFT-Evading Iran SPV

Notable quotes:
"... Trump administration is escalating its battle with "European allies" over the fate of the Iran nuclear accord, and is "threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the U.K. and France to shield trade with the Islamic Republic from U.S. sanctions. " ..."
"... While it is obvious that the US ire was sparked by the realization - and alarm - that cracks are appearing in the dollar's reserve status, opponents of Instex argue - at least for public consumption purposes - that the mechanism is flawed because the Iranian institution designated to work with Instex, the Special Trade and Finance Instrument, has shareholders with links to entities already facing sanctions from the U.S ..."
"... "When transactions move beyond that, it doesn't matter what vehicle's out there, if the transaction is sanctionable, we will evaluate it, review it, and if appropriate, levy sanctions against those that were involved in that transaction," Pompeo said. "It's very straightforward." ..."
"... In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't take no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade war with China - has fizzled ..."
"... that's too Boltonesque or Pompeonish and would only denigrate Europe for no reason. ..."
"... This is the latest move (in a very long line) by Jewish-freemason banksters to take over the world. The USA is owned and run by them and is used simply for their ends and purposes. ..."
"... Trumpsters cheering on DJT need to be aware that they have as much regard and affection for you and for your country as they do for a mangy dog. ..."
"... The US is starting to act a bit too unhinged now. Even the zombies are starting to wonder what the problem is with the US and the USD. Not very smart to be so loud, aggressive and threatening all the time. ..."
"... What we are witnessing in the US sanctions, threats, and illegal and costly military operations around the globe are the final throes and spasms of a dying, yet still dangerous, wounded animal ..."
"... Global trade in its current form with trade routes stretching all around the world is unsustainable due to rapidly depleting oil/energy. ..."
"... If you cut through all the propaganda and look only at actions taken by the U.S. government, it certainly does look like America is taking numerous intentional steps to disconnect itself from global trade with long-standing international partners in Europe, Asia and the Middle East ..."
"... America acting the big bully and pissing off all our international trade partners is just an act. Don't worry, the long term plan is exactly what you're wishing for, more or less. Though, since the Middle East still has so much oil, chances are America and its military will remain there for quite a while longer -- but that's the only reason. ..."
"... America is on the path of sanctioning itself into isolation. The US is shooting itself someplace much more sensitive with all these sanctions, tariffs, and warmongering. ..."
"... Soon the isolated US will ONLY have Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Canada and Britain to have economic relationship with. I wonder what do these assets of the US and former British colonies can offer to one another in the form of meaningful trade? Oil, maple syrup, weapons, sand, and British tea. ..."
"... In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't take no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade war with China - has fizzled. ..."
"... It's easier to replace SWIFT than replace a reserve currency the petro-dollar is today. They've tried at no avail. So long as our economy kicks ***, it will be hard to replace USD as a reserve money. ..."
"... The issue isn't just SWIFT. It's "access to US markets". Sayanim Pompeo is threatening them with the nuclear option: Financial MAD. ..."
"... Trump seems to think he's CEO of the planet and all the countries are just different departments of his corporation. ..."
"... It's worse than that. Thump thinks that Bibi is Chairman of the Board, and Adelson is a Senior Board Member of a small (((Board))) ..."
May 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

It's going from bad to worse for Europe, whose currency had just hit session lows after Brussels confirmed that Italy faces a massive fine over its debt, when the Euro was hit with a double whammy after Bloomberg reported that the Trump administration is escalating its battle with "European allies" over the fate of the Iran nuclear accord, and is "threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the U.K. and France to shield trade with the Islamic Republic from U.S. sanctions. "

According to Bloomberg, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, sent a letter on May 7 warning that Instex, the European SPV to sustain trade with Tehran, and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into effect.

As a reminder, last September, in order to maintain a financial relationship with Iran that can not be vetoed by the US, Europe unveiled a "Special Purpose Vehicle" to bypass SWIFT. Back then we predicted that Washington would not be too delighted with this development seeking to undermine the dollar's reserve status. We were right.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini alongside Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

"I urge you to carefully consider the potential sanctions exposure of Instex," Mandelker wrote in the letter to Instex President Per Fischer. "Engaging in activities that run afoul of U.S. sanctions can result in severe consequences, including a loss of access to the U.S. financial system."

Germany, France and the U.K. finalized the Instex system in January, allowing companies to trade with Iran without the use of U.S. dollars or American banks, allowing them to get around wide-ranging U.S. sanctions that were imposed after the Trump administration abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal last year.

Not surprisingly, a senior admin official behind the eltter said the U.S. decided to issue the threat " after concluding that European officials, who had earlier downplayed the significance of Instex in conversations with the Trump administration, were far more serious about it than they had initially let on. "

The official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, said the letter was intended to serve as a warning that the U.S. would punish anyone associated with Instex -- including businesses, government officials and staff -- if they were working to set up a program to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions.

"This is a shot across the bow of a European political establishment committed to using Instex and its sanctions-connected Iranian counterpart to circumvent U.S. measures, " said Mark Dubowitz, the chief executive officer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.

When asked to comment on the letter, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying "entities that transact in trade with the Iranian regime through any means may expose themselves to considerable sanctions risk, and Treasury intends to aggressively enforce our authorities."

At the heart of the latest US move is the argument that Iran and its central bank use deceptive financial practices and haven't implemented minimum global safeguards against money laundering and terrorism financing, according to Bloomberg.

While it is obvious that the US ire was sparked by the realization - and alarm - that cracks are appearing in the dollar's reserve status, opponents of Instex argue - at least for public consumption purposes - that the mechanism is flawed because the Iranian institution designated to work with Instex, the Special Trade and Finance Instrument, has shareholders with links to entities already facing sanctions from the U.S .

Meanwhile, during a visit to London on May 8, Mike Pompeo also warned that there was no need for Instex because the U.S. allows for humanitarian and medical products to get into Iran without sanction.

"When transactions move beyond that, it doesn't matter what vehicle's out there, if the transaction is sanctionable, we will evaluate it, review it, and if appropriate, levy sanctions against those that were involved in that transaction," Pompeo said. "It's very straightforward."

In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't take no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade war with China - has fizzled.


carman , 5 minutes ago link

Europe should tell the U S to go F--- themselves, you don't dictate to Europe who we trade with.

hugin-o-munin , 2 minutes ago link

No that's too Boltonesque or Pompeonish and would only denigrate Europe for no reason.

zob2020 , 5 minutes ago link

Those shits are only promising... they never keep their promises to free Europe from their grip

mailll , 6 minutes ago link

Makes me wonder why year after year China's GDP increases and never decreases while the US GDP does periodically go into the negative zone and when it is positive, it isn't that much positive.

With our control we try to have over foreign countries coupled with our antiquated and overpriced education system, we are heading nowhere very fast while China continues to grow.

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-growth-annual

Airstrip1 , 7 minutes ago link

This is the latest move (in a very long line) by Jewish-freemason banksters to take over the world. The USA is owned and run by them and is used simply for their ends and purposes.

Trumpsters cheering on DJT need to be aware that they have as much regard and affection for you and for your country as they do for a mangy dog.

Aussiestirrer , 9 minutes ago link

Ussa = Terrorist Superpower with no shame or decency. The sooner you wipe yourselves out the better for this planet.

activisor , 9 minutes ago link

Europe has been servile to the US since the end of WW2. Germany in particular has continually bowed to US pressure and surely the time has come to kick the US out of Ramstein Air Base which houses over 60,000 personnel including 5000 non US military.

The US also continues to stir its anti Russia interference in compliant countries especially the Ukraine. Europe should dismantle the EU and the euro and revert to sovereign nations using their own currencies. NATO is US driven and hinders not helps European cooperation. There is no military threat in Europe full stop.

hugin-o-munin , 10 minutes ago link

The US is starting to act a bit too unhinged now. Even the zombies are starting to wonder what the problem is with the US and the USD. Not very smart to be so loud, aggressive and threatening all the time.

BIWEEE , 12 minutes ago link

What we are witnessing in the US sanctions, threats, and illegal and costly military operations around the globe are the final throes and spasms of a dying, yet still dangerous, wounded animal. The US has been killed by the criminal Satanic

Ashkenazi Bolshevik Khazar filth who did 911. The US and Israel are the two most hated countries on earth.

MrNoItAll , 1 hour ago link

This is all part of a long term plan intended to rearrange global trade arrangements. The future we are heading into is one where "global" trade will be much more regional, by necessity. Global trade in its current form with trade routes stretching all around the world is unsustainable due to rapidly depleting oil/energy.

Europe, Asia and the Middle East need to make their own financial and trade arrangements -- this manufactured disagreement will force companies and governments to adapt to that reality.

America is intentionally cutting itself off from trade with Europe and Asia to force self-sustainability for the Americas continent and for American companies, because that's what the future demands -- it is what's sustainable long term.

The Trade War and this contrived spat with Europe and many other trade-related "conflicts" getting publicity are all part of a multi-pronged action plan to force painful and politically untenable changes on companies and governments in preparation for a future that will be characterized by much less oil/energy and by extension, much more localized and regional trade and finance.

Savvy , 54 minutes ago link

America is intentionally cutting itself off from trade with Europe and Asia to force self-sustainability for the Americas continent and for American companies

I'd love to believe that but you're going to have to take your war machine home with you or what you say means **** all.

MrNoItAll , 47 minutes ago link

If you cut through all the propaganda and look only at actions taken by the U.S. government, it certainly does look like America is taking numerous intentional steps to disconnect itself from global trade with long-standing international partners in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

Actions speak louder than words. The rational for bringing an end to all these energy-intensive trade and financial arrangements that were created back when oil WAS cheap and plentiful begins to make a lot of sense.

America acting the big bully and pissing off all our international trade partners is just an act. Don't worry, the long term plan is exactly what you're wishing for, more or less. Though, since the Middle East still has so much oil, chances are America and its military will remain there for quite a while longer -- but that's the only reason.

JohnnyAmerica , 1 hour ago link

"Iran and its central bank use deceptive financial practices and haven't implemented minimum global safeguards against money laundering and terrorism financing, according to Bloomberg." This is akin to Stalin telling Mao to be nicer to his citizens.

potkettleblack.

No nation will ever be sovereign until the International Banking Tyrants and their relatives to the third cousin receive a very public guillotine haircut.

Blue2B , 1 hour ago link

Everyday, a new threat by the rusty meat-grinder known as the Untied State of Israel. Which country will we read a war tweet about next?

America is on the path of sanctioning itself into isolation. The US is shooting itself someplace much more sensitive with all these sanctions, tariffs, and warmongering.

Soon the isolated US will ONLY have Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Canada and Britain to have economic relationship with. I wonder what do these assets of the US and former British colonies can offer to one another in the form of meaningful trade? Oil, maple syrup, weapons, sand, and British tea.

espirit , 1 hour ago link

Ah, but we can **** up the debt of most countries if we want to...

Shemp 4 Victory , 58 minutes ago link

Funny how people use the term "we" to pretend that they are part of the gang.

espirit , 12 minutes ago link

Simple **** Maynard.

"We" is the ruling cabal over the U.S. peeps. And it's how (((they))) think...

HRClinton , 1 hour ago link

In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't take no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade war with China - has fizzled.

And there you have it. Tyler 1 nailed it.

BT , 1 hour ago link

Someone please explain to me how SWIFT system would operate if only US and a few of its vessels like Canada and Australia are in it?

delta0ne , 1 hour ago link

however obsolete the SWIFT system is there isn't any credible alternative to the old bank wire system. It's coming though. Should be an easy fix in this day and age. US doesn't want to lose control of who's wiring what and to whom, Capisce?

It's easier to replace SWIFT than replace a reserve currency the petro-dollar is today. They've tried at no avail. So long as our economy kicks ***, it will be hard to replace USD as a reserve money.

HRClinton , 1 hour ago link

The issue isn't just SWIFT. It's "access to US markets". Sayanim Pompeo is threatening them with the nuclear option: Financial MAD.

Bibbi doesn't mind.

Savvy , 1 hour ago link

Trump seems to think he's CEO of the planet and all the countries are just different departments of his corporation.

Doesn't work like that Donny.

HRClinton , 1 hour ago link

It's worse than that. Thump thinks that Bibi is Chairman of the Board, and Adelson is a Senior Board Member of a small (((Board))).

[Jun 02, 2019] Trump clearly undermines neoliberalism rules of the game, fastening its demise

Notable quotes:
"... China assembled an "unreliable entities list" for retaliation against foreign companies, individuals and organizations that "do not follow market rules, violate the spirit of contracts, blockade and stop supplying Chinese companies for noncommercial reasons, and seriously damage the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies." ..."
"... And out of nowhere, Trump warned Mexico to stop the immigrant flow in 10-days or face tariffs. Global CEOs who were rushing to rearchitect their China supply chains, digested the risk that these investments could be instantly devastated by some future tariff - imposed to achieve Americas geopolitical objectives - and they prepared to warn shareholders they're putting new investment on hold. As the US treasury yield curve inverted, with 3mth bills at 2.34% and 10yrs at 2.12%. Which of course, is one of the most reliable warnings of looming recession. ..."
"... "Tariffs are being used as a proactive, combative tool. The GDP hit will be at least double. Modelling these tariffs require more complex frameworks." ..."
"... " Global trade was already in the process of fracturing ," added the strategist. "Now Huawei can't use Google's operating system." Their phones are as good as paperweights. "But do you really want to bet that Huawei can't spend the next 6mths building a competing operating system?" We're entering a world of competing superpowers. " The overall impact will be to operate economies with redundant technologies, fewer efficiencies, lower ROEs, lower ROAs. And ironically, or perhaps by design, it'll be bad for profits, but okay for labor ." ..."
Jun 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

China Used This Exact Phrase Ahead Of Their War With India And Vietnam -

Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

"Don't say we didn't warn you!" declared the China People's Daily. And historians rushed to remind us that Beijing used the phrase in advance of their 1962 border war with India and 1979 war with Vietnam.

China assembled an "unreliable entities list" for retaliation against foreign companies, individuals and organizations that "do not follow market rules, violate the spirit of contracts, blockade and stop supplying Chinese companies for noncommercial reasons, and seriously damage the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies."

Pence responded by warning Beijing we could double tariffs. "Engaging in activities that run afoul of US sanctions can result in severe consequences, including a loss of access to the US financial system," warned the US Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism – you see, the Europeans are building systems to circumvent American sanctions. Today, those sanctions are directed at Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, but tomorrow they may be directed at China.

Naturally, the Europeans threatened only themselves - 1,500-year habits are hard to break. Germany and France fought bitterly over who would become European Commission President. Brussels warned Rome to honor its obligation to contain its growing debt. Italy's Salvini threatened to launch a parallel currency – step #1 in the process to abandon the euro and default.

And out of nowhere, Trump warned Mexico to stop the immigrant flow in 10-days or face tariffs. Global CEOs who were rushing to rearchitect their China supply chains, digested the risk that these investments could be instantly devastated by some future tariff - imposed to achieve Americas geopolitical objectives - and they prepared to warn shareholders they're putting new investment on hold. As the US treasury yield curve inverted, with 3mth bills at 2.34% and 10yrs at 2.12%. Which of course, is one of the most reliable warnings of looming recession.

Framework

"Economists generally use tax frameworks to evaluate the trade war," said my favorite strategist. "They calculate a -0.4% hit to GDP, which is not such a big deal. But they're using the wrong tool." Tax frameworks treat tariffs as a tax. They then model how a nation's currency adjusts to the tax, how corporate profit margins shrink to absorb the tax, and how consumers shoulder the remaining burden. "Tariffs are being used as a proactive, combative tool. The GDP hit will be at least double. Modelling these tariffs require more complex frameworks."

"If all of the affected nations simply agreed to adopt new tax regimes, then the tax framework would work fine," continued my favorite strategist. "But the world has built specialized supply chains. So if Nation A tries to hurt Nation B, and Nation B is part of critical supply chains that impact Nation A, then there are many things B can do to harm A in non-linear ways." Banning rare earth metal exports is a small example. "Once Apple locks down their product production for Nov 2019 release, China knows exactly how to push that past Feb 2020."

" Global trade was already in the process of fracturing ," added the strategist. "Now Huawei can't use Google's operating system." Their phones are as good as paperweights. "But do you really want to bet that Huawei can't spend the next 6mths building a competing operating system?" We're entering a world of competing superpowers. " The overall impact will be to operate economies with redundant technologies, fewer efficiencies, lower ROEs, lower ROAs. And ironically, or perhaps by design, it'll be bad for profits, but okay for labor ."

[Jun 02, 2019] Trade War Has Not Made America Great Again-- China Lashes Out At US Which Is -Solely To Blame- -

Notable quotes:
"... "It is foreseeable that the latest U.S. tariff hikes on China, far from resolving issues, will only make things worse for all sides," according to the white paper, which also listed details of what it described as U.S. backtracking. ..."
"... As Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen, who led the working-level team in the negotiations, said China is willing to work with the US to find solutions, but the latter's strategy of maximum pressure and escalation can't force concessions from China: "When you give the U.S. an inch, it takes a yard", he said. ..."
Jun 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

And, as of this weekend, we now appear to be in the "despondent acceptance" phase (unlike the Kubler-Ross model, acceptance precedes anger and nuclear war), because as Xinhua reported overnight, China is now laying the blame squarely on the US for the breakdown of trade talks between the world's two biggest economies, but hinted at its willingness to resume stalled negotiations with Washington while rejecting any attempt to force concessions from Beijing.

In a white paper on China's official position on the trade talks released by the State Council Information Office on Sunday, Beijing made it clear the US government "should bear the sole and entire responsibility" for the current stalemate, and hit back at allegations that Beijing had backtracked from its earlier promises.

The trade war has not " made America great again," the white paper said, but has done serious harm to the U.S. economy by increasing production costs, causing higher prices hikes, damaging growth and people's livelihoods, as well as creating barriers to U.S. exports to China.

"It is foreseeable that the latest U.S. tariff hikes on China, far from resolving issues, will only make things worse for all sides," according to the white paper, which also listed details of what it described as U.S. backtracking.

"The Chinese government rejects the idea that threats of a trade war and continuous tariff hikes can ever help resolve trade and economic issues," according to the white paper. "Guided by a spirit of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, the two countries should push forward consultations based on good faith and credibility in a bid to address issues, narrow differences, expand common interests, and jointly safeguard global economic stability and development," it said, according to Bloomberg .

As Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen, who led the working-level team in the negotiations, said China is willing to work with the US to find solutions, but the latter's strategy of maximum pressure and escalation can't force concessions from China: "When you give the U.S. an inch, it takes a yard", he said.

Meanwhile, when asked about US firms’ complaints that customs clearance was taking longer since the start of the trade war, he advised companies to contact the relevant authorities. “If certain firms are faced with specific issues, they can talk to local commerce departments,” he said.

On the increasingly touchy matter of exports of rare earth minerals, Wang repeated Beijing’s comments of the past week. “With the world’s richest rare earth resources we are willing to satisfy the normal needs of other countries,” he said. “But it’s unacceptable if other countries use rare earths imported from China to suppress China’s development.”

But in what could be the worst news for bulls who are clutching at any straw now to indicate an improvement in diplomatic relations, when asked about the possibility of a summit between Xi and Trump on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan later this month – as suggested by the American president in May – Wang said he had no information on the matter, according to the SCMP.

Shi Yinhong, an adviser to China’s State Council and a specialist in US affairs at Renmin University in Beijing, said that despite the pressure from the US, Beijing had shown restraint in its efforts to fight back... which it has indeed, suggesting that Trump's read of the calculus - one according to which China has more to lose than gain from taking trade war to the next level - is the correct one.

“In the areas of trade and technology, China has less leverage than the US, but it has kept its retaliatory measures within these areas,” he said. “If it extended its efforts to areas like North Korea and Iran, it could do much greater damage to Trump.”

The punchline: when addressing the chances of the two sides achieving a breakthrough in their trade negotiations by the time of the G20 summit, Shi said: “The difference is too wide and would be impossible for them to bridge in a month.”

The full White Paper can be found here.

[Jun 02, 2019] Pompeo Again Threatens Germany- Drop Huawei Or Intelligence Sharing Blocked -

Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile on Thursday a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to the White House position at a moment Pompeo keeps up the pressure campaign on European allies, saying, the US has not offered proof that Huawei's products present a security risk. ..."
"... "We hope that the United States can stop these mistaken actions which are not at all commensurate with their status and position as a big country," said spokesman Geng Shuang, according to Reuters. ..."
"... And Huawei, for its part, is reportedly taking steps to block its employees from taking part in technical meetings with American contacts, which has even included sending home American employees that were based at its Chinese headquarters in Shenzen. ..."
Jun 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Pompeo Again Threatens Germany: Drop Huawei Or Intelligence Sharing Blocked

me title=

by Tyler Durden Sun, 06/02/2019 - 07:35 5 SHARES Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has again put Germany and the rest of Europe on notice regarding China's controversial telecom giant Huawei, warning they could be cut off from crucial US intelligence sharing over Huawei's 5G networks now being built.

Pompeo issued the ultimatum following a meeting with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on Friday, saying the decision on whether to allow Huawei equipment would have severe consequences, according to Reuters . His words came at the start of a five-day European tour: "They [Germany] will take their own sovereign decisions, [but we] will speak to them openly about the risks ... and in the case of Huawei the concern is it is not possible to mitigate those anywhere inside of a 5G network ," Pompeo said .

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas. File photo via RFERL

Germany, alongside the UK and France, has refused to budge amidst the ratcheting pressure from the US over worries that China's intelligence is using its next generation networks as "back door" for aggressive telecommunications eavesdropping.

