U.S.-China trade talks end without a deal. Why both sides feel they have the leverage

[beijingwalker]

U.S.-China trade talks end without a deal. Why both sides feel they have the leverage

 

[Zibago]

U.S.-China trade talks end without a deal. Why both sides feel they have the leverage

Whatever the current US government does what would be interesting is how the post trump America handles it all

 

[beijingwalker]

China is in no hurry, let wait it out.

 

[Globenim]

Trump regime delaying all these sanctions for five months just to get China to accept his invitations.
All these talks pushing the Trump regime closer to the wall with every day they go on.
Trump regime already playing the last of the cards Trump announced two years ago,
China now throwing everything out of the window, pushing for renegotiations in favour of China.
Yet another meeting that ended without any victory and results.

This clearly signals China is on the edge of losing, just as proclaimed for the last two years.

If you still cant bend your mind with enough mental yoga and see this truth you are blind.

And let's all continue to pretend signing a deal, we dont even know what it contains, concludes just as much to a loss for China, as China signing none at all concludes to the Trump regime failing to persuade China and failing to reach the goal they where trumpeting years ago.

 

[Andhadhun]

China is in no hurry, let wait it out.

You think US is in a hurry ?

 

[lcloo]

It is easy to win A TRADE WAR, so said Trump more than a year ago. So what happen now?

 

[Andhadhun]

It is easy to win A TRADE WAR, so said Trump more than a year ago. So what happen now?

He never said anything about how long it will take.

 

[lcloo]

Yeah, it is certainly Easy to take a long time. @Andhadhun. Just like the way you people work on Tejas, the aircraft carrier, the Arjun tank and the replacement program of MIG-21 the flying coffin.

From New York Times:-
The chief economic advis er to President Trump, Larry Kudlow, made his comments two days after negotiations for a trade deal with China broke off and Mr. Trump followed through on a threat to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese exports.

“In fact, both sides will pay,” Mr. Kudlow said in an interview on Fox News. “Both sides will pay in these things.”

Mr. Kudlow’s acknowledgment was merely a recognition of Economics 101. But it flew in the face of one of the president’s favorite arguments: that trade wars are easy to win, and that the pain falls disproportionately on America’s trading partners, which he accuses of having exploited the United States for years through predatory trade practices.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/us/politics/larry-kudlow-trump-trade.html



Trump’s Trade War Just Went from “Easy to Win” to “5,000 Years” of Hell
While Trump previously appeared to view tariffs as a negotiating tactic, he now seems to believe they should be permanent. The Chinese say “bring it on.”

By Bess Levin
May 14, 2019

Paul Hennessy/Getty Images.

• slap tariffs on goods from countries around the world and drag the U.S. into a trade war with China hasn’t gone super well for America. The farmers whose profits have been destroyed as a result know this. The manufacturers who have had to lay off employees and move production overseas know this. The consumers who paid $3 billion a month last year to finance the tariffs know it, too. One person who doesn’t? Donald Trump, who lives in his own alternative reality and still thinks this whole thing is going great. On Tuesday, after China responded to the latest round of tariffs with fresh punitive measures of its own, the president claimed that “Tariffs have rebuilt our Steel Industry” (fact-check: false); that “Our great Patriot Farmers will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of what is happening now” (fact-check: false, and weirdly Soviet); and that we will be “moving jobs back to the USA” (fact-check: false again!).
  
  Alarmingly, while Trump previously appeared to view tariffs as a negotiating tactic, he now seems to believe they should be permanent economic policy, despite his own advisers admitting they’re hurting not just China but the U.S.:
  
  In tweets and other public utterances in recent days, Trump has hailed his tariffs, claiming they have helped power U.S. economic growth, and repeated over and over again that other countries such as China foot the bill, a view even his own economic advisers are uncomfortable defending. Trump is also displaying a preference for his tariffs over his own deals. Among the major hurdles to a congressional vote to ratify his renegotiated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement are the steel and aluminum tariffs that Trump imposed on products coming from Canada and Mexico.
  
  Those tariffs have invited retaliation against U.S. agricultural exports, such as corn and pork, that [is] hurting U.S. farmers. They also have caused senior Republicans like Chuck Grassley, the powerful head of the Senate Finance Committee, to say they will block any vote for Trump’s rebranded NAFTA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. But Trump has refused to bend unless Canada and Mexico agree to other trade restraints with new investment in domestic steel mills and aluminum smelters, one of the benefits of Trump’s trade wars the president is most eager to tout.
  
  While an obsession with tariffs certainly hurts the U.S. economy—Moody‘s analysts predict Trump’s threat to hit virtually all Chinese goods with a 25 percent levy “would slash U.S. real G.D.P. by 2.6 percentage points”—experts say the never-ending counterattacks would likely be detrimental to the global economy, too, causing a painful economic slowdown that could tip the country into a recession. “I’m with most economists and I think tariffs and a reduction in free trade are going to be a bad outcome for all involved,’’ Stephen Gallagher, chief U.S. economist at Societe Generale SA, told Bloomberg. Gary Hufbauer, of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, noted that while it might be easy—if not entirely misguided—to slap tariffs on imports from other countries, it’s a lot harder to take them off, pointing to a tariff that was introduced in the 1960s to protect U.S. light trucks from foreign competition and has never been removed.

 

[Menthol]

If you take notice, what USA request to China is to be the second Japan.

Stagnation and lost decades.

As what USA request is to stop China embracing high tech economy sector, by abandon technological and scientific advancement.

Which is of course China can't accept it.


And USA have a tendency to break the promises, as each 4 years they have election. Different president, different mindset.

If China accept it for example, and became weak China deserve a protection, but who knows if the next president of USA break the promises and will use this opportunity to destroy China completely.