A number of industry associations such as the National Retail Federation of Consumers, the Consumer Technology Association, the Federation of Apparel and Footwear Industry, and the Soybean Association have issued a statement against the U.S. government’s announcement on May 13 that it intends to add US$300 billion worth of Chinese exports to the US. The tariff list is levied and the US-China economic and trade negotiations are urged to return to normal track as soon as possible. The picture shows the location of the National Retail Federation of the United States.
The United States has provoked and upgraded economic and trade frictions with China, which has aroused great concern from the international community. What is the motivation of the United States? Who will eventually endure the bitter fruit of the trade war? How should the United States make a wise choice? Come and listen to the voices of the American and Western media. "China is not the root of our economic problems, the greed of enterprises is the" "Independent" website: the United States is forcing other countries to share the burden of structural savings deficit.
The website published on May 29th entitled "How will the US-China trade war end? 》 article. The article pointed out that according to the US State Department of Policy Planning Director Kirenskina, the "first US" theory relies on four pillars: national sovereignty, reciprocity, burden sharing and regional partnership. What she does not admit is that the United States is forcing the rest of the world to share its unsustainable structural savings deficit. The US fiscal deficit and current account deficit have continued to grow. If these two deficits increase at a rate of more than 3% per year, the US's net debt to the rest of the world (currently 40% of GDP) will double in less than 24 years. The US government insists that the only thing that needs to be worried is the bilateral trade deficit with China. But even if the Sino-US bilateral deficit is eliminated, the imbalance between US savings and investment will only flow its external deficits – like the water in a balloon – to other surplus economies, such as the European Union, Japan and South Korea. The object of car tariff threats.
CNN: China is doing what any country should do in the face of poverty and backwardness.
The website published an article by Jeffrey Sachs, professor and director of the University of Columbia's Center for Sustainable Development, on May 26. The article is titled "China is not the root of our economic problems, the greed of enterprises is", pointing to the fact that the economic downturn in the United States stems from its own business problems, not the China described by Trump. The article pointed out that China is not an enemy. This is a country that seeks to improve living standards through education, international trade, infrastructure investment and improved technology. In short, it is doing what any country should do in the face of poverty and the historical reality that lags far behind the more powerful countries. However, the Trump administration's current goal is to stop China's development, which may be disastrous for the United States and the entire world.
The article also pointed out that China is becoming a scapegoat for the inequality in the United States. The real war is not with China, but with the big American companies, many of which are unable to pay decent wages to their workers while making big money. Business leaders and wealthy Americans are pushing for tax cuts, increasing monopoly power and offshore outsourcing—all in order to make more profit—and rejecting any policy that makes American society more fair.
Financial Newsletter Publications Daily Clearing website: The US government is fully focused on its own trade deficit and does not care about minimizing global supply chains or production costs. The website recently published a review of the trade war by James Ricaz, author of The Currency War. The commentary believes that the analysis of the motives for launching a trade war from the United States, the US government is completely focused on its own trade deficit, and does not care about the global supply chain or the minimization of production costs. In the eyes of the US government, one way to promote US growth is to reduce the trade deficit. This makes the current US trade policy a simple digital game rather than a complex multilateral puzzle palace.
US "Quartz" News Network: The US White House nationalist trade policy is changing the location of US procurement imports, rather than increasing production at home.
The website's May 29 report pointed out that the US government defines the trade deficit as a key indicator of trade wars, although economists say that trade balance itself is not a useful indicator. The trade war has caused a slight decline in trade between the United States and China, but statistics show that exports from other developing economies to the United States are growing rapidly. In other words, the White House’s nationalist trade policy is changing the way the United States purchases imports, rather than increasing production at home. The overall trade deficit has not disappeared, and official data show that the US trade deficit in 2018 reached a record $891.3 billion. The reason is simple: American companies that want to import cheap goods abroad are only turning to different markets. This shows that the zero-sum strategy of the White House's global trade policy is changing the world, but it is not necessarily beneficial to the United States.
Forbes magazine website: Americans are paying for tax increases due to reduced competition and rising prices.
The site published an article on May 27th by bestselling author and negotiator Jack Nash. The article argues that tariff tactics can create a visual illusion that creates jobs. But in fact, due to reduced competition and rising prices, others are paying for it. In January of this year, the US government raised the tariff on washing machines and created about 1,800 jobs. However, this has also led to the price of washing machines and dryers rising by more than $1.5 billion. High tariffs will have a 0.5 percentage point impact on US economic growth in 2020 and cause about 300,000 jobs to be lost. The best deal is a win-win deal. But if you are in the zero-sum game, you can't achieve a win-win solution.
"We want a trade agreement more than a government check." Yahoo! Finance: If trade tensions escalate further, American consumers will have to pay higher prices for consumer goods.