Pompeo told the news conference further: "(There is) a risk we will have to change our behavior in light of the fact that we can't permit data on private citizens or data on national security to go across networks that we don't have confidence (in)."

As we reported previously the Trump administration first notified its Berlin counterparts of the intelligence sharing concerns in early March, when US Ambassador to Germany Richard A. Grenell told Germany's economics minister in an official letter that the European ally and intelligence partner "wouldn't be able to keep intelligence and other information sharing at their current level if Germany allowed Huawei or other Chinese vendors to participate in building the country's 5G network."

It was noted at the time the warning is "likely to cause alarm among German security circles" amid persistent terror threat, largely the result of Merkel's disastrous "Open Door" policies which allowed over 1 million middle eastern immigrants into he country. And yet it appears Germany's national security state establishment has remained unmoved, or at least unable to prevail over Merkel's government.

Meanwhile on Thursday a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded to the White House position at a moment Pompeo keeps up the pressure campaign on European allies, saying, the US has not offered proof that Huawei's products present a security risk.

"We hope that the United States can stop these mistaken actions which are not at all commensurate with their status and position as a big country," said spokesman Geng Shuang, according to Reuters.

And Huawei, for its part, is reportedly taking steps to block its employees from taking part in technical meetings with American contacts, which has even included sending home American employees that were based at its Chinese headquarters in Shenzen.

[Jun 02, 2019] May's resignation will do nothing to arrest Britain's decline by Patrick Cockburn

Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain. In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used." ..."
May 25, 2019 | www.unz.com
1,200 WORDS 34 COMMENTS REPLY RSS

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D44%23cb%3Df2c0885671b8f54%26domain%3Dwww.unz.com%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.unz.com%252Ff26dd1d96bb844c%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=75&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fpcockburn%2Fmays-resignation-will-do-nothing-to-arrest-britains-decline%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=90

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D44%23cb%3Df2a7850451d566%26domain%3Dwww.unz.com%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.unz.com%252Ff26dd1d96bb844c%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fpcockburn%2Fmays-resignation-will-do-nothing-to-arrest-britains-decline%2F&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&type=button

http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/mays-resignation-will-do-nothing-to-arrest-britains-decline/

There is a story about an enthusiastic American who took a phlegmatic English friend to see the Niagara Falls.

"Isn't that amazing?" exclaimed the American. "Look at that vast mass of water dashing over that enormous cliff!"

"But what," asked the Englishman, "is to stop it?"

My father, Claud Cockburn, used to tell this fable to illustrate what, as a reporter in New York on the first day of the Wall Street Crash on 24 October 1929, it was like to watch a great and unstoppable disaster taking place.

I thought about my father's account of the mood on that day in New York as Theresa May announced her departure as prime minister, the latest milestone – but an important one – in the implosion of British politics in the age of Brexit . Everybody with their feet on the ground has a sense of unavoidable disaster up ahead but no idea of how to avert it; least of all May's likely successors with their buckets of snake oil about defying the EU and uniting the nation.

It is a mistake to put all the blame on the politicians. I have spent the last six months travelling around Britain, visiting places from Dover to Belfast, where it is clear that parliament is only reflecting real fault lines in British society. Brexit may have envenomed and widened these divisions, but it did not create them and it is tens of millions of people who differ radically in their opinions, not just an incompetent and malign elite.

Even so, May was precisely the wrong political personality to try to cope with the Brexit crisis: not stupid herself, she has a single-minded determination amounting to tunnel vision that is akin to stupidity. Her lauding of consensus in her valedictory speech announcing her resignation was a bit rich after three years of rejecting compromise until faced with imminent defeat.

Charging ahead regardless only works for those who are stronger than all obstacles, which was certainly not the case in Westminster and Brussels. Only those holding all the trump cards can ignore the other players at the table. This should have been blindingly clear from the day May moved into Downing Street after a referendum that showed British voters to be split down the middle, something made even more obvious when she lost her parliamentary majority in 2017. But, for all her tributes to the virtues of compromise today, she relied on the votes of MPs from the sectarian Protestant DUP in Northern Ireland, a place which had strongly voted to remain in the EU.

Her miscalculations in negotiating with the EU were equally gross. The belief that Britain could cherry pick what it wanted from its relationship with Europe was always wishful thinking unless the other 27 EU states were disunited. It is always in the interests of the members of a club to make sure that those who leave have a worse time outside than in.

The balance of power was against Britain and this is not going to change, though Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab might pretend that what has been lacking is sufficient willpower or belief in Brexit as a sort of religious faith. These are dangerous delusions, enabling Nigel Farage to sell the idea of "betrayal" and being "stabbed in the back" just like German right-wing politicians after 1918.

Accusations of treachery might be an easy sell in Britain because it is so steeped in myths of self-sufficiency, fostered by self-congratulatory films and books about British prowess in the Second World War. More recent British military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan either never made it on to the national news agenda or are treated as irrelevant bits of ancient history. The devastating Chilcot report on Britain in the Iraq War received insufficient notice because its publication coincided with the referendum in 2016.

Brexiters who claim to be leading Britain on to a global stage are extraordinarily parochial in their views of the outside world. The only realistic role for Britain in a post-Brexit world will be, as ever, a more humble spear carrier for Trump's America. In this sense, it is appropriate that the Trump state visit should so neatly coincide with May's departure and the triumphant emergence of Trump's favourite British politicians, Johnson and Farage.

Just how decisive is the current success of the Brexiters likely to be? Their opponents say encouragingly that they have promised what they cannot deliver in terms of greater prosperity so they are bound to come unstuck. But belief in such a comforting scenario is the height of naivety because the world is full of politicians who have failed to deliver the promises that got them elected, but find some other unsavoury gambit to keep power by exacerbating foreign threats, as in India, or locking up critics, as in Turkey.

Britain is entering a period of permanent crisis not seen since the 17 th century. Brexit was a symptom as well as a cause of divisions. The gap between the rich and the poor, the householder and the tenant, the educated and the uneducated, the old and the young, has grown wider and wider. Brexit became the great vent through which grievances that had nothing to with Brussels bubbled. The EU is blamed for all the sins of de-industrialisation, privatisation and globalisation and, if it did not create them, then it did not do enough to alleviate their impact.

The proponents of Leave show no sign of having learned anything over the last three years, but they do not have to because they can say that the rewards of Brexit lie in a sun-lit future. Remainers have done worse because they are claiming that the rewards of the membership of the EU are plenteous and already with us. "If you wish to see its monument, look around you," they seem to say. This is a dangerous argument: why should anybody from ex-miners in the Welsh Valleys to former car workers in Birmingham or men who once worked on Dover docks endorse what has happened to them while Britain has been in the EU? Why should they worry about a rise or fall in the GDP when they never felt it was their GDP in the first place?

May is getting a sympathy vote for her final lachrymose performance, but it is undeserved. Right up to the end there was a startling gap between her words and deeds. The most obvious contradiction was her proclaimed belief that "life depends on compromise". But it also turns out that "proper funding for mental health" was at the heart of her NHS long term plan, though hospital wards for the mentally ill continue to close and patients deep in psychosis are dispatched to the other end of the country.

The Wall Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain. In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used."

[Jun 01, 2019] The Mexican tariff threat is incredibly stupid. Trump pretty much had that trade deal in the bag and this may just ruin it

Jun 01, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

blue peacock -> jdledell... , 31 May 2019 at 09:44 PM

Apparently both Lighthizer & Mnuchin opposed the tariffs on Mexican goods. If these tariffs remain in place for some months it could have a major impact on the profitability of the auto companies who are already sucking wind as sales slow.

I suppose this is an attention getter for AMLO to get his act together to reduce the flood of illegals attempting to cross the border.

turcopolier , 31 May 2019 at 07:07 PM

jdledell Agreed. The Mexican tariff threat is incredibly stupid. Trump pretty much had that trade deal in the bag and this may just ruin it. I fought the falsely "sold" Iraq invasion as hard as I could including to Hannah, Scooter and Cheney's faces. Once the thing was decided I offered to accompany the 3rd Infantry Division as an adviser but the neocons would not allow it in spite of the land force commander's request.

David Solomon -> turcopolier ... , 31 May 2019 at 07:07 PM

Colonel Lang, It was your stand against the Iraq invasion that first brought you to my attention. To the detriment of this country and much of the world, your advice was not taken. I have seriously wondered since those days, if this country will ever recover from the damage done by following Cheney and gang.

[Jun 01, 2019] PATRICK LAWRENCE- The US-China Decoupling by Patrick Lawrence

Notable quotes:
"... The long, dense economic relationship appears to have passed its peak, writes Patrick Lawrence. ..."
"... The fallout from these mutually imposed taxes on trade will be considerable all by itself. Global supply chains will inevitably be disrupted -- a potential threat to worldwide economic stability. U.S. importers are expected to start shifting purchases away from China in favor of alternative suppliers with lower cost structures. American investors are likely to reconsider the mainland as a production platform, in many cases diverting investment dollars elsewhere. ..."
"... In the financial markets, this process is termed "decoupling." The long, dense economic relationship between the U.S. and China, the reasoning runs, appears to have passed its peak. ..."
"... With bilateral trade talks stalled, both sides have begun to indicate -- directly or by inference -- that they are now prepared to draw blood. Once the long-term damage begins, as appears increasingly likely, it is difficult to see how there will be any turning back from it. ..."
"... The only known back door into Huawei systems was created by the National Security Agency, which hacked its servers at some point between 2010 and 2012; this was revealed in the documents Edward Snowden made public in mid -- 2013. In effect, the U.S. accuses China of doing what it has already done. ..."
"... "When it comes to policy caprice motivated by paranoia and Deep State lies, the attack on Huawei is in a class all by itself," David Stockman, the former White House budget director, wrote on his blog earlier this month. "The whole case has been confected by Washington-domiciled economic nationalists who think prosperity stems from the machinations of the state and that state-sponsored 'national champions' are essential to winning the race for global economic and technological dominance." ..."
"... Last week the president suggested that the Huawei dispute can be negotiated as part of a broader agreement on trade. At the same time, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has been crisscrossing the country to warn U.S. companies, universities, and other institutions of the perils of doing business with China. Coats's focus is on the high-technology sector. ..."
"... There are two lessons to draw from this spectacle. Trump's position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing. Equally, Coats's barnstorming tour is a clear indication that the national security apparatus is actively seeking to cast China as a strategic threat to the U.S. -- as the Pentagon declared it to be in a defense review earlier this year. ..."
"... Turning off the supply of rare earths is not the "nuclear option" China may consider it, as there are alternative suppliers. At the same time, the mainland accounts for nearly three-quarters of world supplies. When it blocked sales to Japan during a diplomatic dispute in 2010, prices rose precipitously and there was mayhem among manufacturers dependent on Chinese supplies. ..."
"... Xi made a remark in Jiangxi that is not to be missed. "We are now embarking on a new Long March," he said, referencing the famous retreat Mao led after Chinese Nationalists defeated the Red Army in 1934. "And we must start all over again." ..."
"... Unless Washington opens to a more cooperative partnership with Beijing -- an unlikely prospect -- this could be the moment China begins to displace the U.S. as the preeminent power in the western Pacific. ..."
"... The US has to regain a real economy and stop the insane military spending. Regardless of China. ..."
"... ‘”Trump’s position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing.” Absolutely the case. Trump has been caught before in this same kind of contradictory stance, as with tariffs on steel and aluminum. ..."
"... Trump seems to think he can command the wind and the waves. He has an immense ego, and there is the fact that he is a good deal less clever than he thinks he is. ..."
"... Trump believes that by intimidation and threats, he can make something happen that cannot happen through the ordinary operations of the economies. In this we see him most like the thugs that came to run a number of European countries in the 1930s. ..."
"... Trump’s “MAGA” is nothing more than thinking you can make that heart-warming post-WWII slogan, “the American Dream,” come alive again, many decades later and in an entirely different set of circumstances. “The American Dream” was based in a world where almost every competitor was prostrate from war while America remained relatively unscathed. So, America supplied, for a while, a huge share of the world’s demands, but its share has been declining ever since. ..."
"... Naturally, many Americans want to believe otherwise. Trump’s base – the nation’s Wal-Mart shoppers and the residents of its huge gulag of trailer parks – certainly does, and its hopes comes tinged with everything from superstition to religiosity. ..."
"... America’s elites, the members of its power establishment, do not believe in the same way, but they are deeply concerned about America’s relative decline. ..."
"... They do believe that America’s still great remaining strength can be used to extract concessions from the world without sacrificing anything at home and without sacrificing its role as the center of world empire, a role that comes with many perks and privileges ..."
"... One thinks of the infamous German industrialists and bankers’ – as well as notable American ones – early support for Hitler, although I do not mean to say the situations are identical. ..."
"... You can try fighting by the methods Trump is using, but those methods risk, through acts like the blithe laying on of massive new tariffs and sanctions, not only reduced economic activity in the world, they risk ultimately real wars. ..."
"... The real pity is that Trump at his core is not that much different from the rest of the fools who have been leading this country for the past several decades. He’s just “old school” in his style: he doesn’t wear soft kid gloves whilst attempting to strangle his geopolitical competitors the way all his chums before him did, the sonorous Barack Obama included. ..."
"... Constant warfare is a big part of US consumption. ..."
"... It is becoming increasingly clear that the US is subject to an arms industry racket which is draining its resources and ruining its real potential. ..."
"... We are becoming a country of idle over-weight vets running around on motorcycles wearing red MAGA hats, supported by billionaires, while the rest toil. ..."
"... This will likely come to a head sooner rather than later, and the conflict can be understood in broader terms as between a hegemonic global model and a multi-polar global model ..."
"... While confidence that such measures can inflict enormous harm is justified, the corresponding confidence that America’s preeminent position atop the world’s economic structures is not subject to challenge or change is misguided. The challenge has been ongoing for over five years now, and the change will likely appear suddenly. The preference would be for the U.S. guided to a soft landing into a multi-polar world, but Washington’s policy hawks seem committed to rolling the dice. ..."
"... Washington’s policy setters are gangsters who operate largely through intimidation, extortion and racketeering. ..."
"... This trade war sounds dangerous – didn’t the Smoot Hawley tariffs precipitate the great depression? And the inevitable economic war (even if it is a faux war based on lies, driven by the neocons) could well lead to a real war if we let it….. ..."
"... But trade wars are easy to win! Our very smart cheeto-in-chief has told us. You wouldn’t doubt him would you? ..."
"... The US has abdicated their manufacturing and innovative technologies, shutting down heavy industry under Reagan and Bush I (replacing it with a “service economy”) while outsourcing high end technology and offshoring technical jobs, initially to China mostly under Clinton and Bush II. ..."
"... It’s tempting to conclude that tariffs and action against Huawei are part of the same strategy. I don’t think they are. The tariffs are playing to Trump’s voter gallery. ..."
"... So long as the Chinese can find a way to save face AND give face to Trump, compromise is possible. Huawei is about the Deep State being unable to access Huawei’s facilities. Its a double bluff. The NSA etc (via 5 Eyes) have great access to western controlled telecoms. ..."
Jun 01, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

May 28, 2019 • 32 Comments

The long, dense economic relationship appears to have passed its peak, writes Patrick Lawrence.

Special to Consortium News

P resident Donald Trump's trade war with China is swiftly taking a decisive turn for the worse.

Step by step, each measure prompting retaliation, a spat so far limited to tariff increases, now threatens to transform the bilateral relationship into one of managed hostility extending well beyond economic issues. Should Washington and Beijing define each other as adversaries, as they now appear poised to do, the consequences in terms of global stability and the balance of power in the Pacific are nearly incalculable.

The trade dispute continues to sharpen. Later this week Beijing is scheduled to raise tariffs already in place on $60 billion worth of American exports -- the latest in a running series of escalations Washington set in motion nearly a year ago. Two weeks later the U.S., having increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese products earlier this month, is to consider imposing levies on an additional $325 billion worth of imports from the mainland.

The fallout from these mutually imposed taxes on trade will be considerable all by itself. Global supply chains will inevitably be disrupted -- a potential threat to worldwide economic stability. U.S. importers are expected to start shifting purchases away from China in favor of alternative suppliers with lower cost structures. American investors are likely to reconsider the mainland as a production platform, in many cases diverting investment dollars elsewhere.

For its part, China is already rotating its gaze westward toward the Middle East and Europe. As if to underscore the point, the East Hope Group, a large Chinese manufacturer, announced late last week that it plans to invest $10 billion in Abu Dhabi's industrial sector. Beijing is already drawing Western Europe into its trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative . In time, Europe could begin to replace the U.S. as a source of the foreign investment capital China needs.

Decoupling

In the financial markets, this process is termed "decoupling." The long, dense economic relationship between the U.S. and China, the reasoning runs, appears to have passed its peak.

With bilateral trade talks stalled, both sides have begun to indicate -- directly or by inference -- that they are now prepared to draw blood. Once the long-term damage begins, as appears increasingly likely, it is difficult to see how there will be any turning back from it.

Two weeks ago, the White House issued an executive order barring purchases of telecommunications equipment from any foreign company deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. It also requires American companies to obtain licenses before exporting U.S. telecoms technology to such firms. While an administration official described the order as "company and country agnostic," it is all but explicitly intended to damage the global position of Huawei, the highly competitive Chinese company that is a leader in cellular telephone sales and 5G telecommunications networks.

Huawei has long been in Washington's sights. Chief among the allegations against it , the company is accused of providing China with a "back door" into its telecoms networks, so allowing Beijing to spy on any entity using Huawei equipment. The U.S. has never provided evidence of this, and both Huawei and Beijing vigorously deny any such arrangement. The only known back door into Huawei systems was created by the National Security Agency, which hacked its servers at some point between 2010 and 2012; this was revealed in the documents Edward Snowden made public in mid -- 2013. In effect, the U.S. accuses China of doing what it has already done.

"When it comes to policy caprice motivated by paranoia and Deep State lies, the attack on Huawei is in a class all by itself," David Stockman, the former White House budget director, wrote on his blog earlier this month. "The whole case has been confected by Washington-domiciled economic nationalists who think prosperity stems from the machinations of the state and that state-sponsored 'national champions' are essential to winning the race for global economic and technological dominance."

Contradictory Narrative

There is little question that freezing Huawei out of the U.S. market and depriving it of U.S. -- made components will do damage, in all likelihood lasting, to the company. The Eurasia Group terms the administration's executive order "a grave escalation with China that at a minimum plunges the prospect of continued trade negotiations into doubt." But as it has on other policy questions, the Trump administration is tripping over its own contradictory narratives at this point.

Last week the president suggested that the Huawei dispute can be negotiated as part of a broader agreement on trade. At the same time, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has been crisscrossing the country to warn U.S. companies, universities, and other institutions of the perils of doing business with China. Coats's focus is on the high-technology sector.

There are two lessons to draw from this spectacle. Trump's position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing. Equally, Coats's barnstorming tour is a clear indication that the national security apparatus is actively seeking to cast China as a strategic threat to the U.S. -- as the Pentagon declared it to be in a defense review earlier this year.

Beijing has so far shown restraint in its responses, but there are signs it is stiffening its spine. On Friday it issued a draft of its own set of tighter regulations governing potential cyber-security breaches. Xi Jinping had earlier visited a rare-earth processing facility in Jiangxi Province -- a move read as the Chinese leader's subtle suggestion that Beijing may consider blocking exports of minerals that are essential components in a variety of high-tech devices.

Turning off the supply of rare earths is not the "nuclear option" China may consider it, as there are alternative suppliers. At the same time, the mainland accounts for nearly three-quarters of world supplies. When it blocked sales to Japan during a diplomatic dispute in 2010, prices rose precipitously and there was mayhem among manufacturers dependent on Chinese supplies.

Xi made a remark in Jiangxi that is not to be missed. "We are now embarking on a new Long March," he said, referencing the famous retreat Mao led after Chinese Nationalists defeated the Red Army in 1934. "And we must start all over again."

With formal talks lapsed for the time being, there is now no shortage of signaling from either Washington or Beijing. But Xi, China's most assertive leader since the Great Helmsman, appears to understand the moment as larger than mere gestures. U.S. -- China relations have entered a decisive phase. America cannot win in a long-term confrontation with China. Unless Washington opens to a more cooperative partnership with Beijing -- an unlikely prospect -- this could be the moment China begins to displace the U.S. as the preeminent power in the western Pacific.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist . His web site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .

If you value this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.


dean 1000 , May 31, 2019 at 11:12

The Empire the US built and acquired after WWII could not last no matter who is president. We have been advised of this coming reality for 30 or 40 years. Washington can’t adjust b/c it is controlled by a two party system that is owned by the 10%.

Since wall street bought a bunch of manufacturing companies and exported them to China the US hasen’t had a real economy. It has been one bubble economy after another. A stock bubble, tech bubble, dot com bubble, and a killer 8 trillion $ housing bubble, and a completely unnecessary bank bailout.

The US has to regain a real economy and stop the insane military spending. Regardless of China.

Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:14

Trump, in effect, is walling the US off from the rest of the world, as Ming-Qing dynasty China did until 1911.it turned out badly for Chinese people. It’s likely to turn out badly for the US.

Truth , May 29, 2019 at 17:27

One solution to rare minerals is to break the illegal clinton & bush era mining agreements around the Grand canyon and Nevada which has turned our resources into cash from russia and canada into the pockets of the deep state “elected” in D<C and these states. It would be nice if every now and then a real journalist who publishes a full story would get a complete story published. Consortium does better than most but still needs to step up their game.

