Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 144 posts

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#131

Post by Fjolsvith »

dpark wrote: post #109
logfromblammo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to wipe out a history of past trade imbalances would be to announce the retirement of the domestic currency, citing counterfeiting or hacking, hyperinflation, or whatever else that may sound plausible. You then allow only your own nationals to exchange old money for new money. In order to avoid losing all of the value of their old money, foreign holders would have to buy something from a domestic person,…

That sounds like a great way to lose reserve currency status immediately.

What's the benefit of having reserve currency status?

US States have right and left been legalizing precious metals for currency this last year, perhaps in preparation for a return to the gold standard and dumping federal reserve notes after an audit of the federal reserve...

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#132

Post by Fjolsvith »

logfromblammo wrote: post #118
dpark wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a great way to lose reserve currency status immediately.

If your currency is a reserve currency, this measure is unnecessary--you can just print more of it.

That has the unfortunate disadvantage of devaluing the currency your own citizens hold.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#133

Post by Fjolsvith »

lukevdp wrote: post #87
youarewrongstfu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words the tariffs, like all tariffs, did absolutely nothing but harm the country putting them in place. Brilliant.

In the scenario outlined, China is the biggest loser, Vietnam the biggest winner, USA is a small loser.

The scenario did not indicate the benefits to the US, so the tally is probably not correct.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#134

Post by Fjolsvith »

baybal2 wrote: post #6
verroq wrote: post #3

I don't understand the hate Trump gets for doing what needs to be done. All these issues esp. theft of intellectual property, IP transfer, currency manipulation are much more important in the long term than some tarrifs. One shitpost tweet crashed SZSC by 7%, most of China couldn't even read it. Trump is in a position of power at least with this negotiation. China deserves the pain train for backpedalling.

> Trump gets for doing what needs to be done. Reducing new borrowings and doing dramatic gestures to reduce debt? No, he is not doing that. US deficit shot up dramatically as giant loads of new t-bills went into circulation, and financial players got strong signal on US interest rates. To reduce the trade deficit, the first thing to do is to reduce the fiscal deficit — a thing that has little to do with trade.

What would you do if you were going to perform an audit of the Federal Reserve?

Lets say that the Fed has not been exactly lawful with the way they sling money. And you know it because you've put someone in charge that could take a look. So you have the justification for shutting it down. Wouldn't you max your "credit card" out if you knew you were going to be able to cut it up?

Trump knows debt better than anyone on this planet. Don't let him fool you.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#135

Post by Fjolsvith »

awinder wrote: post #86
rrggrr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The facts say differently: GDP growing around 3%. US net exports up about $55b. Unemployment 50 year low. Minority unemployment record low. Non-farm payrolls up by about 3%. Business confidence (Fed Ind Businesses) highest in 45 years. (sources) https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishme... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-g...

2018 was not a great year on the markets (regardless of feel-good business confidence in 2018), farms & manufacturing are getting killed by the tariffs. Your facts & my facts coexist in the real world.

Farms are going to see a big turnaround after China's hog famine this next year.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#136

Post by dpark »

Fjolsvith wrote: post #131
dpark wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a great way to lose reserve currency status immediately.

What's the benefit of having reserve currency status? US States have right and left been legalizing precious metals for currency this last year, perhaps in preparation for a return to the gold standard and dumping federal reserve notes after an audit of the federal reserve...

> What's the benefit of having reserve currency status?

You get to print absurd amounts of money without significant inflation because every other nation in the world hoards your currency because it’s the de facto standard for trade. US dollar stability owes a lot to the fact that everyone else holds a ton of dollars.

> US States have right and left been legalizing precious metals for currency this last year...

It’s never been illegal to trade precious metals for goods or services. Precious metals may not be legal tender but no one has been prevented from using them as currency.

To the extent that some states may make gold or silver coins legal tender, it’s just pandering to conspiracy theories and paranoia. In the event that the dollar collapses, having gold as an alternative legal tender does nothing. Anyone saying otherwise is either lying or ignorant.

If someone owes you $1300 dollars, having gold as an alternative legal tender doesn’t help you if the dollar collapses. The person owing you is absolutely not going to go find a Troy ounce of gold coins to pay you. They’re going to happily pay you the $1300 they owe you in devalued US dollars. And you’ll accept, because that’s what legal tender means.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#137

Post by existencebox »

toasterlovin wrote: post #110
nabla9 wrote: post #25

Maybe China was just playing time and trying to time the trade conflict. US elections are next year. If the trade war escalates this summer, the effect on voters and the US economy will be hardest 6 to 12 months from now. After that the US economy will start to adjust for the new normal.

How, exactly, do you envision the US economy being damaged by a trade war with China? As far as I can tell, the effects thus far have been basically nil. Whereas things are looking pretty bad in China at the moment...

>the effects thus far have been basically nil

This is quite factually untrue. [0] [1] [2] [3]

To be clear, this is entirely as a rebuttal to your claim, not as any broader statement about international policy or outcomes.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/u-s-soy-e...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/us/politics/farming-trump...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/02/24/under-...

[3]https://www.minnpost.com/economy/2018/08/trade-war-pulls-por...

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#138

Post by ajmurmann »

ww520 wrote: post #123
ajmurmann wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the market was fair, then it's the US's fault to not make more attractive products and buy tons of stuff from China. It wouldn't be China's fault that they are successful and we are not. It would be like Obama bitching about Germany that I mentioned above. But that's not what's going on here. China is playing unfairly.

The market in regarding to China is not fair, so all is moot. Germany isn't play so fair as well [1]. [1] https://www.export.gov/article?id=Germany-Trade-Barriers

If the trade with China is discriminatory, he should call that out and not whine about a trade deficit, which can have many reasons (like US products might be bad or US consumers consume too much)

The link you provide only mentions high testing standards and even specifically calls out that they don't get applied in a discriminatory way. Can you elaborate more?

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#139

Post by SolaceQuantum »

zaroth wrote: post #102
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if the depiction here displays all the nuances that's being described: (Minor edit: I want to emphasize I'm not trying to challenge for any political chargement, even though this is a politically charged area. I'm mostly interested because this is drastically different from my understanding, and believe this is an educated viewpoint from different sources that I lack in my life. I'm looking to be appropr…

1. It’s not that leaving Afghanistan (and Iraq, and Syria) doesn’t have a single downside. But I am very much in favor of getting out anyway. We can’t afford to keep spending on the order of $2.5 trillion dollars for a part of the world which is increasingly irrelevant as the US has become oil rich and indeed the world’s biggest oil producer — achieved under Trump by the way. Trump is very much anti-interventionist a…

I asked primarily where you’re getting these sources of information from, as the sources I get from come from a distinctly different conclusion which is confusing to me.

Re: China backtracked on almost all aspects of U.S. trade deal – sources

#140

Post by paganel »

toasterlovin wrote: post #113
paganel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US import tax on Chinese goods is a tax on American consumers and manufacturers. And a regressive tax at that, as it will affect poor people more compared to the better off.

A 25% tariff results in low-singe digits % price increase at in the store. The tariffs are on cost of goods, but cost of goods is usually a fairly small fraction of retail price.

Even a 5% increase in the monthly costs of a lower-income family is 5% too much in this era of stagnating real wages. And
Post reply on HN