The site reported on May 30 that executives from more than 20 US companies have made it clear that they will raise consumer prices to protect their profit margins and remain competitive. Citibank estimates that a 25% tariff will increase inflation by more than three times. Citibank economist Sassel Rojas said that some companies are prepared to pass on higher costs to consumers. If trade tensions escalate further, American consumers will be more affected and will have to pay higher prices for consumer goods.
The New York Times: American farmers are increasingly worried about their future financial situation.
The newspaper is concerned about the direct impact of trade wars on US agriculture and farmers. The newspaper’s May 23 report pointed out that China’s counter-measures on US soybeans and beef products and the recent cancellation of a large-volume pork order have impacted “swing states” such as Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin. . White House officials are increasingly worried that the president may lose support from the important voters of the peasants before the 2020 election. “Farmers are increasingly worried about their future financial situation,” said James Mitem, director of the Center for Commercial Agriculture at Purdue University. A business survey by Purdue University and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group Inc. showed that market sentiment fluctuated sharply in April due to concerns about increased tension between the two countries: only 28% of respondents believe that the soybean dispute with China will be 7 It was resolved before the 1st of the month, significantly lower than 45% in March; 74% of respondents said that it is not a good time for large-scale agricultural investment.
CBS: American farmers don't want this benefit, just like toy makers, they just want to open up free markets.
The media pointed out that although many farmers expressed their gratitude for the bailout, more farmers were dissatisfied with the government's trade policy. "We want a trade agreement more than a government check," said Mark Watern, president of the North Dakota Farmers' Union. "But now, the government is making our needs fade. We can't control it." American Toy Company Basic Fun CEO Jay Foreman points out, “Farmers don’t want this benefit, I’m sure they just want to open up a free market like us.”
Forbes magazine website: Once China signs a long-term contract with a new energy supplier, it will be difficult for the United States to break this cooperation.
The May 28 article of the site focuses on the energy sector. The article pointed out that about 5% of the US economy is now related to trade with China, and the potential of the United States and China to increase energy trade has been enormous. As China's energy mix is shifting from coal to natural gas, China's natural gas demand is expected to increase by 60% between 2017 and 2023. Once China signs a long-term contract with a new energy supplier, it will be difficult for the United States to break this cooperation. In addition, some other domestic transactions are also at risk: a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's north slope to near Anchorage with an investment of US$43 billion, funded by a China National Bank; China National Energy Investment Group and West About $84 billion signed by Virginia, an agreement on the development of natural gas resources.
The British "Independent": The United States may soon find itself in a painful recession. Maybe by then, it will be ready for a truce.
The article on May 29 pointed out that for the top 25 companies in the S&P market with a market value of more than $20 trillion, slightly less than one-third of the revenue comes from mainland China and Taiwan, which means that tariffs on Chinese imports will be imposed. Damage their profits. Technology giants that rely on selling chips, parts and software to China (20%-65% of total revenue) will face particularly high costs, as do US footwear importers. Due to the chaos caused by the trade war, the United States may soon find itself in a painful recession. Maybe by then, it will be ready for a truce.
"In cooperation with China, we will gain more, not reckless and unfair provocations." Spain's "National News" website: Western countries have never been hesitant to ask questions on the sidelines.
The website published an article entitled "Cold War, Imperialism, and Iron Curtain" on May 26, saying that in the past historical periods, other Western countries have never hesitated on the issue of selecting a side station as they are now. Today, they are more differentiated, which is reflected in the welcome posture of many European countries for China's 5G technology and the huge investment brought by the “One Belt, One Road” infrastructure network, which makes the United States feel uneasy.
The US "Wall Street Journal": Tariffs did not make allies more compliant with US demands, but instead played a counter-productive role. The newspaper recently stated that on the issue of China, the United States leads an unwilling alliance, which is full of contradictions, anger and resentment. Germany is advancing a natural gas pipeline to Russia, and Italy's ruling coalition not only welcomes Huawei, but also welcomes China's “One Belt, One Road” initiative. Tariffs did not make allies more compliant with the requirements of the United States, but instead played a counter-productive role. CNN: American consumers enjoy a higher standard of living because of China's low-cost goods.
The May 26 article pointed out that trade with China provides the United States with low-cost consumer goods and increasingly high-quality products. It has also led to a decline in jobs in industries such as manufacturing that compete directly with China. Trade works like this. It is wrong to accuse China of being unfair in this regard – many US companies have benefited from Chinese manufacturing or export products. American consumers enjoy a higher standard of living because of China's low-cost goods. China and the United States should continue to negotiate and formulate sound bilateral and multilateral trade rules, rather than provoke trade wars with unilateral threats and exaggerated accusations. A trade war with China will not solve our economic problems. Instead, we need local solutions: affordable health care, better schools, modern infrastructure, higher minimum wages, and a blow to corporate greed. In the process, we will also realize that through cooperation with China, we will gain more, not reckless and unfair provocation.
Preventing China from developing into a disaster for the wor