An article that includes explaining why all NAFTA and trade agreements since Kennedy have been total sellouts of USA in exchange for party owned companies of the "elected"

JOHN CHUCKMAN , May 29, 2019 at 11:19

‘”Trump’s position on Huawei gives the game away: If the company is truly a national security threat, it makes no sense to offer it as a chip to be bargained in trade talks with Beijing.” Absolutely the case. Trump has been caught before in this same kind of contradictory stance, as with tariffs on steel and aluminum.

I think the truth is that he is a man ready to use any gimmick to get what he wants, regardless of logic or facts or principle. Another way to say that is to speak of a criminal mentality.

It is exactly what the mob has always done in making someone an offer they can’t refuse. “Don’t want to pay protection money? Well, don’t be surprised if your joint gets burned down.”

Trump essentially wants to transfer huge amounts of trade surplus from China to the United States, not by any change in the economic activity or policies of the two countries but by fiat.

But of course, the world doesn’t work that way.

The United States’ trade deficits are its own doing, not China’s. The United States doesn’t save, and it doesn’t tax adequately. It consumes, and a productive country like China is only too pleased to supply what it wants. That makes a flow of goods in one direction and a flow of money in the other. Economics 101.

Trump seems to think he can command the wind and the waves. He has an immense ego, and there is the fact that he is a good deal less clever than he thinks he is.

Trump believes that by intimidation and threats, he can make something happen that cannot happen through the ordinary operations of the economies. In this we see him most like the thugs that came to run a number of European countries in the 1930s.

He genuinely does not understand – or if he understands, he doesn’t care – what is behind the surpluses and deficits and just insists that they will be changed as a matter of his personal will. Does that not remind us of anyone from history?

At any rate, it comes down to his admiring “the strong man” and believing he, and he alone, can play that role for the United States. And there are more than a few Americans that believe him too. After all, the great American journalist and historian who documented the rise and fall of the Nazis, William L. Shirer, once said that he thought the United States might be the first country to go fascist voluntarily. He based that thought on his observation of many attitudes and beliefs and trends in the United States.

Trump’s “MAGA” is nothing more than thinking you can make that heart-warming post-WWII slogan, “the American Dream,” come alive again, many decades later and in an entirely different set of circumstances. “The American Dream” was based in a world where almost every competitor was prostrate from war while America remained relatively unscathed. So, America supplied, for a while, a huge share of the world’s demands, but its share has been declining ever since.

In today’s world, all the old competitors have not only come roaring back, but a lot of new ones have come into being, and that reality is the future.

Naturally, many Americans want to believe otherwise. Trump’s base – the nation’s Wal-Mart shoppers and the residents of its huge gulag of trailer parks – certainly does, and its hopes comes tinged with everything from superstition to religiosity.

America’s elites, the members of its power establishment, do not believe in the same way, but they are deeply concerned about America’s relative decline. They have been working away for years on the problem, as in their past bashing of Japan or China, but they are not ready to work for fundamental change in America, as, for example, in its tax and savings structures and its grotesque inequalities.

They do believe that America’s still great remaining strength can be used to extract concessions from the world without sacrificing anything at home and without sacrificing its role as the center of world empire, a role that comes with many perks and privileges. And while most of them do not like Trump’s style or background, I think for now they are willing to see whether he can get the ugly job done. One thinks of the infamous German industrialists and bankers’ – as well as notable American ones – early support for Hitler, although I do not mean to say the situations are identical.

You can try fighting by the methods Trump is using, but those methods risk, through acts like the blithe laying on of massive new tariffs and sanctions, not only reduced economic activity in the world, they risk ultimately real wars.

Even if they don’t go so far as war, they are shaking up some fundamental post-WWII arrangements that America is going to miss. Decades-old allies, like some of those in Europe, are beginning to re-think their relationship with such a hostile, single-minded America and to glance around in other directions, as towards the very China Trump attacks and towards Russia, a country whose openness to business would have resembled a miracle under the communists and whose wealth of natural resources offers altogether new opportunities.

Realist , May 30, 2019 at 01:32

The real pity is that Trump at his core is not that much different from the rest of the fools who have been leading this country for the past several decades. He’s just “old school” in his style: he doesn’t wear soft kid gloves whilst attempting to strangle his geopolitical competitors the way all his chums before him did, the sonorous Barack Obama included.

Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:25

Constant warfare is a big part of US consumption.

Daniel Good , May 29, 2019 at 04:36

The problem that bothers the US policy makers is real: what to do about the balance of payments deficit? The Trump team seems to be nit-picking areas where imports can be reduced, for instance by blocking Chinese tech exports.

All of these moves are nonsense because they miss the real problem: the US economy has a long standing structural quandary. It devotes so much of its resources to flashy, ornamental and useless defense high tech weapons and gismos that it is running itself into the ground.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the US is subject to an arms industry racket which is draining its resources and ruining its real potential. What needs to be done is to cut the military budget in half and redirect the resources to improving the infrastructure of the country and making investment once again profitable inside the USA. Where is the politician who dares make these proposals? Wake up America. We are becoming a country of idle over-weight vets running around on motorcycles wearing red MAGA hats, supported by billionaires, while the rest toil.

bardamu , May 29, 2019 at 00:07

It is strange to discuss confrontation with China only in terms of trade deals so soon after Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” Trump’s militarism with respect to North Korea, and the militarism of both the Obama and Trump regimes as regards Russia and also through western and central Asia, which are clearly areas in which China has no less natural interest than the United States.

Among these, surely tariffs are the least of most anyone’s worries.

jaycee , May 28, 2019 at 16:27

This will likely come to a head sooner rather than later, and the conflict can be understood in broader terms as between a hegemonic global model and a multi-polar global model.

The hegemonic global model has been an American project since the demise of the Soviet Union, usually presented in euphemism – “globalization”, the “exceptional” nation, the “rule-based international system”, etc. In recent years, US politicians have overstepped by a reckless use of the international financial system to deter designated adversaries.

Presently moving through Congress are bills designed to use sanctions (“maximum pressure”) to attack both Russia’s Nordstream natural gas pipeline to Europe and China’s claims in the South China Sea.

While confidence that such measures can inflict enormous harm is justified, the corresponding confidence that America’s preeminent position atop the world’s economic structures is not subject to challenge or change is misguided. The challenge has been ongoing for over five years now, and the change will likely appear suddenly. The preference would be for the U.S. guided to a soft landing into a multi-polar world, but Washington’s policy hawks seem committed to rolling the dice.

Realist , May 28, 2019 at 17:41

Washington’s policy setters are gangsters who operate largely through intimidation, extortion and racketeering. If you look up the definitions of those words you will see they describe to a tee what the American government does. Shutting down Nordstream (and all the other sanctions over transparently absurd claims) is meant entirely to damage the Russian economy and destabilise the country’s government, plus to steal away customers in the energy sector.

They are protecting nobody’s “rights of navigation” in the South China Sea, rather they are telegraphing to Bejing that Chinese trade with the world can be shut down on a moment’s notice by Uncle Sam, specifically they are trying to put the kibosh on the Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative.” The cusses in Washington have gone so far as to tell Canada that it does not have control over the Northwest Passage, long considered to be within its internal waters–you know, all those islands connected by ice for most of the year. Hence forth, Washington decreed that they are international waters and that it would control them. If that’s being a good neighbor to a country that has supported your every crazed demand for over 200 years, the “Great White North” needs to get a restraining order from the World Court against Uncle Sam, plus they need to find better friends elsewhere on the planet.

C Thomas Payne , May 28, 2019 at 19:37

I tend to substitute the euphemism “rogue nation” for those others.

Excellent comment.

Realist , May 28, 2019 at 16:22

India, Vietnam, and the Philippines will thank China for the opportunity to manufacture schlock for sale at Wal*Mart and for the major investments that new Chinese shareholders will have made in their companies. These countries will now have wares to trade along the Belt and Road linking all of Eurasia where everyone keeps getting richer by the day. Since people the world over, except for congenitally retarded neocons, know a good deal when they see one, all these countries will start telling Uncle Sam to cram it when he keeps demanding they sanction their new found friends and trading partners because freedom and democracy, Putin and the other names on Sam’s shit list. They’ll start deciding that all those American bases give them no clout, no influence, no pay-off and no security… nothing useful at all, unless prosecuting the crimes and repairing the damage caused by the garrison soldiers provides local entertainment. It will be time to relocate those rat-holes to the American side of Trump’s Wall.

Will the silver lining be new American self-sufficiency in manufacturing? The development of needed resources using new innovative technologies? A plethora of jobs at good pay for working American men and women? Will American oligarchs once again begin investing in America itself? If you can arrange that with American greenbacks now buying a tenth as many Yuans, Euros, Yen, Rupees, Rubles and even Pesos than they once did because Trump decided to “shake things up,” maybe you can sell all those treasuries needed to run the government in Washington to the Tooth Fairy.

It’s not true that “you can never go home again:” just watch the dollars come flooding back to North America when the whole rest of the world stops trading in them. This whole bit of history should be engaging to watch on some future television show similar to James Burke’s “Connections.”

If only Barack Obama had eased up on the extreme Trump bashing at that White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Harpo Kondriak , May 28, 2019 at 20:13

“Watch those dollars come flooding back” – when the real fun starts. Those that don’t understand why there has been little inflation from the bank bailouts will get their answer. And they won’t like it.

Seamus Padraig , May 28, 2019 at 14:46

As a life-long protectionist, I always believed that our foolish dependence on imports would ultimately end in tears, and it is now clear how right I was. Just to think: we could have saved ourselves all this trouble and misery simply by voting down NAFTA and declining to extend Most-Favored Nation trade status (as it used to be called) to China 25 years ago. But now, putting our industry back on track is really gonna hurt. Pity …

Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:39

Any US reindustrialization is likely employ robots. The homeless will just keep on increasing.

Godfree Roberts , May 28, 2019 at 12:29

“Europe could begin to replace the U.S. as a source of the foreign investment capital China needs.”?
China is the leading recipient of FDI but its need for foreign capital is rapidly diminishing and it is the world leader in IP

Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:40

A fair amount of foreign investment is laundered bribe money from China.

evelync , May 28, 2019 at 11:28

This trade war sounds dangerous – didn’t the Smoot Hawley tariffs precipitate the great depression? And the inevitable economic war (even if it is a faux war based on lies, driven by the neocons) could well lead to a real war if we let it…..

I can’t help but secretly imagine that perhaps the retaliation that Patrick Lawrence writes about – namely China’s shift to other trade partners – happens smoothly and quickly enough to deprive our neocons of their super power resources to put an end to what Charles Misfeldt in his comments refers to as Crooks, liars, thieves, cowards and traitors running things…..errr ruining things. I know that’s not the answer because it could be devastating too.

It’s up to the electorate to shift away from the ideologues, both neoliberal and neocons. But will we demand better government?

Most politicians in power have been too afraid to challenge the idea of “exceptionalism” which is used to keep the primitive war machine going.

Thanks for the article and the interesting and informative comments….much appreciated…

Jeff Harrison , May 28, 2019 at 11:19

But trade wars are easy to win! Our very smart cheeto-in-chief has told us. You wouldn’t doubt him would you?

Actually, one wonders why anyone takes the US and its accusations seriously. Especially by the European vassal states. Yes, your equipment/software will have a backdoor if the US wants one there. That much is clear from the Snowden releases. And a Reuters report this morning gives a hint at how it’s done. Huawei apparently is continuing to make the mistake of sending things out via FedEx. Magically, two of the parcels wound up in the US without the benefit of Huawei changing their shipping request. Huawei would never have known if they hadn’t looked at the routing of the parcel after they got it. Hopefully, there wasn’t any sensitive information in the documents routed to the US because it’s a sure thing that the USG now has copies of them. Same for the European vassals. Angela Merkel’s phone hacked. Electronic interception equipment installed on undersea telephone cables. That’s before we get to the NSA office in all the telecoms spying on us. Most of the world’s telecommunications run through the US. So, not only do we get to listen in on a phone call from Paris to Des Moines, we get to listen in on one from Paris to Shanghai.

And the European vassals continue to toe the American line albeit a bit more reluctantly.

michael , May 28, 2019 at 11:15

The US has abdicated their manufacturing and innovative technologies, shutting down heavy industry under Reagan and Bush I (replacing it with a “service economy”) while outsourcing high end technology and offshoring technical jobs, initially to China mostly under Clinton and Bush II.

Short-term profits soared with the cheaper labor, but giving away high end technologies leading to innovations for China was resoundingly stupid. Chinagate was (is) much more dangerous than Russiagate to National Security.

Having given away America’s capabilities to China, no amount of negotiating will “level the playing field” . We can no longer compete with China not because of labor costs, but because of the improvements the Chinese have made in so many fields over twenty years, while America sat stagnant (except of course for overpriced weapons and surveillance tools to watch American citizens).

Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 06:47

The US has always imported its Einsteins and Teslas. We Americans are educated to be cannon fodder in wars of vanity. At best, we’re educated to be Trump – Romney style connivrrs and crooks.

peter mcloughlin , May 28, 2019 at 09:14

Historically, when two hegemonic powers clash the result is always war. What we are witnessing between Washington and Beijing today is no different. But Washington will not allow China to ‘displace the US as the preeminent power in the western Pacific.’ The trade war will become world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

Dave Henderson , May 28, 2019 at 10:18

I am afraid you are right.

T , May 29, 2019 at 15:50

Peter McLoughlin, your Web site

http://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

does not have a valid certificate (Firefox warned me).

Charles Misfeldt , May 28, 2019 at 08:44

I look at this picture and see all the representative’s on America’s side of the table are conservative scumbags who have no intention of engaging in behavior that benefits myself or the majority in America. Crooks, liars, thieves, cowards and traitors…

MichaelWme , May 28, 2019 at 06:55

“a spat so far limited to tariff increases”

Not quite. The US has announced that any Chinese person travelling outside of China can be arrested, as it had Meng Wanzhou arrested in Canada for selling Huawei phones to Iranians. China threatened to execute 3 Canadians in retaliation, so Canada released Ms Meng from prison and put her under house arrest while the legal processes of extradition are now thought to require many years.

China hasn’t executed the 3 Canadians, and Ms Meng is in her C$20 million home, and is likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. What happened to Ms Meng can happen to any Chinese executive who travels outside China to the EU or the Americas or Japan.

E Wright , May 28, 2019 at 04:50

It’s tempting to conclude that tariffs and action against Huawei are part of the same strategy. I don’t think they are. The tariffs are playing to Trump’s voter gallery.

So long as the Chinese can find a way to save face AND give face to Trump, compromise is possible. Huawei is about the Deep State being unable to access Huawei’s facilities. Its a double bluff. The NSA etc (via 5 Eyes) have great access to western controlled telecoms.

They don’t want to lose that access by allowing an outside operator, so they accuse Huawei of what they are doing, on the assumption that Beijing does what they do.

[May 31, 2019] It is very unlikely that China can buy less US bonds because doing so would almost certainly be costly for Beijing. And even if China took this step, it would have either no impact or a positive impact on the U.S. economy.

May 31, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

John Smith , May 30, 2019 9:03:56 PM | 36

Why China Likely Won't Buy Fewer U.S. Treasury Bonds

A January 2018 Bloomberg article suggests that Chinese officials may reduce their purchases of U.S. government bonds. It is very unlikely that China can do so in any meaningful way because doing so would almost certainly be costly for Beijing. And even if China took this step, it would have either no impact or a positive impact on the U.S. economy.

China Cannot Weaponize Its U.S. Treasury Bonds

A number of recent articles suggest that Chinese officials may reduce their purchases of U.S. government bonds.

This is an updated version of a previously published January 2018 blog post.


John Smith , May 30, 2019 9:10:24 PM | 38

"Trade war" between the United States and China in pictures:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7jk1cuVsAEG7dQ.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7jk1r5U8AAqcyh.jpg

psychohistorian , May 30, 2019 9:13:53 PM | 39
@ John Smith with speculations about what China can/can't do with its trove of US Treasuries...I admit not following your links

How about if China used them to "pay off" a bunch of countries IMF and World Bank debt?

Just a little beyond the think tank box rumination for you.....

BM , May 31, 2019 2:56:51 AM | 56

China reduced its holdings of U.S. debt in March by about $20.5 billion, bringing its overall ownership down to $1.12 trillion.

There was some more detailed coverage of this not long ago, probably on Strategic Culture. China has largely stopped buying US treasuries for a few years now, and more recently has been very slowly reducing its holdings. It has to recycle its US dollars from its exports to the US somehow - instead of buying US treasuries and thereby funding the US military encirclement of China, it is using them for infrastructure investments in Eurasia under BRI - much of that is denominated in US dollars.

So that Carnegie Endowment crap is nothing but mindless bullshit propaganda*. No wonder the US fails in everything it tries to do these days - these are the sort of idiots who "advise" the US government what to do!!

As to that troll - B's advice is always this: Don't feed the trolls

* Disclaimer - I haven't read the troll's links, nor do I intend to.

BM , May 31, 2019 3:06:23 AM | 57

Russia has largely eliminated its holdings of US treasuries. Many other countries have also reduced their holdings, including several US allies (eg Japan, if I recall correctly). Many countries in Eurasia now have huge gold reserves instead, which is a much better bet - not just Russia and China but also Kazakhstan, for example.

Leser , May 31, 2019 8:55:17 AM | 63

China reduced its holdings of U.S. debt in March by about $20.5 billion, bringing its overall ownership down to $1.12 trillion.

Those U.S. Treasuries fluctuations are very likely following trade movements rather than political intentions. As commented before, China's enormous exports require large-scale FX handling and USTs are the easiest way to do that.

It's not a credible political threat to sell those off, as the next wave of 'QE' money printing is imminent and it will specifically target USTs (per Bloomberg article two days ago, with projected Fed balance sheet to soon grow beyond the recent peak). In other words, anything China might sell will be absorbed by the Federal Reserve with freshly printed money. In the scheme of the money printing madness, another trillion USD is not a large amount.

Why has Russia then sold their USTs? Probably for fear of being disconnected from the SWIFT system and being stuck with worthless paper. In any case Russia's total divestment of their entire UST stock didn't register in the ebb and flow of the market.

[May 29, 2019] No, Mr. President- China didn't steal our jobs. Corporate America gave them away by Cody Cain

May 28, 2019 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Trump's trade war points the finger in the wrong direction. China behaved normally; corporate CEOs betrayed us

" Information Clearing House " - China is not "stealing" American jobs.

President Trump loves to blame China for the job losses that have devastated American workers under globalization. But the truth is that Trump is blaming the wrong party. Trump's reckless trade war against China is misguided and amounts to a colossal charade that will not solve the actual problem.

Yes, it is true that numerous American manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas to China, thereby leaving American workers jobless and suffering. But China did not steal these jobs.

No. These jobs were given to China. It was all legal and legitimate. China merely accepted the gift.

What would anyone expect China to do? Accepting these jobs was a perfectly rational course of action.

China was an underdeveloped nation with a large population of poor people willing to work for a fraction of the hourly wages of American workers. And then corporations came along and presented China with an attractive offer: We would like to build manufacturing plants in China and hire droves of your unemployed people to work there. What was China supposed to do? Naturally, China said yes.

This is hardly stealing.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

It is true that these new jobs in China were intended to displace American workers. But does that concern belong to China? Does China have the responsibility to care for the well-being of American workers? Is China supposed to prioritize American workers over its own workers?

Of course not.

China is supposed to look out for itself and for its own workers, not for American workers. Thus it was perfectly proper for China to allow the manufacturing plants to be built in China and employ Chinese workers. China did not steal these jobs.

So if China is not at fault, then who is to blame for the devastation caused to American workers?

The answer is plain to see, and it lies within our own shores. The fault belongs squarely with corporate America.

It was corporate America that made these decisions. Corporate America decided to close their American plants and open new plants in China. Corporate America decided to lay off multitudes of American workers and ruin entire American communities.

And who profited from the destruction to American workers? It was the wealthy executives and shareholders of American corporations. They earned millions of dollars for themselves by cutting the costs of their workforce.

This is part of the larger trend of economic inequality that is eroding the entire middle class in America. Wealth is being shifted away from the workers down below and transferred up into the hands of the wealthy executives and shareholders at the top.

Trump blaming China is nonsense. China is not at fault. To be sure, China is hardly an angel and indeed engages in improper trade practices. But even if China agreed to whatever bone-headed demands Trump is seeking, the problem still would not be solved. The truth is that America cannot possibly compete against China on labor costs. The standard of living is much lower in China and thus Chinese workers are willing to accept wages far below living wages in America. So corporate America will continue to transfer more and more jobs to China and elsewhere. If we do not address this fundamental economic reality, then we will never solve the problem.

Trump blaming China has an insidious aspect to it as well. Focusing all the ire upon China is a grand misdirection that conceals the true culprit, namely, the super-rich corporate executives and shareholders in America.

This is part of Trump's standard playbook. Trump falsely proclaims to be fighting for blue-collar workers, when in truth, Trump acts entirely in favor of the rich at the top.

Surprisingly, this seems to work. Some of the hard-working Americans who are being crushed by Trump's idiotic trade war and who should be denouncing Trump, nonetheless praise him for standing up to China, believing that Trump is fighting for blue-collar jobs. It is painful to witness such good people falling victim to Trump's despicable con job.

In order to actually save the middle class, we need to focus on the true cause of the problem. We must direct our great powers of reform where they belong -- upon the wealthy executives and shareholders of corporate America who caused this problem in the first place.

The nature of the problem is that corporate America has no incentive to protect American workers. In fact, corporate America has every incentive to harm American workers by shifting their jobs overseas.

