Global Market | |
Global Market | |
3503 VIEWS | |
![]() |
Friday, May 24, 2019 / 10:45AM / By Global
Times, May 19 / Header Image Credit: Blokt
Highlights
The collapse of the US
China trade negotiation is expected. After several months of negotiation, after
all the hypes about how good the deal was, how close they were to a deal, it
finally broke down. The Americans thought they had the Chinese fooled, that the
Chinese were idiots and did not know they were being dragged into a shit hole
of Unequal Treaty of the 21st Century by the Americans.
The truth is that the
Chinese knew exactly what the Americans were doing and were playing along
giving the impression that all was well. And finally when they saw it right to
scuttle the nonsensical negotiation, they did the necessary.
The trade negotiation
was not about trade, not about buying how much soya beans or American products.
It was about American supremacy and how the Americans wanted to treat China as
a colony or as a state of the USA. The top agenda was about changing the
Chinese economic system. The Americans demanded that China must dismantle all
the state owned enterprises, let the enterprises run like American enterprises,
free from the state.
According to Bannon,
state owned enterprises with state control, state capitalism are bad and China
must change these to the American way of running their economy. The change is
good for China and China would benefit and win the economic war. But China is
winning the economic war with state owned enterprises and this Chinese economic
model is good for China. And this is exactly the opposite in the US when their
so called free model is losing. Now why would China want to change its winning
formula? Why would China allow the Americans to dictate how it should run its
economy and economy system?
Further, the Americans
want the Chinese to amend its laws to protect American companies in China, stop
state subsidies to state owned enterprises, pay the Chinese workers like
American workers, calling Chinese workers as slave workers. They did not know
that a Chinese worker can have a meal with two small pieces of meat and rice as
against an American worker that needs a pound of meat for each meal. They
cannot see the difference in the lifestyle of a Chinese workers and his needs
and those of American workers and their needs. By the way, state subsidies is
not subsidies per se. It is still added cost to the products, the money must
come from somewhere, it is not free money. China cannot continue to subsidise
its state owned enterprises without breaking its own piggy banks. It is
productivity that matters.
They wanted American
companies to operate in China and free from Chinese control and do what they
want. They want to enter Chinese market and make their monies and no technology
transfer. They accused China of forcing the companies to give up their
technologies. The companies can always go elsewhere, no need to go to China, no
need to share or be forced to share their technology.
Worse, they told the
Chinese to stop Made in China 2025, ie China cannot pursue technological
advancement to be better than the Americans. Can you believe it?
Basically the trade
negotiation was never about trade but about changing the Chinese economic and
political system, that China must be a democracy like the Americans, and also
to suppress China from becoming an advanced technology country.
Why would China want to
let the Americans to dictate what and how it should manage its economy and
enterprises? The Americans were interfering in the domestic affairs and laws of
China. And they expect the Chinese to say yes and agree with an Unequal Treaty
where the Americans make all the demands and the Chinese must comply?
The few trade related
matters include China buying American produces at American prices, eg soya
beans, meat and poultry and at huge volumes in excess of what China needs, thus
killing Chinese farmers and meat producers.
The Americans also
demanded China to buy in monetary terms, US$200b of American products, products
that the Americans want to sell but the Chinese do not need, but not high tech
products that the Chinese want but the Americans did not want to sell.
The trade negotiation
was in all ways a political memorandum which the Chinese should surrender their
national sovereignty to the Americans, an Unequal Treaty imposed on the Chinese
in the 21stCentury. In no ways would China agree and accept such a
roguish and one sided agreement against their national interest. The trade
negotiation is certain to fail until and unless the Americans are willing to
negotiate a trade deal on equal basis. Until then, all the time and resources
over the last few months are as good as wasted, a non starter.
The Chinese want a trade
deal, the Americans want a political agreement to be the master of China.
In the words of Bannon, it is an armistice, a surrender document to acknowledge
the US as the Empire and China as a colony. Fail it should be.
Related
News – China vs US
9.
BMW,
Daimler Most at Risk of US Tariff Rise, China Reprisal
10. New
Tariffs Would Signal Prolonged US Corporate Headwind
11.
China
Imposes Retaliatory Tariffs on $50bn of US Imports - Apr 04,
2018
12. China's
Rising Household Debt May Build Medium-Term Risks – Mar 30, 2018
13. US-China import tariffs: Trade Dispute Explained – The Indian
Express
14. China
hits the United States with tariffs on $3 billion of exports
Related
News
1.
African
Countries: Taking the Easy Way Out?
2.
Emerging
Market Demand Responsive to Global Financing Conditions – Fitch
3.
UK
Inflation Report: Bank Of England Warns Of 'More Frequent' Rate Increases Than
Expected
4.
Tough
Economic Lessons From Ghana
5.
Chancellor
Of The Exchequer Launches Search For Next Governor Of The Bank of England
6.
Banks
in AAA Jurisdictions Face Rising Household Debt Risk
7.
China's
Big Four Banks Dominate The Top of The World’s 100 Largest Banks
8.
South
Africa’s Credit Rating Postponement: A breather?
9.
Brexit
– The European Council (Art. 50) Conclusions, 21 March 2019
10. Bank
Rate Maintained at 0.75% - March 2019 – Bank of England
11.
Federal
Reserve Issues FOMC Statement – Mar 2019
12. New
Financial Report: Brexit and The City – The Impact So Far
13. An
Open Letter to Theresa May by Ahmed Sule, CFA
14. Global
Trade Growth Slows Down To 3.3% In 2018
15.
Minutes
Of The Federal Open Market Committee, January 29-30, 2019 - Key Takeaways
16. Eurozone
2019 Growth Forecast Cut to 1%; ECB Could Restart QE
17.
Open-Ended
Bond Funds a Potential Risk to Financial Stability - Fitch
18. Resolving
Venezuela's Debt Default to Take Years