So the financial incentives must be reconfigured. If corporate America is going to ship American jobs overseas, it must not be permitted to pocket all the profits themselves and leave their displaced workers with nothing. Instead, corporations that send jobs offshore must be required to sufficiently compensate their displaced American workers. Executives and shareholders must not be permitted to enrich themselves unless and until their workers are financially secure.

Our society must favor people over profits, not profits over people.

This article was originally published by " Salon " -

[May 29, 2019] Global Times China Holds Three Trump Cards In War Against US

In reality China best option is outwait Trump. With the recession caused by the current trade war Trump has very little chances to be reelected.
May 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Tyler Durden Tue, 05/28/2019 - 22:45 Via Oriental Review,

Amid the escalating economic war between the US and China, discussions have intensified on how Beijing might stand up to the economic power of America, especially given that the global economy is increasingly dependent on the US dollar as the main currency for international trade, and the closing of US markets could do some serious damage to China's export-oriented companies. China's main foreign-policy publication, the Global Times , points to three trump cards that Beijing could use to at least level the playing field in its fight with the Trump administration and cause appreciable harm to the US economy, possibly forcing its opponent to temporarily scale back its ambitions.

According to an article in the Global Times by a professor at the Renmin University of China, the three trump cards are:

1) banning the export of rare earths to the US;

2) blocking US companies' access to Chinese markets; and

3) using China's portfolio of US Treasury bonds to bring down the US government debt market.

me width=

Each of these trump cards are worth looking at in detail, both in terms of their impact on the US economy and also in terms of any possible retaliation from the US and the repercussions for the global economy as a whole.

Banning the export of rare earths to the US would actually be a pretty serious blow for US electronics manufacturers and, indeed, US high-tech manufacturers generally. This is because rare earths are a key raw material for the production of smartphones, various chips, and other high-value-added products that are the biggest cash cows of US companies such as Apple and Boeing.

President Donald Trump during a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He over trade talks in the Oval Office, February 22, 2019

Reuters, an agency one could hardly accuse of sympathising with Beijing, reports : "The United States has again decided not to impose tariffs on rare earths and other critical minerals from China, underscoring its reliance on the Asian nation for a group of materials used in everything from consumer electronics to military equipment."

China does not exactly have a monopoly on such materials, but the market would definitely be in short supply without Chinese exports, with all the price implications that would bring. Moreover, it is likely that some deficit positions will be impossible to close no matter how much money is involved.

Not everything is that simple, however. Should such a ban be introduced, then Beijing will encounter certain technical difficulties. If sanctions are only imposed on US companies, then they will still be able to purchase the necessary materials through Japanese or European straw buyers, making the embargo pointless. But if China imposes a total export ban, then it won't just be US companies that suffer but European ones as well, leading to EU reprisals against Chinese exporters to Europe. This would be very painful for China, especially given the economic war with the US that is making access to European markets invaluable to the Chinese economy.

It appears that a ban on rare earth exports is a powerful weapon, but its use will require the utmost delicacy and serious diplomatic efforts to avoid any extremely unpleasant side effects.

The second trump card mentioned by the Global Times is blocking US companies' access to the fast-growing and extensive Chinese market. This should be looked at from a political, rather than economic, point of view (although the latter may seem logical). The aim of such restrictive measures is not to inflict unacceptable damage on the US economy, but to make the full might of America's corporate lobbying machine work against Donald Trump and support his political opponents.

According to the S&P Dow Jones Indices, Asia only accounts for around 14 per cent of the sales of S&P 500 companies. If we assume that China makes up the majority of this, then not even a complete closure of the Chinese markets would be a disaster. There are a few important details, however.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-33/html/container.html

As a result, the profits of US companies and the future of the American stock market (which is a key political barometer given that many Americans have invested their savings in shares) would be at risk. It might be possible to offset these problems by transferring production to other Asian countries with cheap labour and favourable terms, but this couldn't be done quickly and it would be risky, given that Trump is waging trade wars with everyone from the European Union to loyal US allies such as Japan and India. In light of this, US companies will have a huge incentive to prevent Trump from being elected for a second term, and the lobbying and political capabilities of that part of the US corporate sector that will suffer the most from this trump card could really play a key role in the political victory of Trump's opponents.

The third trump card involves China dumping its portfolio of US Treasury bonds. The Global Times writes: "China holds more than $1 trillion of US Treasury bonds. China made a great contribution to stabilizing the US economy by buying US debt during the financial crisis in 2008. The US would be miserable if China hits it when it is down." One can conclude from this that Beijing will most probably save dumping its portfolio of US treasury bonds for dessert – in that it will have the biggest impact when the US stock market is experiencing its next crisis.

China's Vice Premier Liu He (left) speaks during a meeting with President Donald Trump (right) in the Oval Office of the White House on February 22, 2019

The move is not likely to cause catastrophic damage in and of itself (although the value of US bonds will definitely fall), but if it is done at the moment when America is most vulnerable, then China's portfolio may well end up being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Beijing is not displaying a particularly cocksure attitude. As the Global Times ' editor-in-chief quite rightly notes on Twitter :

"Most Chinese agree that the US is more powerful than China and Washington holds initiative in the trade war. But we just don't want to cave in and we believe there is no way the US can crush China. We are willing to bear some pain to give the US a lesson."

As China lays its trump cards on the table, the world's globalised economy will creak and collapse. Globalisation is going backwards, and chances are we'll end up with a completely different economic system that has more protectionism. Instead of a global market, there will be several large regional markets with their own rules, dominant currencies, technical standards, and financial systems.


popeye , 51 minutes ago link

Just as the US attack on Huawei is shortsighted and will have serious consequences for USA, the same would apply to China if they were to reciprocate.

China wants to boost international trade, not harm it, so they will work around the bans to promote trade with others (long term strategic play), not go head to head. I suspect China may do something small just for domestic optics, but the smart play is to let the consequences of US actions play out on US businesses, whilst boosting import substitution and alternative supply chains.

I don't believe rare earth exports will be banned (they may be restricted a bit as part of a long term protection of domestic supply) and I don't expect US Treasuries to be dumped (buying at any scale had already ceased).

This isn't about backing one side over the other - I just think one party is going to play this smarter than the other.

yvhmer , 8 hours ago link

This is a copy paste article. Why are all these so called articles parrotting the same line: Rare earth monopoly, whereas in reality, they can' t even name the product of dependency and how much it would cost to find a different supplier.

freedommusic , 8 hours ago link

China has a 1.6 billion population and imports approx 30% food and 90% oil.

CDOGS , 8 hours ago link

If sanctions are only imposed on US companies, then they will still be able to purchase the necessary materials through Japanese or European straw buyers, making the embargo pointless. But if China imposes a total export ban, then it won't just be US companies that suffer but European ones as well, leading to EU reprisals against Chinese exporters to Europe. This would be very painful for China, especially given the economic war with the US that is making access to European markets invaluable to the Chinese economy.

And there is exactly why this won't happen.....

Let it Go , 9 hours ago link

If that is all the options they have, they got nothing!

China watchers, economists, and investors have been forming battle-lines for years as they debate the true strength and sustainability of China's economy and its role as a global player. Those of us that paint a picture of future collapse and a day of reckoning are often accused of spreading "doom-****" when we claim that the Chinese have masked over their dire situation by continually expanding credit.

In January, Beijing injected a staggering $685 billion in new credit into its financial system and the money continues to leak out causing assets to rise across the globe. Today China continues to prop up the unpropable, and yes, while no such word exists, when it comes to China's economy it should, for "unpropable" describes the financial collapse that can only be postponed but not stopped. The article below argues that this will have a major impact in currency markets going forward.

https://China Continues To Prop Up Its "Unpropable" Economy .html

sfcjoebob , 9 hours ago link

Big Bad Wolf, 5G can wait, it's a luxury not a necessity. Our networks run plenty fast and, like Europe, we can pay higher prices for a local workforce. China works due to slave labor, if the people there wake up they are done. That's why a complete security state is necessary. Nip that awareness in the bud. Now, go back to Germany and celebrate Islam.

sfcjoebob , 9 hours ago link

We'll just starve the rats out. China has zero hold over us, there is nothing that they make or export that cannot be replaced. Will prices of some goods rise, yes, but at the end of the day we don't need them as much as they need us.

GrosserBöserWolf , 9 hours ago link

3 dumb cards. Strategical US dumb thinking. US have a very short term strategy. That's easy to understand. US will have elections in 1.5 years and the campaign for election is knocking at the door. China has a long term strategy. China do not have elections. Those US guys simply do not understand this.

  1. rare earths (RE). Look at Russia. It provides US with rocket engines and take US cosmonauts to ISS. Why? To slower the research. If Ru will not sale, the US will accelerate the development of space ships. So will do China with RE. They will provide RE, maybe it will increase the price a bit.
  2. blocking US companies' access to Chinese markets. Why you should do this? China needs some US products which do not have replacements or are protected by IP laws. And to be clear. It is also easier to import legally a product and reverse engineer it, that to acquire it illegal or spying in other countries
  3. dumping US Treasury. Russia had far more less US Treasury. They gradually dump them not to interfere with the market price. They do not want to loose large amounts of money. But if China sells all of them together US dollar may crash and with it all China's financial assets. What if US will print trillions of dollars? US will loose, but also China.

US is still the larger economy. Those measures are affordable only if China is far ahead of US. All this dumb cards will backfire in less than 5 years. US sanctions just showed the week points in China's development. They will address them in order to neutralize the effects. What should they do? They have to look north and do what Russia did. They will invest in software, research, they will substitute the products. They should just develop themselves independent from US system. Also they will gradually sale dollars and US Treasury.

Wild E Coyote , 9 hours ago link

1) banning the export of rare earths to the US; (Hurts China exporters too)
2) blocking US companies' access to Chinese markets; (US companies pull back US dollar invested)
3) using China's portfolio of US Treasury bonds to bring down the US government debt market. (US buys back without a problem).

If China depends on this 3 matters, then it has no Trump Cards,

The Herdsman , 9 hours ago link

President Xi's trade war is a threat, no doubt. China's trade war against the United States has resulted in hollowed out cities where a once strong manufacturing sector supported communities across the nation. Have no illusions, this war that Xi is waging against America is something that has hurt us for thirty years and will likely continue to do so. Best to fight back now while we still can.

God bless America and God bless president Trump!

Josef Stalin , 10 hours ago link

China will do none of these -- neoliberalism is the reason. The key to imploding the amerikan rat regime is to STOP buying amerikan goods and especially services of ANY kind...... much of the stuff is junk anyway and can be replaced with far higher quality goods and services available from other states and nations.

beemasters , 10 hours ago link

Banning the export of rare earths to the US....Not everything is that simple, however. Should such a ban be introduced, then Beijing will encounter certain technical difficulties. If sanctions are only imposed on US companies, then they will still be able to purchase the necessary materials through Japanese or European straw buyers, making the embargo pointless. But if China imposes a total export ban, then it won't just be US companies that suffer but European ones as well, leading to EU reprisals against Chinese exporters to Europe. This would be very painful for China, especially given the economic war with the US that is making access to European markets invaluable to the Chinese economy.

Alternatively, China could impose quotas on its exports to Japan and Europe based on their current need of rare earth. It'll be their prerogative if they want to re-export to the US at (much higher) price. OR they could use the US trademarked brute, thuggish method of sanctioning those who dare to do business with the US.

The second trump card mentioned by the Global Times is blocking US companies' access to the fast-growing and extensive Chinese market. This should be looked at from a political, rather than economic, point of view (although the latter may seem logical). The aim of such restrictive measures is not to inflict unacceptable damage on the US economy, but to make the full might of America's corporate lobbying machine work against Donald Trump and support his political opponents.

It takes more than corporate sponsorship to get a presidential hopeful nominated. It's really up to Deep State - the very same Deep State that has allowed Trump launch and take the trade war as far as he has now. Trump's defeat in the poll would only indicate Deep State's defeat in the trade war with China. But the election of a new president will not change the game. The entire experience has left a bad taste in China's mouth. They know about the shadow government and no figure head will be able to tame the angry dragon now. They could demand the lasts of these corporations to move and invest in China if they want access to the 1.5 billion people's market. This will facilitate more technology transfers or the so-called "theft."


The third trump card involves China dumping its portfolio of US Treasury bonds. The Global Times writes: "China holds more than $1 trillion of US Treasury bonds. China made a great contribution to stabilizing the US economy by buying US debt during the financial crisis in 2008. The US would be miserable if China hits it when it is down." One can conclude from this that Beijing will most probably save dumping its portfolio of US treasury bonds for dessert – in that it will have the biggest impact when the US stock market is experiencing its next crisis.

Understanding that China may likely dump their holdings, other nations (Japan, the UK, Ireland, etc) might rush to dump theirs before China gets the chance to have their "dessert." Nobody wants to be left holding the bag (of worthless treasury notes). So it's not China's act of dumping that will trigger the avalanche. It's the fear that they might. So far, they are saying they won't and giving no indication they would for good reasons. They don't want to start the panic now.

He–Mene Mox Mox , 10 hours ago link

The Chinese have a fourth Trump card..........stop doing business with the U.S. all together. The U.S. does this with Venezuela and it works very well at collapsing the economy of the country.

The 5th option would be to get OPEC to stop trading oil in dollars. Just that alone would make the U.S. currency worthless, and bring America to its knees. 9 of the 14 OPEC nations are already toying with the idea of doing just that.

Pliskin , 9 hours ago link

China to Saudi Arabia 'we'll be paying in Yuan in future, or you can forget our business!"

America would collapse soon after!

Justin Case , 11 hours ago link

(Bloomberg) -- U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to blacklist Huawei Technologies Co. is making it more expensive to fatten up China's seafood.

Futures on rapeseed meal, which is used to feed China's massive aquaculture industry, posted their longest winning streak since October on expectations supplies will tighten. The world's top fish producer has stopped buying Canadian rapeseed, also known as canola, for the coming months -- a time when China usually boosts purchases.

"There have so far been no purchases of Canadian canola for arrival between April to August," said Hou Xueling, an analyst at Everbright Futures Co. That means "the bulls could drive up prices to an unimaginable level."

China, the largest buyer of Canadian canola, typically increases imports from April to August to make rapeseed meal. This period is the peak demand season for its fish farming sector, Hou said. The official China National Grain and Oils Information Center also confirmed that the Asian country hasn't bought any Canadian canola for the coming months.

The ongoing diplomatic spat after Canada's arrest of Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou late last year on a U.S.

[May 28, 2019] Huawei was maybe 3% of the global smartphone market in Q4 of 2011 but it is set to pass both Samsung and Apple in marketshare within the next five years

May 28, 2019 | www.unz.com

Anon [104] Disclaimer , says: May 17, 2019 at 6:37 pm GMT

"I have been making this point for some time, that immigration leading to lower average IQs, while bad, cannot logically lower scientific productivity because in absolute numbers the talented fraction remains unaffected. There are still the same numbers of smart people."

I wouldn't say that at all; or at least I would say the situation isn't quite what you may think of it. Changing demographics* can certainly change economic/scientific/national policy, perhaps disastrously so. Karlin's piece ends with an ominous reference to the Brazilian president, but it just as easily might have been someone like America's AOC and her very unwise 100% green energy in 10 years scheme. Changing demographics means more AOC's and more turns at the economic disaster roulette wheel. In a democracy (or a representative republic), it's easy for a lower IQ population to impose its disastrous ideas on the higher IQ former majority; hence, the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the resultant economic dysfunction.

In the future, not only will China produce quality scientific research, but efficiencies conferred by its cultural and ethnic homogeneity may allow its corporations to out compete American companies to a much greater degree than mere scientific discovery might otherwise suggest. Additionally, China's economy will be so large that its companies will be able to afford the massive R&D costs required for making ever more difficult discoveries. Their smaller global competition likely won't be able to match spending, so China's corporations could one day become far more dominant than you might anticipate. After all, it's really about who can best exploit new discoveries and not just about who makes them first. Otherwise, ancient China would have ruled the world; they invented paper, gunpowder, and the compass.

Huawei was maybe 3% of the global smartphone market in Q4 of 2011 but it is set to pass both Samsung and Apple in marketshare within the next five years. You see a bit of this cultural/linguistic/ethnic homogeneity = efficiency phenomenon with the video game industry, specifically in regards to competition between Sony and the much larger, but more multicultural and less efficient Microsoft. Japan's Sony corporation dominates Microsoft in sales just like their car companies dominate their American competition; GM was recently chased out of Europe because it couldn't compete and none of these companies can sell anything in Japan.

Also, notice that the EU core area has a white European population probably on par with the white European-American population, but the US still has the greater share of scientific discovery. I would posit this has much to do with the efficiency conferred by language homogeneity in the United States (English) -- among other things. China in the future will enjoy many of the same efficiencies the US has now, in terms of both language and culture. And this is why India isn't as dynamic as some have predicted. Despite having a "smart fraction", it is a low trust society deeply divided by color and class. Its leadership, imposed by the lower IQ fraction, is also somewhat inept. The same fate awaits the United States under current demographic trends.

*Has there been a single example of a global superpower in modern history that has lost its ethnic majority but still retained functional status and prosperity over the long term? Maybe Singapore (but they weren't a superpower), although I admittedly know little about that country. Austria-Hungary? In any case, I would suspect the sample size here is far too small to make any definitive prediction about the future of scientific discovery and resultant economic success for the United States of America.

[May 28, 2019] Chinese Military Ditching Microsoft Windows To Avoid CIA's 'Hefty Arsenal Of Hacking Tools'

May 28, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

While the decision hasn't been made official, it was reported earlier this month by Canadian military magazine Kanwa Asian Defense , which noted that Beijing won't just jump over to Linux - and will instead develop their own over fears of US surveillance (and of course, in retaliation for Huawei's blacklisting).

Thanks to the Snowden, Shadow Brokers, and Vault7 leaks, Beijing officials are well aware of the US' hefty arsenal of hacking tools , available for anything from smart TVs to Linux servers, and from routers to common desktop operating systems, such as Windows and Mac.

Since these leaks have revealed that the US can hack into almost anything, the Chinese government's plan is to adopt a "security by obscurity" approach and run a custom operating system that will make it harder for foreign threat actors -- mainly the US -- to spy on Chinese military operations. - ZDnet

me width=

The new OS will be developed by a newly established "Internet Security Information Leadership Group" as reported by the Epoch Times , citing Kanwa.

The group does not trust the "UNIX" multi-user, multi-stroke operating system either , which is used in some of the servers within the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Kanwa reported. Therefore, Chinese authorities ordered to develop an operating system dedicated to the Chinese military.

The group also believes that the German-developed programmable logic controller (PLC), used in 70 percent of China's industrial control system today, poses huge risks to China's national security . In its opinion, China is not a "network superpower," but merely a "network giant," Kanwa reported. Therefore, Chinese authorities have laid out plans to upgrade China's network -- to become more advanced in cyber technology. - Epoch Times

Huawei, meanwhile, is dropping Android OS for its own operating system, code-named HongMeng. It should be ready to launch in late 2019 domestically, and sometime in 2020 for international markets, according to TechRadar .

Google announced on May 20 that it would partially cut off Huawei devices from using the Android operating system, however the Mountain View - based company was given an extension until August 19 by the White House. Other tech companies which have blacklisted Huawei include Qualcomm, ARM, Micron and several tech industry standards organizations such as Bluetooth, SD and WiFi alliances.

"Huawei knew this was coming and was preparing. The OS was ready in January 2018 and this was our 'Plan B'. We did not want to bring the OS to the market as we had a strong relationship with Google and others and did not want to ruin the relationship. Now, we are rolling it out next month," said Huawei's Managing Director and VP of the Middle East Enterprise Business Group.

The OS, which could be called Ark OS when launched , is expected to be compatible with mobile phones, computers, tablets, TVs, connected cars, smartwatch, smart wearables and others.

All applications that work with Android are expected to work with this new OS without any need for further customization, Elshimy claims, adding that users will be able to download apps from the Huawei AppGallery. - TechRadar

It is unknown whether apps available via Google's Play Store will be carried in Huawei's store.


dunlin , 3 minutes ago link

The propagandists don't want us to do this kind of thing. So I'm doing it:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/with-china-today-as-with-japan-in-1980s-the-us-is-in-denial-about-source-of-deficits-2019-05-28?mod=mw_latestnews

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (Project Syndicate) -- "When governments permit counterfeiting or copying of American products, it is stealing our future, and it is no longer free trade." So said President Ronald Reagan, commenting on Japan after the Plaza Accord was concluded in September 1985.

Today resembles, in many respects, a remake of this 1980s movie, but with a reality-television star replacing a Hollywood film star in the presidential leading role -- and with a new villain in place of Japan.

Back in the 1980s, Japan was portrayed as America's greatest economic threat -- not only because of allegations of intellectual-property theft, but also because of concerns about currency manipulation, state-sponsored industrial policy, a hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing, and an outsize bilateral trade deficit.

In its standoff with the U.S., Japan ultimately blinked, but it paid a steep price for doing so -- nearly three "lost" decades of economic stagnation and deflation. Today, the same plot features China.

Notwithstanding both countries' objectionable mercantilism, Japan and China had something else in common: They became victims of America's unfortunate habit of making others the scapegoat for its own economic problems.

Like Japan bashing in the 1980s, China bashing today is an outgrowth of America's increasingly insidious macroeconomic imbalances. In both cases, a dramatic shortfall in U.S. domestic saving spawned large current-account and trade deficits, setting the stage for battles, 30 years apart, with Asia's two economic giants.

Deficits made in America

When Reagan took office in January 1981, the net domestic saving rate stood at 7.8% of national income, and the current account was basically balanced. Within two and a half years, courtesy of Reagan's wildly popular tax cuts, the domestic saving rate had plunged to 3.7%, and the current account and the merchandise trade balances swung into perpetual deficit.

In this important respect, America's so-called trade problem was very much of its own making. Yet the Reagan administration was in denial. There was little or no appreciation of the link between saving and trade imbalances. Instead, the blame was pinned on Japan, which accounted for 42% of U.S. goods trade deficits in the first half of the 1980s.

Japan bashing then took on a life of its own with a wide range of grievances over unfair and illegal trade practices. Leading the charge back then was a young deputy U.S. trade representative named Robert Lighthizer. Fast-forward some 30 years and the similarities are painfully evident.

Predictable decline in savings

Unlike Reagan, President Donald Trump did not inherit a U.S. economy with an ample reservoir of saving. When Trump took office in January 2017, the net domestic saving rate was just 3%, well below half the rate at the onset of the Reagan era. But, like his predecessor, who waxed eloquently of a new "morning in America," Trump also opted for large tax cuts -- this time to "make America great again."

The U.S. national savings rate has fallen from 7.8% of GDP when Reagan took office to just 2.8% today. The result was a predictable widening of the federal budget deficit, which more than offset the cyclical surge in private saving that normally accompanies a maturing economic expansion. As a result, the net domestic saving rate actually edged down to 2.8% of national income by late 2018, keeping America's international balances deep in the red -- with the current-account deficit at 2.6% of gross domestic product and the merchandise trade gap at 4.5% in late 2018.

And that's where China assumes the role that Japan played in the 1980s. On the surface, the threat seems more dire.

After all, China accounted for 48% of the U.S. merchandise trade deficit in 2018, compared to Japan's 42% share in the first half of the 1980s. But the comparison is distorted by global supply chains, which basically didn't exist in the 1980s.

Data from the OECD and the World Trade Organization suggest that about 35%-40% of the bilateral U.S.-China trade deficit reflects inputs made outside of China but assembled and shipped to the U.S. from China. That means the made-in-China portion of today's U.S. trade deficit is actually smaller than Japan's share of the 1980s.

Like the Japan bashing of the 1980s, today's outbreak of China bashing has been conveniently excised from America's broader macroeconomic context. That is a serious mistake. Without raising national saving -- highly unlikely under the current U.S. budget trajectory -- trade will simply be shifted away from China to America's other trading partners.

With this trade diversion likely to migrate to higher-cost platforms around the world, American consumers will be hit with the functional equivalent of a tax hike.

Lighthizer as clueless today as he was then

Ironically, Trump has summoned the same Robert Lighthizer, veteran of the Japan trade battles of the 1980s, to lead the charge against China. Unfortunately, Lighthizer seems as clueless about the macro argument today as he was back then.

In both episodes, the U.S. was in denial, bordering on delusion.

Basking in the warm glow of untested supply-side economics -- especially the theory that tax cuts would be self-financing -- the Reagan administration failed to appreciate the links between mounting budget and trade deficits.

Today, the seductive power of low interest rates, coupled with the latest strain of voodoo economics -- Modern Monetary Theory -- is equally alluring for the Trump administration and a bipartisan consensus of China bashers in the Congress.

The tough macroeconomic constraints facing a saving-short U.S. economy are ignored for good reason: there is no U.S. political constituency for reducing trade deficits by cutting budget deficits and thereby boosting domestic saving.

America wants to have its cake and eat it, with a health-care system that swallows 18% of its GDP, defense spending that exceeds the combined sum of the world's next seven largest military budgets, and tax cuts that have reduced federal government revenue to 16.5% of GDP, well below the 17.4% average of the past 50 years.

This remake of an old movie is disconcerting, to say the least. Once again, the U.S. has found it far easier to bash others -- Japan then, China now -- than to live within its means. This time, however, the movie might have a very different ending.

motherjones , 5 minutes ago link

Why would anyone use Microsoft Windows for an operating system, when Linux is free and open source?

tonye , 2 minutes ago link

I use both. Up to Ubuntu with Mint. Plus Raspbian and Android.

But, for somethings, you can't beat Microsoft for ease of use and interoperability. I rip and transcode my DVDs in Windows 7. I use Microsoft Office '13. Browse using Firefox, Thor and Chrome. And I have some specific audio processing tools that only exist in Windows.

...

Son of Captain Nemo , 7 minutes ago link

Makes perfect sense to me.

And if you are a Chinese military or other intelligence professional with access to a "SIPR" class network it probably would be safe bet that US manufactured computer systems and networking gear has been appropriately "modified" not to use those chipsets since long before the "deal" of "deals" was made with the Yankee Dog ( http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html ) to send the remaining American technical manufacturing labor force out on the street!...

Rinse and repeat for India's government intel and military professionals as well!....

me or you , 7 minutes ago link

I'm FOSSY: How Huawei Fans Can Beat Google's Play Store Ban, US-China Trade War

RedBaron616 , 12 minutes ago link

If only the Chinese military runs it, who's going to search for bugs? Only the NSA. LOL

Building a unique operating system for their military isn't going to be a cakewalk, that's for certain.

silverer , 13 minutes ago link

Hooray! The Chinese will pick up the tab to refine Linux. Open source. No CIA in there without seeing it.

Winston Churchill , 8 minutes ago link

Doesn't deal with the hardware back doors, but its a start. I do believe they have their own o/s already waiting after Kaspersky got banned a few years ago for finding both the hardware and s/w backdoors.

That hard disk firmware that called home was a classic.

Kafir Goyim , 15 minutes ago link

Oh, yes. They're going to develop their own OS, just like Huawei. What ********. Huawei will use vanilla android and China will pull an Apple, and rebrand Linux. But it sounds good, to say you're going to crank out a brand new operating system, like it's a CRUD web app.

youshallnotkill , 11 minutes ago link

iOS runs the Mach kernel not Linux.

[May 28, 2019] Apple Braces For China's Wrath As Citi Slashes China iPhone Shipments, Cowen Warns Of Profit Plunge

Notable quotes:
"... Since Apple gets 20% of its revenue from China and manufactures its iPhones (which generated 60% of its total 2018 revenue) there, few companies are as exposed to Beijing's retaliation. Apple has already been suffering in the region, seeing sliding revenue as consumers buy more phones from Huawei and other local brands. ..."
"... Citi warns that independent due diligence reveals " a less favorable brand image desire for iPhone and this has very recently deteriorated." As a result, Citi is materially lowering its sales and EPS estimates below consensus as China represents 18% of Apple sales "which we believe could be cut in half. " ..."
May 28, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

"Apple's iPhone, iPad, and Mac systems are at risk of experiencing demand destruction due to collateral damage from the sales ban to Huawei." U.S. companies such as Apple and Nike, which rely on China for a major part of their growth and which have targets painted on their backs as Beijing and Washington ratchet up trade-war tensions, are "bracing for China's retaliatory wrath" according to Bloomberg .

While Beijing has yet to formally retaliate after Trump blacklisted Huawei, Chinese state media last week said China is "well armed to deliver counterpunches," without giving specific details. And as companies await China's next move, there is rising, if unwelcome, suspense over what form retaliation might take. Companies might "just have to read the tea leaves on how their business operations are being treated,'' Erin Ennis, senior vice president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Saturday.

As Bloomberg notes, one option China could use is from the 2017 "template" when relations with South Korea deteriorated over Seoul's decision to deploy a missile shield. The government curbed travel to South Korea, hurting cosmetics companies that rely on Chinese tourists, while local authorities shut most of Lotte Shopping's China stores, alleging fire safety violations. Consumers boycotted South Korean products, dealing a devastating blow to Hyundai Motor sales. A similar pattern of action took place during the 2013 trade feud with Japan which escalated over territorial disagreements in the East China Sea.

... ... ...

Since Apple gets 20% of its revenue from China and manufactures its iPhones (which generated 60% of its total 2018 revenue) there, few companies are as exposed to Beijing's retaliation. Apple has already been suffering in the region, seeing sliding revenue as consumers buy more phones from Huawei and other local brands. According to relatively optimistic research by Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, blowback from Trump's Huawei ban could cost Apple about 3% to 5% of its iPhone sales in China.

... ... ...

Citi warns that independent due diligence reveals " a less favorable brand image desire for iPhone and this has very recently deteriorated." As a result, Citi is materially lowering its sales and EPS estimates below consensus as China represents 18% of Apple sales "which we believe could be cut in half. "

[May 27, 2019] Hobbling Huawei- Inside the U.S. war on China's tech giant

The article is devoid any technical substance and operated with value threat notion. As such this attempt of to spread FUD. In this case the USA are fighting to preserve their technological edge by trying to destroy the leading China company which became a competitor to domestic firms.
Control of Wi-Fi network is damaging to the targeted nation security. The question is: who would allow such a control? All measures will be deployed against foreign powers exploitation.
But what about control of telecoms and putting NSA equipment directly in telecom data centers like the NSA practices domestically and in vassal countries, for example, in Ukraine. And they manages to spy of Angela Merkel phone in Germany. Please note that Germany is one of the most sophisticated technically nations in the world.
Notable quotes:
"... The anti-Huawei campaign intensified last week, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that effectively banned the use of Huawei equipment in U.S. telecom networks on national security grounds and the Commerce Department put limits on the firm's purchasing of U.S. technology. Google's parent, Alphabet, suspended some of its business with Huawei , Reuters reported. ..."
"... The Americans are now campaigning aggressively to contain Huawei as part of a much broader effort to check Beijing's growing military might under President Xi Jinping. Strengthening cyber operations is a key element in the sweeping military overhaul that Xi launched soon after taking power in 2012, according to official U.S. and Chinese military documents. The United States has accused China of widespread, state-sponsored hacking for strategic and commercial gain. ..."
"... "Restricting Huawei from doing business in the U.S. will not make the U.S. more secure or stronger," the company said in a statement in response to questions from Reuters. Such moves, it said, would only limit "customers in the U.S. to inferior and more expensive alternatives." ..."
May 27, 2019 | www.reuters.com

n early 2018, in a complex of low-rise buildings in the Australian capital, a team of government hackers was engaging in a destructive digital war game.

The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation's top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?

What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country's critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.

Washington is widely seen as having taken the initiative in the global campaign against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, a tech juggernaut that in the three decades since its founding has become a pillar of Beijing's bid to expand its global influence. Yet Reuters interviews with more than two dozen current and former Western officials show it was the Australians who led the way in pressing for action on 5G; that the United States was initially slow to act; and that Britain and other European countries are caught between security concerns and the competitive prices offered by Huawei.

The Australians had long harbored misgivings about Huawei in existing networks, but the 5G war game was a turning point. About six months after the simulation began, the Australian government effectively banned Huawei, the world's largest maker of telecom networking gear, from any involvement in its 5G plans. An Australian government spokeswoman declined to comment on the war game.

After the Australians shared their findings with U.S. leaders, other countries, including the United States, moved to restrict Huawei.

The anti-Huawei campaign intensified last week, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that effectively banned the use of Huawei equipment in U.S. telecom networks on national security grounds and the Commerce Department put limits on the firm's purchasing of U.S. technology. Google's parent, Alphabet, suspended some of its business with Huawei , Reuters reported.

Until the middle of last year, the U.S. government largely "wasn't paying attention," said retired U.S. Marine Corps General James Jones, who served as national security adviser to President Barack Obama. What spurred senior U.S. officials into action? A sudden dawning of what 5G will bring, according to Jones.

"This has been a very, very fast-moving realization" in terms of understanding the technology, he said. "I think most people were treating it as a kind of evolutionary step as opposed to a revolutionary step. And now that light has come on."

The Americans are now campaigning aggressively to contain Huawei as part of a much broader effort to check Beijing's growing military might under President Xi Jinping. Strengthening cyber operations is a key element in the sweeping military overhaul that Xi launched soon after taking power in 2012, according to official U.S. and Chinese military documents. The United States has accused China of widespread, state-sponsored hacking for strategic and commercial gain.

If Huawei gains a foothold in global 5G networks, Washington fears this will give Beijing an unprecedented opportunity to attack critical infrastructure and compromise intelligence sharing with key allies. Senior Western security officials say this could involve cyber attacks on public utilities, communication networks and key financial centers.

In any military clash, such attacks would amount to a dramatic change in the nature of war, inflicting economic harm and disrupting civilian life far from the conflict without bullets, bombs or blockades. To be sure, China would also be vulnerable to attacks from the U.S. and its allies. Beijing complained in a 2015 defense document, "China's Military Strategy," that it has already been a victim of cyber-espionage, without identifying suspects. Documents from the National Security Agency leaked by American whistleblower Edward Snowden showed that the United States hacked into Huawei's systems, according to media reports. Reuters couldn't independently verify that such intrusions took place.

However, blocking Huawei is a huge challenge for Washington and its closest allies, particularly the other members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group – Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. From humble beginnings in the 1980s in the southern Chinese boom town of Shenzhen, Huawei has grown to become a technology giant that is deeply embedded in global communications networks and poised to dominate 5G infrastructure. There are few global alternatives to Huawei, which has financial muscle – the company reported revenue for 2018 jumped almost 20 percent to more than $100 billion – as well as competitive technology and the political backing of Beijing.

"Restricting Huawei from doing business in the U.S. will not make the U.S. more secure or stronger," the company said in a statement in response to questions from Reuters. Such moves, it said, would only limit "customers in the U.S. to inferior and more expensive alternatives."

For countries that exclude Huawei there is a risk of retaliation from Beijing. Since Australia banned the company from its 5G networks last year, it has experienced disruption to its coal exports to China, including customs delays on the Chinese side. In a statement, China's foreign ministry said it treated "all foreign coal equally" and that to assert "China has banned the import of Australian coal does not accord with the facts."

Tension over Huawei is also exposing divisions in the Five Eyes group, which has been a foundation of the post-Second World War Western security architecture. During a trip to London on May 8, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a stark warning to Britain, which has not ruled out using Huawei in its 5G networks. "Insufficient security will impede the United States' ability to share certain information within trusted networks," he said. "This is exactly what China wants; they want to divide Western alliances through bits and bytes, not bullets and bombs."

Chinese President Xi Jinping (left) is shown around the offices of Huawei in London by company founder Ren Zhengfei in 2015. Ren has rejected allegations that Huawei would engage in espionage on behalf of the Chinese government. REUTERS/Matthew Lloyd/Pool
Employees work on a mobile phone production line at Huawei's factory campus in the southern Chinese city of Dongguan. Huawei has eclipsed telecom equipment giants Ericsson and Nokia in terms of market share. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

Huawei's 74-year old founder, Ren Zhengfei, is a former officer in China's military, the People's Liberation Army. "Mr. Ren has always maintained the integrity and independence of Huawei," the company said. "We have never been asked to cooperate with spying and we would refuse to do so under any circumstance."

In an interview with Reuters at the company's headquarters in Shenzhen, Eric Xu, a deputy chairman, said Huawei had not allowed any government to install so-called backdoors in its equipment - illicit access that could enable espionage or sabotage - and would never do so. He said 5G was more secure than earlier systems.

"China has not and will not demand companies or individuals use methods that run counter to local laws or via installing 'backdoors' to collect or provide the Chinese government with data, information or intelligence from home or abroad," the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement in response to questions from Reuters.

Washington argues that surreptitious backdoors aren't necessarily needed to wreak havoc in 5G systems. The systems will rely heavily on software updates pushed out by equipment suppliers - and that access to the 5G network, says the United States, potentially could be used to deploy malicious code.

So far, America hasn't publicly produced hard evidence that Huawei equipment has been used for spying.

Asked whether the United States was slow to react to potential threats posed by 5G, Robert Strayer, the State Department's lead cyber policy diplomat, told Reuters that America had long been concerned about Chinese telecom companies, but that over the past year, as 5G loomed closer, "we were starting to talk more and more with our allies." Banning Huawei from 5G networks remains "an end goal," he said.

[May 26, 2019] May Ends In June by W Stephen Gilbert

It is unclear whether May really wanted to implement Brexit deal but at least she negotiated several EU offers. It was UK Parliament that rejects the offers.
I think May claim to fame might be not her failure in Brexit negotiation, but orchestration of infamous Skripals poisoning false flag and the bout of Russophobia, as well as her attempt to interfere with the 2016 elections in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. ..."
"... she became, in George Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking". ..."
"... a political nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and global laughing stock ..."
"... When May was elected Tory leader and hence prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. ..."
"... the quality of leadership of the party has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period, however much one may deplore that climate and that period. ..."
"... What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who came from a (brief) career in business. ..."
"... We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel – and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the task ..."
"... The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you may as well be looking at yourselves. ..."
"... Why should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. ..."
"... It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper. Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money. ..."
"... May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to "negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially be bound to the EU indefinitely. ..."
"... The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery, in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be a process of "subtle subterfuge". ..."
"... She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment ..."
May 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by W Stephen Gilbert via Off-Guardian.org,

History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. She proposed that, contrary to most impartial expectation, she would be a socially liberal prime minister who would strive to relieve the economic pressure on the poorest members of British society (the briefly famous "just about managing"), but the only small concessions towards the relief of poverty that have been wrung from her government have done nothing to reduce the incidence of homelessness, food banks and wage rates that undershoot the demands made by private landlords, services starved of funds and price rises.

And that's without even mentioning Brexit.

Following the self-inflicted disaster of the 2017 general election, in which May utterly failed to project herself with any conviction as "strong and stable", she became, in George Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking".

That campaign was the most complacent, least effective ever fought by a major political party in Britain, and the only explanation for the media's astonishment at the result can be that editors and columnists had so convinced themselves that they had rendered Jeremy Corbyn, in their description of choice, "unelectable" that they could see no outcome other than a thumping Tory victory. What they could not see was that Corbyn is an inspired and inspiring campaigner, while May is as dull as ditchwater.

The social media commentator Aidan Daley summed her up admirably: "Mayvis: a political nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and global laughing stock ".

This unsparing but unarguable buttonholing raises a historical problem for the Conservative Party that shows no sign of quick resolution. When May was elected Tory leader and hence prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. Given the length of her cabinet experience, May clearly outshone her rivals, if not in charisma (a quality conspicuously lacking from the field). But the quality of leadership of the party has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period, however much one may deplore that climate and that period.

What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who came from a (brief) career in business.

Comparing May with Thatcher and Macmillan is instructive.

May has failed to create any sort of arresting public persona for herself. Aside from the tiresome bromide "Brexit means Brexit", she has turned no phrase that immediately summons her to mind. Who could essay her political philosophy, other than hanging on grimly against insuperable odds and paying heed to no advice?

She has no imagination, no resourcefulness, no wit and no management skills. When pressed, she retreats to prepared responses, regardless of their irrelevance to the question in hand. We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel – and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the task .

The mainstream media will be eternally grateful to her for betraying emotion at the end of her resignation statement, thereby providing the "human interest" angle that cements the moment in history and will be trotted out in every story about the May premiership for ever after, much like Thatcher's tear-stained face in the back of the limo as it pulled away from Downing Street for the last time. Whether this emotion sits appropriately with the "dignity" that her admirers are rushing to credit to her is a question for others to ponder.

Attention now turns to her successor. Vast though the field is, it is again notable for its lightweight nature. Smart money will be on Rory Stewart, already a media darling and a politician unusually capable of sounding thoughtful and candid. He also has the advantage of having led a colourful pre-politics life, thereby bringing instincts to his politics from beyond the confines of career consultants and spads. But most speculation centres on Boris Johnson, despite the high level of suspicion that he generates among Tory MPs. He is said to be enthusiastically supported at the grassroots.

In this as in other aspects, he brings to mind Donald Trump. If Rory Stewart would offer a safe pair of hands, Johnson would suggest a Trump-like level of gaffes and embarrassments, thrills and spills.


CashMcCall , 5 hours ago link

Britain's Chief problem is that it has become a US poodle for nothing. Essentially insolvent and small Britain indulges in middle East Wars and US Sanctions and Boycotts. What do they get in return? Nothing at all.

This is a giant hangover from WWII. It wasn't enough that WWII destroyed Britain, the US had to take advantage of it in the Anglo American loan and Bretton Woods.

Anyone that has studied WWII knows it was the Russians that killed Germany, not the US and most certainly not Britain, though cracking the Enigma was certainly useful. But it was Brute force of the Russians a KURSK that laid waste to Germany.

The US came out of the War essentially unscathed. Britain was bombed out rubble. The US took full advantage with hard terms in their Anglo American Loan.

The relationship of the US to Britain is more like Abusive parent to abused child. It is anything but equals. The US only calls on Britain for British Intelligence, or military support to do something stupid like engage in the Iraq war. The poodle does as told.

ARM was founded in Britain. Now sold to Softbank in Japan. It was the INTEL giant killer. Had Britain not been a poodle to the US, this one company would have been a driving force in 5G. But the Abusive parent, essentially told the Brits who could and could not associate with ARM. Now in an even more abused poodle Japan, the world's most emasculated nation. Brits take their marching order from Donald Trump a bloody moron.

The Tide is out on the British Empire. It is irrelevant at this point what happens with Brexit. Stall long enough and nobody will care. Instead of branching out and leading in 5G, they are following their abused parent into the dark ages.

Britain should be making its own deals with China while the US is foundering under Turmp. Some businesses are such as Rolls Royce that is offering a Rolls Royce jet engine plant to forward China's local and narrowbody jets. Britain can come in and be a reliable partner with Huawei and get access to the largest markets in global history China and Asia. Instead the Gov. wants the UK to be just a US poodle lucky to get a few scraps.

Protectionism can NEVER work in Britain. The Isles NEED TRADE. They cannot survive without out it. Yet here they are with their brilliant engineering taking orders from Donald Trump the idiots idiot.

May was just a symptom of the Poodle problem. Do as told, show no spine and live in the shadow of the USA abuser parent. That is why NO PM in the UK casts a shadow. They are under the oppressive shadow of the US. Taking orders, Killing off British soldiers for nothing.

The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you may as well be looking at yourselves.

Brexit under the shadow of the USA just strengthens the choke chain in Trump's insane hand. You become dependent on an unreliable country with the most unreliable administration in US History. As they do now, they dictate where you may trade and to whom you may sell your products... and you go along with it like an obedient abused child seeking approval of the Parent Abuser.

Get some spine and break ties with the USA that are carrying you into the abyss. Why should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. Every country in the world is looking at this British poodle conduct. No country wants to deal with a poodle that refuses to return assets or that weaponizes Trade. You are cutting your throats for any future global investment FOR NOTHING!

caesium , 5 hours ago link

It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper. Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money.

GreatUncle , 6 hours ago link

May achieved what she set out to do being a BREMAINER from the outset.

To block, stall and prevent at all costs BREXIT.

As a BREXIT supporter thank you May because you created a new party in the process as an alternative to the fake" Conservative BREXIT party" and the EU Labour Custom Union slaves". I swear Labour = Democrats in the US and their belief in social slavery to them.

When can we get them EU election figures ... as this is going to be such fun if the BREXIT party manages to achieve an overwhelming vote it is like a 2nd referendum on the previous referendum. ... Fingers crossed here though because you just know MI5 / MI6 and all the other mercenaries are going to be ballot stuffing like **** and with no exit polls to prevent the electoral fraud they will be carrying out on the orders of their paymasters.

philipat , 7 hours ago link

Spare the tears, **** you got exactly what you deserved for your betrayal of British democracy whilst constantly lying and pretending to support both UK AND US values.

May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to "negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially be bound to the EU indefinitely.

The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery, in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be a process of "subtle subterfuge".

The ONLY way forward now is a "Hard" Brexit because Parliament has rejected everything else, it is still the legal default position which does NOT legally require approval by Parliament and it restores the negotiating position with the EU that May deliberately pissed away over two years. And the lesson here to other countries wanting to get out of the clutches of Brussels is this; If you want to leave the EU, JUST LEAVE. Let the Bureaucrats work out the details later; they aren't that important.

She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment

**** off and go away to enjoy the corrupt benefits of your service to the Globalists until you RIP.

Dr. Acula , 8 hours ago link

May fits in with the other Prime Ministers of the Paedoph Isles:

"Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are 'unfair' and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html

"UK Government Under Gordon Brown Urged Police not to Investigate Muslim Child Rape Gangs"

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3239461

[May 24, 2019] No Huawei out: Prez Trump s game of chicken with China has serious consequences -- Techno balkanization by Thomas Claburn

Notable quotes:
"... The sort of result that's to be expected from a Fire-Aim-Ready approach to policy making ..."
"... They're trying real hard to take a large company out of business without any evidence of said company doing anything wrong. Never even looked at them before but this definitely makes me want to get a Huawei phone next. And to stay well clear of everything from any US based company. ..."
"... Nothing here is really Huawei's fault - they're just the coincidental closest target to impact point of a greater trade war. All the posturing against Huawei specifically is just that - posturing. ..."
"... Basically it's because Mr. President is paranoid and somewhat crazy. A sane president would not be so childish, ..."
"... It's an empire in decline fighting the was for global supremacy, the democrats are just as crazy, not that I like Trump ..."
"... It's often said that wounded animals are the most dangerous. That's what this looks like to me. The US empire might be near dead, but one swipe of its huge tail can still break you if you get in the way. ..."
"... The US will never be as dominant as it was in the decades after WW II, but that was a one shot deal mainly because it had the only large industrial base that hadn't been blown to smithereens by the end of the war. ..."
"... Indeed. And how much have we heard about backdoors in Cisco and others here of late - it's a multiple, not a percentage. They all need a bit of pointing and laughing in a sense. IIRC, the telnet "backdoor" required one to be inside the LAN already...while the other baddies the Reg has reported on did not. ..."
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk

No cybersecurity rules means networks are destined to be balkanized

... ... ...

One possible consequence, Steven Weber, professor of political science and international relations at UC Berkeley, told The Register , is a world where boundaries are shaped more by technology standards than geographic features.

That is to say, we may be headed toward nationalized technology stacks that don't interoperate and nationalized supply chains. This defeats the entire purpose of an open internet

... ... ...

Google has suspended Huawei's license to use its Android mobile operating system. The decision prevents the Chinese company from adding Google services like Gmail, Google Maps, Play Store and other Google apps to new devices, though existing ones will continue to function . It also complicates security updates and all but guarantees Huawei will forge ahead with its rumored fork of the Android Open Source Project.

Microsoft has pulled the Huawei MateBook X Pro from its online store; Huawei devices are no longer available at BestBuy.com. At Amazon.com, however, Huawei laptops, tablets and phones can still be had.


Huawei forward

Huawei could open up a branch company in the USA. Design, program, manufacture, and market those USA products as a USA company. Nothing left to target.

Of course, still sending the profits home.

Re: Huawei forward

Also Chinese investors could buy a significant number of shares of US companies, making them suspect of Chinese affiliation, and the US government will be faced with the dilemma of closing US companies. Re: Huawei forward

Trump conveniently forgets..

Anything that doesn't accord with his very, very limited world view. He also tends to forget which lies he told last time and will happily contradict himself.. Re: Huawei forward

Unless the Chinese govt rolls over and declares Trump the winner of his trade war, apparently. If that happens, all the security worries will blow away like a fart in the wind.

How does that work, exactly? Well, since Trump has never bothered to spell out what he wants the Chinese to do, he can declare victory at any moment, but he wants a statement of surrender to show the faithful.

3 , Collateral Damage

Sounds like there's going to be a lot of it in this war. I wonder if our leader has heard of it?

Re: Collateral Damage

The sort of result that's to be expected from a Fire-Aim-Ready approach to policy making

Anonymous Coward , 2 days
Disgusting

They're trying real hard to take a large company out of business without any evidence of said company doing anything wrong. Never even looked at them before but this definitely makes me want to get a Huawei phone next. And to stay well clear of everything from any US based company.

Anonymous Coward , 2 days Anonymous Coward , 2 days
Re: Disgusting

Nothing here is really Huawei's fault - they're just the coincidental closest target to impact point of a greater trade war. All the posturing against Huawei specifically is just that - posturing.

But that's not the same as saying the greater trade war is without merit. It absolutely makes a difference how overall trade between the US and China is structured, and a certain segment of our market has been saying for a long time that we had the short end of the stick here and needed to change things. Even the El Reg author acknowledged that.

Of course it's much more complex to ask whether this tactic is actually going to fix anything, or just make things worse. Your mileage may vary.

And I can imagine that if you are neither an American nor a Chinese citizen, then you don't really stand to gain anything from this fight no matter who wins, so it's understandable if you're more frustrated than anything else. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to jump into a fight that doesn't affect them - just remember that it does affect someone else.

Anonymous Coward ,

It will be interesting to see what the Chinese targets are going to be. Probably GM and farmers since that hits Trump's base - just as electioneering starts for 2020.

Then wait for Boeing to be really suffering from the 737Max before announcing a ban on Boeing in China (airbus manufacture there)

Anonymous Coward

Re: Airbus & China

There is a lot of 'good ole boy' stuff that goes into every Airbus plane no matter where it is made so Trump could easily stop Airbus from operating in China.

China could retaliate by treatening to start calling in all the US Debt that it carries. That will sink the DOW in a flash. The Trump bubble will burst and he'll be impeached (well that's what I hope)

The Yuan could easily replace the USD as the world's currency.

Trump had better watch out or this will end badly for him. His grasp of history relating to trade wars can probably be measured on a pinhead.

Doctor Syntax , 2 days
Re: Airbus & China

"His grasp of history relating to trade wars can probably be measured on a pinhead."

Just trade wars?

Doctor Syntax , 2 days
Nuts in May

Basically it's because Mr. President is paranoid and somewhat crazy. A sane president would not be so childish,

Doctor Syntax , 2 days Doctor Syntax , 2 days
Re: Nuts in May

It's an empire in decline fighting the was for global supremacy, the democrats are just as crazy, not that I like Trump

Doctor Syntax ,
Re: Nuts in May

It's often said that wounded animals are the most dangerous. That's what this looks like to me. The US empire might be near dead, but one swipe of its huge tail can still break you if you get in the way.

Doctor Syntax ,
Empire in decline?

I seem to remember the same being said in the 80s when it was Japan that had the huge trade advantage over the US. Now granted China is FAR larger and will easily overtake the US as world's largest economy without its per capita GDP needing to exceed 30% of the US's, but like Japan did with its aging population China has some demographic challenges awaiting it when the parents of the two "one child" generations reach retirement age, which is just beginning.

The US will never be as dominant as it was in the decades after WW II, but that was a one shot deal mainly because it had the only large industrial base that hadn't been blown to smithereens by the end of the war.

Doctor Syntax ,
Re: Excellent article El Reg

Indeed. And how much have we heard about backdoors in Cisco and others here of late - it's a multiple, not a percentage. They all need a bit of pointing and laughing in a sense. IIRC, the telnet "backdoor" required one to be inside the LAN already...while the other baddies the Reg has reported on did not.

Doctor Syntax ,
Re: Excellent article El Reg

What makes the Huawei router telnet backdoor (now patched) unusual is that for 8 long years GCHQ has been code-reviewing Huawei products in a dedicated department. Didn't that include routers?

Doctor Syntax , 2 days
Japanese CPU designer Arm has a facility in Austin, Texas, USA, that validates Arm-compatible and licensed chip designs for customers around the world, including those in China, and thus is restricted by the White House's latest crackdown.

Moral of this story. Don't do business with the US, they will turn on you whenever it's financially beneficial for them and unilaterally break deals, without any means for recourse.

An unreliable partner. Like any other bully, best to let them play in the sandbox by themselves.

el kabong
Having a presence in the US has become a liability

ARM would be wise to shut their operations in Texas.

el kabong
5G patents....

What is interesting is that Huawei got some fundamental patents in connection to 5G, without licensing these patents there will be no 5G role out, and Nokia and Ericsson are at least 1 year behind Huawei in development of 5G ...

This is political, and is being used by Trump to get China to move on the Trade agreement, which he want to "fix", but it might end up causing the rollout of 5G to be delayed by years.

, el kabong , veti
Re: 5G patents....

Hmm. Delay 5G by five years? Not a bad idea.

, veti , Lars
Re: 5G patents....

"Trade agreement, which he want to "fix"".

The problem is that he has no idea of what to fix and how, and he still claims China is paying for his import tariffs, or is he just lying.

Lock him up...

, Lars , Lars , Doctor Syntax
Re: 5G patents....

"What are the Chinese going to do - sue them in Federal court ?"

What could happen is that Huawei starts to sue every competitor, in every market the competitor sells in, whose competing products use the components they're not allowed to use on the basis of unfair competition, illegal government subsidy or whatever fits in the jurisdiction. There are a lot more courts around the world than Federal courts.

, Doctor Syntax , Kabukiwookie
Re: 5G patents....

As if the US is goi g to honour those patents when it's no longer convenient.

International law is for everyone else, just look at the US' violations of the the Venezuan embassy in Washington and railroading the UN's investigation into US war crimes.

We have a US govt that thinks that 'might makes right'. Literally the definition of a rogue state.

little while back on El Reg , Anonymous Coward where it was quoted in the article as saying:

"The 'backdoor' that Bloomberg refers to is Telnet, which is a protocol that is commonly used by many vendors in the industry for performing diagnostic functions. It would not have been accessible from the internet," said the telco in a statement to The Register, adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy'.

"This was nothing more than a failure to remove a diagnostic function after development." little while back on El Reg , Anonymous Coward little while back on El Reg , Anonymous Coward , Steve Davies 3

re: Bloomberg Journalism

Remember it was Bloomberg that published the article about motherboards that were made in China having an extra chip that 'leaked' stuff back to china.

Apple and Supermicro were the main targets (amongst others).

Both companies undertook extensive investigations and found no evidence of these chips.

Despite repeated appeals Bloomberg refused to relase their evidence to the world.

To me this implies that it was a bit of fiction designed to make certain stocks go down so that shorters could make a killing.

Who would you rather believe eh?

, Steve Davies 3
Techno-balkanisation

People may take it for granted that their 'phones work everywhere but it was not ever thus. I used to have to borrow a tri-band 'phone for visits to the US. My normal mobile worked everywhere except the US. Later on I had the same problem with South Korea.

There was a time (back in the analogue TV days) when a TV bought in one European country wouldn't work in many of the others. Digital TV is based on common underlying compression standards. (Although, even here there is scope for creating artificial incompatibilities.) Unfortunately there is no common transmission standard, although DVB satellite transmission schemes are fairly widely adopted.

People can now move almost anywhere in the world reasonably cheaply. Some of their gadgets are useless outside their home country.

Many of these problems are caused by "special interest groups", manufacturer inspired protectionism and plain political stupidity.

, Steve Davies 3 , Steve Davies 3
Re: Techno-balkanisation

People can now move almost anywhere in the world reasonably cheaply. Some of their gadgets are useless outside their home country.

Many outside electrical gadgets have problems in the USA. They use a different voltage and AC frequency from that used by developed countries. Happily, that means that their stuff doesn't work outside the "land of the fee".

, Steve Davies 3
Difficult to back out

The Trump administration has started a trade war with China, which has responded in kind. Trade wars eventually come to an end even if it takes a long time. The "Cold War" with the Soviet Union was carried out as both an arms race, and a trade war and while that took 45 years to conclude, it did end.

Masking the US/China trade war as a security issue doesn't work very well. Threatening to stop the sale of mobile phones using a US designed open source operating system because of concerns about security holes in a yet to be rolled out 5g core network is a weak argument. If there are 5G issues, why not 4G?. Where is the evidence, given that Huawei have set up a joint venture with GCHQ to examine the core network software.? Is this another "Weapons of Mass Destruction" report where we are asked to believe without evidence. We all ended up with egg on our collective faces then. Tony Blair's reputation was, and still is, trashed. May's reputation could similarly ............ (Ok, I concede that would be a stretch!)

The weakest part of the argument is that it denies itself a way out when the trade war ends (or is suspended). Donald and Xi could come to a truce tomorrow (a beautiful victory?) but that would leave the declared security issues unresolved. If the US removes the trade ban on Huawei surely they will be letting Chinese spying tools into strategic national networks. What about the mobile phones?. They are said to be a security risk now because the US (parroted by 5 eyes) says so. That won't magically disappear because the US and China come to an agreement on steel imports. Will the UK and other countries who have followed the lead of the US similarly change track when the US and China make up. ?

We are following our special relationship partners down a deep rabbit hole based on the assertions of some highly suspect political operators.

, Steve Davies 3 Reg Reader 1 , 2 days
Re: Difficult to back out

Well said. Much of this problem is due to the deregulation of Corporate financials. I'm not a finance person so am not sure that's the correct term. What I'm talking about is at the time of globalization/free trade when RRSPs were allowed to participate in corporate stock outside of national scope. Such was the case in Canada at the time. Since then, these corporations outsource as much work as possible to developing economies to reduce cost and most no longer have any R&D worth mentioning, all in the name of increasing profit for the Ponzi/Pyramid scheme that is the deregulated stock market and that is effect of changing the corporate tax burden. Since the late 1970s corporations have been able to increasingly buy their own taxation system, it seems. The more regulated, or in authoritarian regimes financially controlled, corporations still seem to have effective R&D.

The above boils down to the populace having been duped by bad faith politicians. As much I don't like Trump and his crazy train this all started a long time before him.

DCFusor , 1 day
Re: Difficult to back out

Actually, the politicians themselves were duped by the bad faith bankers and in general people who got compensated in options. It can even look like good intentions.

The deregulation that allowed for evil things like CDS (being able to buy fire insurance on your neighbor's house...without his knowledge, and even get a can of gasoline in the deal) - was sold as a way to make getting loans easier for minorities so they could buy homes and have a stake in society - a good thing that would result in less crime and violence and more self-policing.

What it actually was is more interesting - in the insurance biz it's illegal to sell insurance to other than the entity directly involved, and there are also regulations that the insurance company has to keep the buck to pay claims in hand - this was all missing from the Frank-Clinton removal of Glass Steagall.

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions, or at least can be sold as such.

In hindsight, we know that some of the financialization tech new instruments invented as a result by Blythe Masters of JP Morgan and some others developed in the City of London turned out to be "weapons of financial mass destruction".

There was plenty of blame to go around (in this case the left side of the aisle started the ball rolling, but...no one was at all innocent). From the banks making loans that were obviously never going to be paid off - no need to care as now Goldman Sachs, AIG, JP Morgan, and of course Deutsche bank were standing there buying the loans to sell tranches at a profit - to the people taking those loans, to the people buying the tranches of them....

cjrcl , 2 days
Re: Difficult to back out

It seems that China will be the latest name on the list including Iran, Syria, North Korea ecetera.

If so I think it is time for China to take Taiwan back.

Kabukiwookie , 1 day
Re: Difficult to back out

If so I think it is time for China to take Taiwan back.

That wouldn't the US modus operandus. There'd need to be a false flag operation like the USS Liberty (but done without exposing it's actually a false flag.

BebopWeBop , 1 day
Re: Difficult to back out

USS Liberty a false flag operation - ahh setting up a US intelligence vessel to be shot up by the Israelis. How did rhapsody work or were they hit by US aircraft in disguise?

Werepaws , 2 days
America's mental illness

Wow. The Americans have certainly let their paranoia show immensely

But this move of what they have done is bassically similar to what the USA were claiming Huawei and China could do shutting off 5G services because of their kit

America certainty have a paranoid schizophrenia mental illness building

Steve Davies 3 , 2 days
Re: America's mental illness

If you of a certain age you can remember the

"Are you now or were you ever a member of the Communist party" questions of the 1950's. The reds under every bed paranoia of that age is alive and kicking.

WonkoTheSane , 1 day
Re: America's mental illness

"Are you now or were you ever a member of the Communist party?"

That question was STILL on the forms they used to hand out on flights into the USA in 2001 (pre-9/11).

DCFusor , 1 day
Re: America's mental illness

Yeah, I had to answer that one for a security clearance in the '70's myself. One wonders how Brennan, Chief of CIA for the previous admin, was an avowed communist yet still managed to get that job?

His role in the current thrashing is interesting to say the least.

JohnFen , 1 day
Re: America's mental illness

Brennan is not an "avowed communist". That lie came about based on the fact that he voted for Gus Hall, the Communist Party presidential candidate in 1976. There is no evidence that Brennan himself was ever a member of the Communist Party or even that his political viewpoint is communist generally.

But that his political enemies consider calling him a communist to be an effective attack says a lot about American paranoia.

Yet Another Anonymous coward , 1 day
Re: America's mental illness

>That question was STILL on the forms they used to hand out on flights into the USA in 2001

Do they still ask 3 year olds if they were involved in Nazi war crimes?

Milton , 2 days
Right ... but perhaps for the wrong reasons

Ok: Trump is a nasty, corrupt, ignorant child and his motivations in this are probably as petty and wrong as is ever the case. And you can't ignore the fact that this is happening in the context of a wider trade war, which, while it may have some logical underpinnings (China does steal and cheat on a an epic scale) is also contaminated by the Orange Idiot's floundeing incompetence and wayward spite.

So I am no apologist for Trump or his toxically incompetent administration: it may actually be almost as vile as the Chinese regime at this point in time.

But the fact that the attack on Huawei is being mounted by people who are stupid, ignorant and explicitly odious doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do.

I've said before that it is irrelevant whether Huawei has been caught producing dodgy hard- or software and I have framed my point in terms of capabilities and intentions: emphasising that capabilities are what count here.

It's simply this: China has an authoritarian, undemocratic, repressive, ofttimes murderous regime; it ruthlessly oppresses minorities among its citizens; practises draconian censorship; has shown every sign of territorial aggressiveness and growing military adventurism; is building up its armed forces at a worrying rate; is becoming ever wealthier and more powerful; and has the ability both in technological know-how and in industrial capacity to supply a sizeable fraction of the free world's communications and computing infrastructure. With no checks or balances or transparency, the Chinese state could compel any of its companies to do whatever it wishes ("Make this happen for us, and keep your mouths shut about it, or next month you will be executed for corruption"), and every aspect of its behaviour in the last 20 years proves that it will use technology -- a wonderful equaliser in the world of asymmetric warfare -- for its own ends, lying, stealing and cheating at every turn. I don't see how this is even a controversial statement by this point.

So the question is not what China intends, but what it can do, and this ought to worry us very badly. Given everything we know of China's government, it would be suicidally stupid to gift it with power, influence or any kind of entry into our just-about-free societies.

As the west wakes up to the threat of China, actual conflict becomes ever more likely (I would personally suggest, inevitable, unless regime change occurs, which seems most improbable). China will become ever more strongly motivated to resort to technological sabotage and espionage. Right now we don't want China stealing data on our (for example) nuclear submarine fleet. If it comes to conflict, we don't want them bricking those boats while they're still dockside.

So Huawei is just the start. China certainly could use its companies for malign ends: so we must act protectively, as if it is doing so, and will do so in the future.

jmch , 2 days
Re: Right ... but perhaps for the wrong reasons

"So the question is not what China intends, but what it can do"

This goes against pretty much every standard the Western world stands for. China COULD compel Huawei to put in backdoors. But then again Huawei kit is probably the most closely-studied kit in the world, and it is trivially easy to compare firmware releases to make sure that the kit you have is running the same version as a trusted reference version. It might be more difficult to check that the hardware you get isn't a one-off specially modified version instead of the standard one, but the organisations likely to be targeted in this way are either big enough to have the resources for deep checks or would not be buying Huawei kit anyway.

For the vast majority of commercial customers and 100% of retail customers, having eg GCHQ check out the kit is a perfectly acceptable safeguard, indeed one which they do not even get from other vendors' kit (eg Cisco) which might be backdoored with other countries' spying malware.

jmch , 2 days jmch , 2 days jmch , 2 days
Re: Right ... but perhaps for the wrong reasons

> China COULD compel Huawei to put in backdoors.

Which is exactly why you should use them.

Which is better security?

A, buy kit from china and check it for backdoors, weaknesses, vulnerabilities.

C, buy kit from a company HQ in Finland (but with chips made all over the world) and don't bother checking for any flaws, vulnerabilities etc but trust it implicitly cos Finns are really nice people.

jmch , 2 days jmch , 2 days
Re: Huawei equipment can't be trusted?

And therein is the problem. It is not pres Trump, he is only supporting the US 3 letter agencies and they are the ones with the big problem. Their problem is that they want to put backdoors in Huawei networking equipment but if they do that it means that the Chinese government will have samples of the US spying software and there is the big problem. The 3 letter agencies can only see one way out of that and it is banning Huawei equipment, in their eyes that makes the problem go away and leaves their spying on the population as normal using the so called American equipment.;

jmch , 2 days
"deal with longstanding issues like government favoritism toward local companies"

How is it that that can be a point of contention ? Name me one country in this world that doesn't favor local companies.

These people company representatives who are complaining about local favoritism would be howling like wolves if Huawei was given favor in the US over any one of them.

I'm not saying that there are no reasons to be unhappy about business with China, but that is not one of them.

[May 24, 2019] Lets say the sake of argument Huawei is not guilty of putting spyware in their 5G stuff. How would US prove it? Huawei basically given out there source code, and apart from such slack security features nothing was found, but that was apparently no enough.

May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk

Here's the problem. Lets say the sake of argument Huawei is not guilty of putting spyware in their 5G stuff. How would they prove it? They basically given out there source code, and apart from such slack security features nothing was found, but that was apparently no enough.

Apart from proving a negative there is nothing they can do. I'm not saying that China is not a repressive regime, but to be honest I don't think they have the resources to filter out the juicy bits of the 5G traffic, and have enough on their hands just monitoring their internal massive population without having to take on the US as well. And why should they, since the NSA is already doing such a great job of it already.

The problem is that the great Orange one and is motley collection of right wing hawks are thinking that is what i would do in China's place and getting themselves lathered up in a right wing frenzy where they see reds under every bed.

If China was smart (and they are), what they should do is announce that all Apple phones are banned in China and all Chinese companies are not allowed to do business with Apple, until Apple can prove they do not provide back doors for the US government in their equipment. I wonder what effect a 10% drop in apple share price and all those pension funds that depend on them will have

[May 24, 2019] This is going to get ugly

May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk

..and we're all going to be poorer for it. Americans, Chinese and bystanders.

I was recently watching the WW1 channel on youtube (awesome thing, go Indy and team!) - the delusion, lack of situational understanding and short sightedness underscoring the actions of the main actors that started the Great War can certainly be paralleled to the situation here.

The very idea that you can manage to send China 40 years back in time with no harm on your side is bonkers.

[May 24, 2019] Currently everybody else is losing. Forcing other countries (supposedly friends and allies) to abandon equipment of one manufacturer for that of your own company is not very nice and for us quite expensive

Dumping Google is actually not so bad idea ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... The ban might actually provide a bit of a boost to other software developers, if it prompts users to look beyond the Google offerings that came with their phone and seek out some alternatives. In most cases, the alternatives are far better. ..."
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk
Michael H.F. Wilkinson
Re: Disgusting

Currently everybody else is losing. Forcing other countries (supposedly friends and allies) to abandon equipment of one manufacturer for that of your own company is not very nice and for us quite expensive. And that is not even factoring in the known fact that some of these manufacturers had backdoors in their equipment - for which actual proof exists. So considering our own national security we should forbid companies to do business with e.g. Cisco...

Michael H.F. Wilkinson
Powerful vs Lawful

Powerful is not the same as lawful, no matter what those in positions of power might claim or like to imagine.

Is this a distinction worth making? Yes, because otherwise law enforcement officers come to think that their word is law, and that they are themselves above the law. The result of that is a police state.

Michael H.F. Wilkinson
Re: Disgusting

Nothing here is really Huawei's fault

Probably true. Huawei are probably just collateral damage in the inevitable socio-economic conflict between the US and China. The US is used to running the world (not especially well if you ask me). China with four times the population and an economy about the same size as the US that is growing much faster doesn't actually seem to have that much interest in running the world. But since the US is run by folks with no principles, poor memories, few useful skills,and no planning ability whatsoever, I have to guess that the Chinese will "win" in the long run.

Welcome to the Chinese Century folks.

Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day
Re: Disgusting

Pretty irritating that Huawei is simply leverage while the US and China thrash out a trade deal.

I have a Mate 10 Pro and the best phone I've had, was planning to go for the Mate 30 Pro when it comes out.

Reckon I still will, I've already been reducing dependence on Google before this happened anyway. I'll have to shift my business email over to ProtonMail like I already do with my personal accounts. I'm trying out OSM instead of gmaps. I've already ditched gplay music. Just need Proton calendar which is in development and that's another service binned off.

Not sure what's going to happen with apps I've bought through Google and have active subs though...

Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day
Re: Disgusting

The problem isn't the apps you use, there certainly are equivalents of the Google ones. But they still mostly rely on the Google Play API to interface with your phones devices and storage mechanisms. OSM is a pretty good replacement for gmaps, but will be of little use without Google Location Services.

Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day Michael H.F. Wilkinson , 1 day
Re: Disgusting

Will the ban actually prevent anyone using a Huawei device from accessing a Google service (eg. Gmail) or just prevent them from downloading the official Google apps to do so? I suspect the latter as the first would seem impossible to police. In which case there are better alternatives out there.

The ban might actually provide a bit of a boost to other software developers, if it prompts users to look beyond the Google offerings that came with their phone and seek out some alternatives. In most cases, the alternatives are far better.

For email, try AquaMail. Easily handles my many email addresses split across Gmail, own domains using Google's mailservers, Yandex and own domains using Yandex's mailservers.

OSMAnd+ provides as good mapping as Google Maps (better in remote and off-road areas), is much more customiseable and you can download entire country maps to your phone, without pissing about with Google Maps's silly area selection download. And its navigation is pretty decent, lthough it lacks the Googley stuff like weather and nearest junk food shop listings.

Wire is an encrypted messaging/video-calling/VOIP app, offering everything Hangouts (or whatever Google's offering is called this week) does.

Yandex browser or Kiwi browser are Chrome but with added support for extensions

PulseSMS is text messaging with built in backup and the ability to send and receive SMS through your phone from your laptop.

etc. etc.

[May 24, 2019] Networks are usually highly segmented and protected via firewalls and proxy. so access to routers from Internet is impossible

You can put backdoor in the router. The problem is that you will never be able to access it. also for improtant deployment countires inpect the source code of firmware. USA is playing dirty games here., no matter whether Chinese are right or wrong.
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk
Re: Technological silos

They're not necessarily silos. If you design a network as a flat space with all interactions peer to peer then you have set yourself the problem of ensuring all nodes on that network are secure and enforcing traffic rules equally on each node. This is impractical -- its not that if couldn't be done but its a huge waste of resources. A more practical strategy is to layer the network, providing choke points where traffic can be monitored and managed. We currently do this with firewalls and demilitarized zones, the goal being normally to prevent unwanted traffic coming in (although it can be used to monitor and control traffic going out). This has nothing to do with incompatible standards.

I'm not sure about the rest of the FUD in this article. Yes, its all very complicated. But just as we have to know how to layer our networks we also know how to manage our information. For example, anyone who as a smartphone that they co-mingle sensitive data and public access on, relying on the integrity of its software to keep everything separate, is just plain asking for trouble. Quite apart from the risk of data leakage between applications its a portable device that can get lost, stolen or confiscated (and duplicated.....). Use common sense. Manage your data.

[May 24, 2019] Internet and phones aren't the issue. Its the chips

Notable quotes:
"... The real issue is the semiconductors - the actual silicon. ..."
"... China has some fabs now, but far too few to handle even just their internal demand - and tech export restrictions have long kept their leading edge capabilities significantly behind the cutting edge. ..."
"... On the flip side: Foxconn, Huawei et al are so ubiquitous in the electronics global supply chain that US retail tech companies - specifically Apple - are going to be severely affected, or at least extremely vulnerable to being pushed forward as a hostage. ..."
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk

Duncan Macdonald

Internet, phones, Android aren't the issue - except if the US is able to push China out of GSM/ITU.

The real issue is the semiconductors - the actual silicon.

The majority of raw silicon wafers as well as the finished chips are created in the US or its most aligned allies: Japan, Taiwan. The dominant manufacturers of semiconductor equipment are also largely US with some Japanese and EU suppliers.

If Fabs can't sell to China, regardless of who actually paid to manufacture the chips, because Applied Materials has been banned from any business related to China, this is pretty severe for 5-10 years until the Chinese can ramp up their capacity.

China has some fabs now, but far too few to handle even just their internal demand - and tech export restrictions have long kept their leading edge capabilities significantly behind the cutting edge.

On the flip side: Foxconn, Huawei et al are so ubiquitous in the electronics global supply chain that US retail tech companies - specifically Apple - are going to be severely affected, or at least extremely vulnerable to being pushed forward as a hostage.

Interesting times...

[May 24, 2019] We shared and the Americans shafted us. And now *they* are bleating about people not respecting Intellectual Property Rights?

Notable quotes:
"... The British aerospace sector (not to be confused with the company of a similar name but more Capital Letters) developed, amongst other things, the all-flying tailplane, successful jet-powered VTOL flight, noise-and drag-reducing rotor blades and the no-tailrotor systems and were promised all sorts of crunchy goodness if we shared it with our wonderful friends across the Atlantic. ..."
"... We shared and the Americans shafted us. Again. And again. And now *they* are bleating about people not respecting Intellectual Property Rights? ..."
May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk

Anonymous Coward

Sic semper tyrannis

"Without saying so publicly, they're glad there's finally some effort to deal with longstanding issues like government favoritism toward local companies, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfers."

The British aerospace sector (not to be confused with the company of a similar name but more Capital Letters) developed, amongst other things, the all-flying tailplane, successful jet-powered VTOL flight, noise-and drag-reducing rotor blades and the no-tailrotor systems and were promised all sorts of crunchy goodness if we shared it with our wonderful friends across the Atlantic.

We shared and the Americans shafted us. Again. And again. And now *they* are bleating about people not respecting Intellectual Property Rights?

And as for moaning about backdoors in Chinese kit, who do Cisco et al report to again? Oh yeah, those nice Three Letter Acronym people loitering in Washington and Langley...

[May 24, 2019] Oh dear. Secret Huawei enterprise router snoop 'backdoor' was Telnet service, sighs Vodafone The Register

May 24, 2019 | theregister.co.uk

A claimed deliberate spying "backdoor" in Huawei routers used in the core of Vodafone Italy's 3G network was, in fact, a Telnet -based remote debug interface.

The Bloomberg financial newswire reported this morning that Vodafone had found "vulnerabilities going back years with equipment supplied by Shenzhen-based Huawei for the carrier's Italian business".

"Europe's biggest phone company identified hidden backdoors in the software that could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy," wailed the newswire.

Unfortunately for Bloomberg, Vodafone had a far less alarming explanation for the deliberate secret "backdoor" – a run-of-the-mill LAN-facing diagnostic service, albeit a hardcoded undocumented one.

"The 'backdoor' that Bloomberg refers to is Telnet, which is a protocol that is commonly used by many vendors in the industry for performing diagnostic functions. It would not have been accessible from the internet," said the telco in a statement to The Register , adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy'.

"This was nothing more than a failure to remove a diagnostic function after development."

It added the Telnet service was found during an audit, which means it can't have been that secret or hidden: "The issues were identified by independent security testing, initiated by Vodafone as part of our routine security measures, and fixed at the time by Huawei."

Huawei itself told us: "We were made aware of historical vulnerabilities in 2011 and 2012 and they were addressed at the time. Software vulnerabilities are an industry-wide challenge. Like every ICT vendor we have a well-established public notification and patching process, and when a vulnerability is identified we work closely with our partners to take the appropriate corrective action."

Prior to removing the Telnet server, Huawei was said to have insisted in 2011 on using the diagnostic service to configure and test the network devices. Bloomberg reported, citing a leaked internal memo from then-Vodafone CISO Bryan Littlefair, that the Chinese manufacturer thus refused to completely disable the service at first:

Vodafone said Huawei then refused to fully remove the backdoor, citing a manufacturing requirement. Huawei said it needed the Telnet service to configure device information and conduct tests including on Wi-Fi, and offered to disable the service after taking those steps, according to the document.

El Reg understands that while Huawei indeed resisted removing the Telnet functionality from the affected items – broadband network gateways in the core of Vodafone Italy's 3G network – this was done to the satisfaction of all involved parties by the end of 2011, with another network-level product de-Telnet-ised in 2012.

Broadband network gateways in 3G UMTS mobile networks are described in technical detail in this Cisco (sorry) PDF . The devices are also known as Broadband Remote Access Servers and sit at the edge of a network operator's core.

The issue is separate from Huawei's failure to fully patch consumer-grade routers , as exclusively revealed by The Register in March.

Plenty of other things (cough, cough, Cisco) to panic about

Characterising this sort of Telnet service as a covert backdoor for government spies is a bit like describing your catflap as an access portal that allows multiple species to pass unhindered through a critical home security layer. In other words, massively over-egging the pudding.

Many Reg readers won't need it explaining, but Telnet is a routinely used method of connecting to remote devices for management purposes. When deployed with appropriate security and authentication controls in place, it can be very useful. In Huawei's case, the Telnet service wasn't facing the public internet, and was used to set up and test devices.

Look, it's not great that this was hardcoded into the equipment and undocumented – it was, after all, declared a security risk – and had to be removed after some pressure. However, it's not quite the hidden deliberate espionage backdoor for Beijing that some fear.

Twitter-enabled infoseccer Kevin Beaumont also shared his thoughts on the story, highlighting the number of vulns in equipment from Huawei competitor Cisco, a US firm:

me title=

For example, a pretty bad remote access hole was discovered in some Cisco gear , which the mainstream press didn't seem too fussed about. Ditto hardcoded root logins in Cisco video surveillance boxes. Lots of things unfortunately ship with insecure remote access that ought to be removed; it's not evidence of a secret backdoor for state spies.

Given Bloomberg's previous history of trying to break tech news, when it claimed that tiny spy chips were being secretly planted on Supermicro server motherboards – something that left the rest of the tech world scratching its collective head once the initial dust had settled – it may be best to take this latest revelation with a pinch of salt. Telnet wasn't even mentioned in the latest report from the UK's Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre, which savaged Huawei's pisspoor software development practices.

While there is ample evidence in the public domain that Huawei is doing badly on the basics of secure software development, so far there has been little that tends to show it deliberately implements hidden espionage backdoors. Rhetoric from the US alleging Huawei is a threat to national security seems to be having the opposite effect around the world.

With Bloomberg, an American company, characterising Vodafone's use of Huawei equipment as "defiance" showing "that countries across Europe are willing to risk rankling the US in the name of 5G preparedness," it appears that the US-Euro-China divide on 5G technology suppliers isn't closing up any time soon. ®

Bootnote

This isn't shaping up to be a good week for Bloomberg. Only yesterday High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the company to pay up £25k for the way it reported a live and ongoing criminal investigation.

[May 24, 2019] The advantages of China going after Boeing, as opposed to making life miserable for US technology companies, would be considerable

Notable quotes:
"... The US Department of Commerce said it would put Huawei on its so-called Entity List, meaning that the American companies will have to obtain a licence from the US government to sell technology to Huawei. At the same time, US president Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring the US telecoms sector faced a "national emergency" -- giving the commerce department the power to "prohibit transactions posing an unacceptable risk" to national security . ..."
"... "The US has basically openly declared it is willing to engage in a full-fledged technology war with China," he said. ..."
"... Huawei has few alternatives for critical semiconductors to Qualcomm, which would likely be denied an export license if the US follows through on its threat of putting Huawei on the "Entity List" (the second most stringent category, but still sufficient for the US to bar licensing). One is Murata, but Japan has joined the US ban on Huawei 5G products, and would presumably fall in line if the US were to ask Japan to tell Murata not to sell semiconductors to Huawei. ..."
"... On top of that, Ethiopian Air's forceful criticism of the 737 Max gives China air cover. Unlike Lion Air, which is widely seen as a questionable operator, readers who fly emerging economy carriers give Ethiopian Air high marks for competence and safety. One even wrote, "I have flown Ethiopian Air. It's certainly far better than Irish-owned and operated Ryan Airlines (even though the latter has white pilots with nice Irish accents)." ..."
"... Chinese interests have made large investments many countries in Africa, so it's conceivable it could get other countries on the continent to follow its lead. Admittedly, China plus those countries collectively may not be large enough to do considerable damage to Boeing. But this action would break the hegemony of the FAA as certifier for US manufacturers, and that could prove crippling in the long run. ..."
May 17, 2019 | www.ft.com

Gregory Travis and Marshall Auerback Anatomy of a Disaster – Why Boeing Should Never Make Another Airplane, Again naked capi

The White House and US Department of Commerce took steps on Wednesday night that would in effect ban Huawei from selling technology into the American market, and could also prevent it from buying semiconductors from suppliers including Qualcomm in the US that are crucial for its production .

The US Department of Commerce said it would put Huawei on its so-called Entity List, meaning that the American companies will have to obtain a licence from the US government to sell technology to Huawei. At the same time, US president Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring the US telecoms sector faced a "national emergency" -- giving the commerce department the power to "prohibit transactions posing an unacceptable risk" to national security .

Paul Triolo, a technology policy expert at Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy, said it was a "huge development" that would not only hurt the Chinese company but also have an impact on global supply chains involving US companies such as Intel, Microsoft and Oracle.

"The US has basically openly declared it is willing to engage in a full-fledged technology war with China," he said.

Huawei has few alternatives for critical semiconductors to Qualcomm, which would likely be denied an export license if the US follows through on its threat of putting Huawei on the "Entity List" (the second most stringent category, but still sufficient for the US to bar licensing). One is Murata, but Japan has joined the US ban on Huawei 5G products, and would presumably fall in line if the US were to ask Japan to tell Murata not to sell semiconductors to Huawei.

The advantages of China going after Boeing, as opposed to making life miserable for US technology companies, would be considerable. Targeting, say, Microsoft would be an obvious tit for tat. By contrast, China was the first country to ground the 737 Max, and its judgment was confirmed by other airline regulators and eventually the FAA. China does not have a credible competitor to Boeing, so it could wrap continued denial of certification of the 737 Max in the mantle of being pro-safety, even if independent parties suspected this was a secondary motive.

On top of that, Ethiopian Air's forceful criticism of the 737 Max gives China air cover. Unlike Lion Air, which is widely seen as a questionable operator, readers who fly emerging economy carriers give Ethiopian Air high marks for competence and safety. One even wrote, "I have flown Ethiopian Air. It's certainly far better than Irish-owned and operated Ryan Airlines (even though the latter has white pilots with nice Irish accents)."

Chinese interests have made large investments many countries in Africa, so it's conceivable it could get other countries on the continent to follow its lead. Admittedly, China plus those countries collectively may not be large enough to do considerable damage to Boeing. But this action would break the hegemony of the FAA as certifier for US manufacturers, and that could prove crippling in the long run.

Another issue that hasn't gotten the attention it warrants is that Boeing appears to lack the stringent software development protocols necessary for "fly by wire" operations. Boeing historically has relied on pilots being able to reassert control over automated functions'; Airbus has "fly by wire" systems as far more prominent and accordingly the expectation and ability of pilots to override these systems is lower.

However, many articles noted that MCAS took the 737 further into a fly-by-wire philosophy than it had been before. Yet Boeing was astonishingly lax, having only two angle of attack sensors, of which only one would be providing input to MCAS, and then on an arbitrary-seeming basis.

By contrast, the Airbus philosophy stresses redundancy, not only in hardware -- they use not three but four angle of attack sensors -- but in software, and even software development. "Two or more independent flight control computing systems are installed using different types of microprocessors and software written in different languages by different development teams" and verified using formal methods (" Approaches to Assure Safety in Fly-By-Wire Systems: Airbus Vs. Boeing ").

[May 24, 2019] Microsoft Cuts Ties With Huawei

Notable quotes:
"... Win 10 is invasive garbage. I don't want anything managing my computer "automatically". ..."
"... Huawei is a real wakeup call for the world... the US is an unreliable trader. They can never be trusted. ..."
May 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Microsoft will reportedly become the latest tech giant to 'suspend' its relationship with Huawei, according to the South China Morning Post .

One week after Washington first imposed strict limits on Huawei and its affiliates that will make it almost impossible for American firms buy Huawei products or sell American-made components to the company, a handful of chipmakers, telecoms companies and tech firms (Alphabet) have reportedly scaled back or severed their relationship with Huawe.

Though Microsoft said yesterday that it hadn't made a decision, the SCMP reported Friday morning that Microsoft had decided to stop accepting new orders from Huawei for operating systems and other content-related services: Windows operating systems for laptops and other content-related services. The US software giant has already removed Huawei laptops from its online stores.


CatInTheHat , 1 minute ago link

Yeah but Microsoft and Google aren't part of the military security apparatus and have nothing to do with foreign policy.

Funny Google and Microsoft have operations out of China .

Cant wait til China retaliated bigly on these assholes.

me or you , 11 minutes ago link

Just follow India steps.:

Indian State Saves Over $400 Million by Choosing Linux

CheapBastard , 29 minutes ago link

Feinstein and Biden are not going to like this.

GrosserBöserWolf , 38 minutes ago link

Good by US monopoly on software. This will only accelerate new developments.

CashMcCall , 38 minutes ago link

Just one more prime example why no companies should use Microsoft software.

The issue is clear as a bell. Become dependent on a US supplier and the Gov of the USSA could cut off your contracts with impunity. That risk is too high for any manufacturing entity.

I am not a fan of Linux. I do not like the way it manages memory. Also while it has gotten better, it remains something of an unmade bed in that much of the software doesn't work particularly well. But the same cold be said for Microsoft. How many times does Windows OFFICE have to lock up before you comprehend the nightmarish patch system which has become Windows?

GNU meaning not Unix never developed into a GUI. Ghost BSD looks interesting, BSD PC has limited compatibility but UNIX is flatly superior in how it handles memory. Unix is brilliant. I also love Open Office, it is better than Microsoft Office and you can save all your files to the Microsoft format if you want. Open Office is perfect transitional software and FREE! Why are school districts paying microsoft instead of using Open Office.

Win 10 is invasive garbage. I don't want anything managing my computer "automatically".

Huawei is a real wakeup call for the world... the US is an unreliable trader. They can never be trusted. This is not just about that lunatic Turmp. If AOC ever got to the White House she could do the same under the New Green Deal NATIONAL SECURITY EMERGENCY.

The Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power over Commerce but over time, the Congress delegated more and more power to the Exec with this kind of dreadful outcome. Founding Fathers wanted checks and balances. But here you have one person, interrupting commerce and contracts with the stroke of a pen that has never been approved by Congress. That is simply too much risk.

The Chinese like anyone else make mistakes. BUT CHINA does not repeat the same mistake twice unlike the USSA that seems to be caught in the revolving door of mistakes.

Better that this happens early in the life of Huawei than much later. China could actually lead the world into the adaptation of open source destroying both Microsoft, Google and Apple at the same time. Remember Apple took BSD and then made proprietary changes. That is the APPLE OS which is much more stable than anything Windows ever made.

While people knock apple Iphone for cost, the Apple laptops are very stable and essentially virus and worm immune. For a novice users that's why Apples are great.

I have had Unix based machines run for years with never being turned off, always rock stable. It is head and shoulders above everything. FreeBSD

https://www.ghostbsd.org/

Here is a UNIX GUI. I know nothing about these guys but will check it out. A non power user only needs a solid browser, and a good word processor, Open Office works with BSD.

Personally I don't think Apple should be grouped with Google and microsoft. I don't see as Apple has done anything wrong other than selling their products at a premium to the novices. That's not a crime and novices benefit. So quit packaging Apple in with Google and Microsoft.

BTW, Blackberry OS is Unix based. It is a canadian company so likely a US poodle.

john.b , 12 minutes ago link

Canada is a US puppet, but treated like a **** by US.

SMD , 45 minutes ago link

Huawei were attacked because they are a threat to Apple, not to "our national security." The only thing Trump cares about are the profits of big companies.

Wild Bill Steamcock , 43 minutes ago link

BuyDash cut ties with Microsoft years ago.

Yes, but the real question is did you cut ties with the NBA, Nike, grape Kool-Aid, McDonald's, Popeye's, your parole officer, KFC, crotch-grabbing, your six illegitimate children and the local welfare office?

JailBanksters , 1 hour ago link

WHoAreWe made Microsoft's Phones, and Microsoft killed the Phone without any help from anyone.

silverer , 40 minutes ago link

I knew Nokia was doomed when it partnered with Microsoft. They should have instead partnered with and help fund the Open Source Software community. By now, we'd have spectacular phones, free of logjams of spyware, bloatware, and ads.

JailBanksters , 23 minutes ago link

Now you have Windoze PC's with logjams of spyware, bloatware, and ads. Well, unless you hack it to make it a Workable PC. It's weird having to Hack your own PC to make it sane.

dark fiber , 1 hour ago link

EU take note. You are not even building or developing the damn things. But you want to dictate policy to the US. Asshats.

Cassandra.Hermes , 1 hour ago link

Why shouldn't Corning glass or Micron flash memory be sold to Huawei for use in phones bound for Europe? Huawei sells 30 times more phone in Europe than USA. I bought Huawei phone in Norway and I think is my best phone ever, I use Samsung Galaxy Note 9 in USA, but I carry the Huawei for photos and for WiFi calls from Norway. Try to do wifi calls from the Galaxy using Starbucks wifi and then using the same wifi try Huawei, you would see the difference right away.

Coin Techs , 1 hour ago link

They were up to dirty tricks with the dirty dems and DT is shutting them down.

Reality_checkers , 1 hour ago link

The US is going to sanction itself into economic irrelevance as the rest of the world says F you. We only have two friends now, Israel and KSA. Nice work, Donnie.

[May 24, 2019] Theresa May Cries As She Announces June 7 Resignation

Scripals's poisoning connected Prime Minister soon will be gone for good.
Novichok has lasting effects on British PM ;-) Now it will be much easier to investigate her role in spying on Trump, British government role in creation of Steele dossier, and in launching neo-McCarthyism campaign against Russia (aka Russiagate).
Notable quotes:
"... During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes. ..."
"... Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump. ..."
May 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

May, the second - but certainly not the last - female prime minister in the UK, will abandon her supremely unpopular withdrawal agreement instead of trying to force it through the Commons for the fourth time. May's decision to call for a fourth vote on the withdrawal agreement, this time packaging it in a bill that could have opened to door to a second confirmatory referendum, was more than her fellow conservatives could tolerate. One of her top cabinet ministers resigned and Graham Brady, the leader of the Tory backbenchers, effectively forced May out by rounding up the votes for a rule change that would have allowed MPs to oust her.

During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes.

Though May will stay on as caretaker until a new leader can be chosen, the race to succeed May begins now...odds are that a 'Brexiteer' will fill the role. Whatever happens, the contest should take a few weeks, and afterwards May will be on her way back to Maidenhead.

"It is and will always remain a deep regret for me that I was not able to deliver Brexit...I was not able to reach a consensus...that job will now fall to my successor," May said.

Between now and May's resignation, May still has work to do: President Trump will travel to the UK for a state visit, while Europe will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of D-Day.

It's fitting that May touted the virtues of her moderate approach to governance during her resignation speech, considering that her attempts to chart a middle path through Brexit ended up alienating hard-core Brexiteers and remainers alike. Her fate was effectively sealed nearly two years ago, after she called for a general election that cost the Tories their majority in Parliament and emboldened Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The pound's reaction was relatively muted, as May's decision to step down had been telegraphed well in advance.


CheapBastard , 18 minutes ago link

Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump.

They should lock her up in the Tower.

keep the bastards honest , 39 minutes ago link

She didn't cry for syrians when she declared bombing Syria and using the firm her husband is involved in,. They made billion, and she didn't cry over her makeover afterwards new hair clothes and big jewels and cuddles with her husband in the media.

bluecollartrader , 45 minutes ago link

She and John Boehner should start a therapy group.

There's no crying in politics.

HRClinton , 27 minutes ago link

The plan was Merkel, May and Hillary.

That's a hell of a bullet we just dodged.

Riiiight. Instead, 10,000 Pentagram "Monitors" will be dodging bullets and bombs in the ME.

"(Bibi,) you'll be so tired of winning" - Candidate Trump

Why, you didn't think that he was talking about America's Main Street, did you? Sucker !

HRClinton , 16 minutes ago link

Many women in esteemed positions are just affirmative action or window dressing to placate the masses with supposed maternal love but they end up being wicked as heck.

Perhaps, but it's worse than that:

They are part of the Divide & Conquer strategy, while (((Global-lusts))) are plundering the Wealth Of Nations and taking over the real reigns of power.

Americants are easily distracted or fooled.

ps. "...wicked as heck." Wicked? Heck? What's up with the careful avoidance of "cuss words"? It's ok, you're safe... No "ladies or preachers" (bitches or scammers) nearby. And the Tylers or NSA won't rat you out.

[May 23, 2019] Why Trump s Huawei Ban Is Unlikely To Persist

Notable quotes:
"... However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.) ..."
"... These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared. ..."
"... South China Morning Post ..."
"... This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan. ..."
"... Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor because it is winning. ..."
"... Until the reserve currency issue favoring the "exceptional" nation changes, the economic terrorism will continue.. ..."
"... What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other markets. ..."
"... The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary. ..."
"... Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional, accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random pot-shots, lead to what? ..."
"... The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that will destroy his 2020 hopes. ..."
May 23, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.)

The British processor company ARM, which licenses its design to Huawei, cites U.S. export controls as the reason to stop cooperation with Huawei:

The conflict is putting companies and governments around the world in a tough spot, forcing them to choose between alienating the United States or China .

Arm Holdings issued its statement after the BBC reported the firm had told staff to suspend dealings with Huawei.

An Arm spokesman said some of the company's intellectual property is designed in the United States and is therefore " subject to U.S. export controls ."

Additionally two British telecom providers quote U.S. restrictions as reason for no longer buying Huawei smartphones:

BT Group's EE division, which is preparing to launch 5G service in six British cities later this month, said Wednesday it would no longer offer a new Huawei smartphone as part of that service. Vodafone also said it would drop a Huawei smartphone from its lineup. Both companies appeared to tie that decision to Google's move to withhold licenses for its Android operating software from future Huawei phones.

These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared.

That the Trump administration says it has security reasons for its Huawei ban does not mean that the claim is true. Huawei equipment is as good or bad as any other telecommunication equipment, be it from Cisco or Apple. The National Security Agency and other secret services will try to infiltrate all types of such equipment.

After the sudden ban on U.S. entities to export to Huawei, chipmakers like Qualcomm temporarily stopped their relations with Huawei. Google said that it would no longer allow access to the Google Play store for new Huawei smartphones. That will diminish their utility for many users.

The public reaction in China to this move was quite negative. There were many calls for counter boycotts of Apple's i-phones on social media and a general anti-American sentiment.

The founder and CEO of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, tried to counter that. He gave a two hour interview (vid, 3 min excerpt with subtitles) directed at the Chinese public. Ren sounds very conciliatory and relaxed. The Global Times and the South China Morning Post only have short excerpts of what he said. They empathize that Huawei is well prepared and can master the challenge:


Andreas , May 23, 2019 10:00:52 AM | 1

It's really huge, that Huawei may no longer use ARM processors.

Huawei is thus forced to develop it's own processor design and push it into the market.

p , May 23, 2019 10:04:34 AM | 2

@1

I do not believe this is precisely what will happen. Huawei already has its licenses purchased. In addition they could decide to disrespect the IP if this was the case.

Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:05:39 AM | 3
Huaweis's suppliers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (ROC), and Britain are examining if they can continue to make business with Huawei, while some have already declared a suspension in cooperation.

The issue is that these non-American companies nonetheless use some American components of technology, and if they proceed they will be sanctioned by the US themselves.

It is the same reason why Russia's Sukhoi did not in the end sell its SSJ-100 airliners to Iran -- East Asian tech companies can hardly be expected to be more gung-ho on defying the US than Russia's leading defense plant......

http://www.checkpointasia.net/big-blow-for-huawei-as-japanese-korean-british-firms-reconsider-or-suspend-cooperation-as-well/

Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:10:32 AM | 4
> the Trump administration has created discord where unity is urgently needed

IOW Trump keeps sabotaging USA global integration and keeps steering it into isolation as he long said it should be

Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:14:28 AM | 5
@p #2 - Huawei surely has their processors *as of now*.

That - if USA would not ban Huawei (HiSilicon) processors, because of using that ARM technology. Thing is, Huawei would be isolated from next-generation ARM processors. They are locked now in their current generation.

Even Qualcomm today, for what I know, bases their processors on ARM's "default" schemes, instead of doing their development "from scratch", in a totally independent way. It would push for slow but steady decline as "top" smartphone vendor into "el cheapo" niche.

Arioch , May 23, 2019 10:16:54 AM | 6
At the same time Qualcomm would probably be forced to slash prices down for their non-Huawei customers. https://www.zdnet.com/article/qualcomms-licensing-practices-violated-us-antitrust-laws-judge-rules/
Red Ryder , May 23, 2019 10:17:21 AM | 7
Boeing is the counter-part in the contest to destroy Huawei. China has great leverage over Boeing's future. It is the nation with the biggest market now and downstream for 10-20 years. China need planes, thousands of them.

As for Huawei's chief doubting the prowess of the Chinese students, he only needs to look at the rapidity of the conversion of his nations' economy to a 98% digital economy. All that conversion was done by local, entrepreneurial innovators in the software and hardware tech sector. It happened only in China and completely by Chinese young people who had phones and saw the future and made it happen.

It has been Chinese minds building Chinese AI on Chinese Big Data.

Yes, they need Russian technologists and scientists. Those Russian minds in Russia, in Israel, in South Korea are proven difference makers.

The need China now has will meet the solution rapidly. For five years, the Double Helix of Russia-China has been coming closer in education and R&D institutes in both nations. China investors and Chinese sci-tech personnel are in the sci-tech parks of Russia, and Russians are in similar facilities in China. More will happen now that the Economic War against China threatens.

Huawei will have solutions to replace all US components by the end of the year. It will lose some markets. but it will gain hugely in the BRI markets yet to be developed.

In the long run, the US makers will rue the day Trump and his gang of Sinophobes and hegemonists took aim at Huawei and China's tech sector.

oglalla , May 23, 2019 10:40:03 AM | 8
Let's all boycott Most Violent, Biggest Brother tech. Don't buy shit.
vk , May 23, 2019 10:46:37 AM | 9
This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan.

Besides, it's not like Europe is prospering either. Those post-war days are long gone.

And there's no contradiction between what the CEO said and the Government line: both are approaching the same problem from different points of view, attacking it from different fronts at the same time. "Patriotism" is needed insofar as the Chinese people must be prepared to suffer some hardships without giving up long term prosperity. "Nationalism" ("politics") is toxic insofar as, as a teleological tool, it is a dead end (see Bannon's insane antics): the Chinese, after all, are communists, and communists, by nature, are internationalists and think beyond the artificial division of humanity in Nation-States.

Ptb , May 23, 2019 11:09:35 AM | 0

Ren Zhengfei's attitude is remarkable, considering his daughter ia currently held hostage.
ken , May 23, 2019 11:15:25 AM | 1
Talking Digital and security in the same sentence is laughable.... NOTHING Digital is 'secure',,, never has,,, never will.

Digital destroys everything it touches. At present, excepting for now the low wage States, it is destroying economies ever so slowly one sector at a time. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the dying West, especially the USA which is trying desperately to save what's left of its production whether it be 5G, Steel plants or Nord Stream. The West created China when it happily allowed and assisted Western corporations to move the production there in order to hide the inflation that was being created for wars and welfare and now has to deal with the fallout which eventually will be their undoing.

Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:22:20 AM | 2
A full-blown trade war was probably inevitable, driven by geopolitical concerns as much or more than economics.

One wonders what each of China and US has been doing to prepare. It seems like the answer is "very little" but since it's USA that is driving this bus, I would think that USA would've done more to prepare (than China has).

PS It's not just Boeing. China also supplies the vast majority of rare earth minerals.

Red Ryder , May 23, 2019 11:24:39 AM | 3
@10,

Her captivity and probable imprisonment in the US explain his attitude. She is a high profile pawn. The US must convict her in order to justify what they have done to her so far. She may not serve time, in the US prisons, but she will be branded a guilty person, guilty of violating the Empire's rules (laws).

Imagine Ivanka in the same situation. Her daughter singing in Mandarin would be little help. The Trump Family will be a number one target for equal treatment long after "45" leaves office.

The US Empire is wild with Power. All of that Power is destructive. And all the globe is the battlefield, except USA. But History teaches that this in-equilibrium will not last long.

Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:26:33 AM | 4
We've seen how Europe caved to US pressure to stop trading with Iran. Now Japan and others are caving to pressure to stop trading with China. There is already pressure and negotiation to stop Nordstream. And all of the above leads to questions about Erdogan's resolve.
alaric , May 23, 2019 11:38:11 AM | 5
Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor because it is winning.

The ramifications of trade war with China (where the supply and manufacturing chain of most consumer electronics is these days) is disruptive. Trump has created uncertainty for many manufacturers since there is Chinese part content is just about everything these days. Some manufacturers might relocate production to the US but most will try to simply decouple from the US entirely.

Exposure to the US is really the problem not exposure to China.

Jackrabbit , May 23, 2019 11:53:44 AM | 8
b: Why Trump's Huawei Ban Is Unlikely To Persist

The trade war with Iran was also unlikely to persist. But it has persisted, and deepened as European poodles pretended to resist and then pretended not to notice that they didn't.

A new Bloomberg opinion piece agrees with that view

No, it doesn't b. You say USA trade war will fail because it lacks international support. Bloomberg says USA should get international support to make it more effective. The difference is that it is highly likely that USA will get international support. It already has support from Japan.

USA has proven that it can effectively manipulate it's poodle allies. Another example is Venezuela where more than two dozen countries recognized Guido only because USA wanted them to.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

It's not Trump but the US Deep State that causes US allies to fall in line. Any analysis that relies on Trump as President is bound to fail as his public persona is manipulated to keep Deep State adversaries (including the US public) off-balance.

Like President's before him, Trump will take the blame (and the credit) until another team member is chosen to replace him in what we call "free and fair elections".

ben , May 23, 2019 11:54:24 AM | 9
Until the reserve currency issue favoring the "exceptional" nation changes, the economic terrorism will continue..
Jeff , May 23, 2019 12:00:34 PM | 0
What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other markets.

So the Huawei ban hits first and foremost the US' partners.

bjd , May 23, 2019 12:00:38 PM | 1
@ben (19)

China can only undo the US-exceptionalsim if and when it can visibly project military power. The only way to achieve that is tt has to make great haste in building a few fleets of aircraft carriers, fregats and destroyers, etc. It must build a grand, visibly magnificent Chinese Navy.

ben , May 23, 2019 12:02:59 PM | 2
big time OT alert;

Modi wins in India, another victory for the world oligarchs. Exactly mimicking conditions in the U$A. Media and governmental capture by the uber wealthy...

Noirette , May 23, 2019 12:04:16 PM | 3
(Ignorant of tech aspects.)

The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary.

Afaik, the entire smart-phone industry is 'integrated' and 'regulated' by FTAs, the WTO, the patent circuit, the Corps. and Gvmts. who collaborate amongst themselves.

Corps. can't afford to compete viciously because infrastructure, aka more encompassing systems or networks (sic) are a pre-requisite for biz, thus, Gvmts. cooperate with the Corps, and sign various 'partnerships,' etc.

sidebar. Not to mention the essential metals / components provenance, other topic. see

https://bit.ly/2K1pj3d - PDF about minerals in smarphones

Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional, accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random pot-shots, lead to what?

karlof1 , May 23, 2019 12:05:01 PM | 4
As I wrote in the Venezuela thread, major US corps are already belt tightening by permanently laying off managers, not already cut-to-the-bone production staff, and another major clothing retailer is closing its 650+ stores. And the full impact of Trump's Trade War has yet to be felt by consumers. As Wolff, Hudson and other like-minded economists note, there never was a genuine recovery from 2008, while statistical manipulation hides the real state of the US economy. One thing that cannot be hidden is the waning of revenues collected via taxes which drives the budget deficit--and the shortfall isn't just due to the GOP Congress's tax cuts.

The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that will destroy his 2020 hopes.

Arioch , May 23, 2019 12:05:34 PM | 5
@vk #9

> Huawei's phones American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge

Here is that data, for 2017, outside the paywall: https://imgur.com/a/8bvvX9B

Data for 2019 is probably slightly different, but the trends should keep on. That data also does not separate Android-based phones from non-Android phones. So, segmenting Android into Google and China infrastructures would mean

1) Huawei retains a $152B market - China
2) Huawei retains an unknown share in $87B market - APAC
3) Huawei loses a $163,9B market - all non-China world.

At best Huawei looses 40,7% of world market. That if all APAC population would voluntarily and uniformly drop out of Google services into Huawei/China services (which they would not). At worst Huawei retains 37,7% of the marker (if APAC population would uniformly follow Google, which they would not either).

[May 23, 2019] Is Theresa May Finally Over

Notable quotes:
"... there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering. ..."
"... the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general ..."
"... It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. ..."
"... I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to resign. ..."
May 23, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

... ... ...

So whoever chose to be Prime Minister and set the Brexit time bomb ticking (which would have to have happened at some point, although May's rush to send in the Article 50 notice was one of her major mistakes) would be destined to preside over a colossal mess. However, the distinguishing feature of May's time in No. 10, her astonishing ability to take pain and fight off challenges, was enabled by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which made it far more difficult to dissolve Parliament. Under the old rules, May would have been gone long ago. But the result may have been a series of coalition governments, or alternatively, a coalition that couldn't agree on anything regarding Brexit while that clock was ticking.

Even though I do feel a bit of sympathy for May, the flip side is that her record at Home Office, particularly with the Windrush scandal, means there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering.

It was vlade who I believe typed her out as the sort of manager who won't change course even when circumstances make clearer that a revision in plans is necessary. Of course, May did in the end, witness her getting to a deal with the EU, but only after beating her head against the wall for many months.

I imagine May's one hop