It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China at risk of loosing its trade with U.S

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The EPA barriers are being addressed as we speak. The new head of the EPA has a very specific mandate. Reining in the EPA to it's original intent.


It will be a marginal, at best, change. There will be numerous legal challenges tying up any mandates on the court system for years, particularly on the more 'dirty' industries such as the one I'm in.


Re legal challenges, no doubt.

I recall the Republican appointed head of the EPA out of N.J., the name escapes. She laughingly stated that it didn't matter what decision was made, if it favored of either side or even deemed balanced. it was a given that all would be challenged in court....by both sides.
edit on 5-9-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I recall the Republican appointed head of the EPA out of N.J., the name escapes. She laughingly stated that it didn't matter what decision was made, if it favored of either side or even deemed balanced. it was a given that all would be challenged in court....by both sides.


Which makes me lean towards thinking nothing highly impactful will ever occur.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: cenpuppie
Here's a hint everyone, we all lose.


Pretty much, because global trade is a zero sum game.


True but don't the Chinese government have the upper hand/bargaining tool of having used their trade/US demand for cheap goods as a means to buy up US debt/bonds to the tune of several trillion the last 30 years or so? I'm no expert but thought China could pull the rug from under the US any time they wanted if the US were a threat to them, as with Russia.

-------
Loading the player...

China has been steadily accumulating US treasury securities for decades. Additionally, trade data from the US Census Bureau shows that China has been running a big trade surplus with the US since 1985. This means that China sells more goods and services to the US, than the US sells to China.

The question is, is China, the world’s largest manufacturing hub and an export-driven economy with a burgeoning population, trying to “buy out’ the US markets through its debt accumulation, or is it a case of forced acceptance? This article discusses the business behind the continuous Chinese buying of US debt. ( For related reading, see article: Why is China Stockpiling Millions of Barrels of Oil?)
---------
www.investopedia.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
True but don't the Chinese government have the upper hand/bargaining tool of having used their trade/US demand for cheap goods as a means to buy up US debt/bonds to the tune of several trillion the last 30 years or so? I'm no expert but thought China could pull the rug from under the US any time they wanted if the US were a threat to them, as with Russia.


How would they 'pull the rug out'? They own only 7% or so of our debt. What would them selling binds below purchase price do to impact the United States Treasury bond market? Hell, we could even buy back our own debt at a reduced rate.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Who needs macroeconomics when we've got catchy campaign slogans?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I recall the Republican appointed head of the EPA out of N.J., the name escapes. She laughingly stated that it didn't matter what decision was made, if it favored of either side or even deemed balanced. it was a given that all would be challenged in court....by both sides.


Which makes me lean towards thinking nothing highly impactful will ever occur.


I'm a little more optimistic. Combined with the new head of the EPA, which at the least will curtail more regulatory decrees, is the solidifying of the SCOTUS and, hopefully soon to be replaced Ginsberg, et al, and the recent 46 firings of Federal Prosecutors by Sessions with more constitutionally minded replacements. The DOJ is key and while much slower than hoped is occurring.

That optimism is hinged on the view that Trump isn't going anywhere as impeachment has too many precedent setting consequences and outright fear of the Trump's base support. No traction in Congress is the result. That gives Trump a few years for this evolution to be implemented. That includes China.

No rush. Incremental....

edit on 5-9-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bastion
True but don't the Chinese government have the upper hand/bargaining tool of having used their trade/US demand for cheap goods as a means to buy up US debt/bonds to the tune of several trillion the last 30 years or so? I'm no expert but thought China could pull the rug from under the US any time they wanted if the US were a threat to them, as with Russia.


How would they 'pull the rug out'? They own only 7% or so of our debt. What would them selling binds below purchase price do to impact the United States Treasury bond market? Hell, we could even buy back our own debt at a reduced rate.


Yes but those evil Chinese could then start using those dollars buy stuff in America (the scoundrels) or even worse hold onto dollars without getting paid interest!!!!!! (The horror).



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

My posts in this thread are using the OP as context. The OP flat out says:


Donald Trump threatens to stop all trade with China if it continues to trade with North Korea. But, not only is China affected, the U.S said that any other country that has anything to do with North Korea will be accused of helping the North Korean regime. Therefore bring trade and alliances to a halt.

How else can that be interpreted if not as an outright trade war?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Who needs macroeconomics when we've got catchy campaign slogans?


If some of these people ran businesses they would be broke.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: nwtrucker

My posts in this thread are using the OP as context. The OP flat out says:


Donald Trump threatens to stop all trade with China if it continues to trade with North Korea. But, not only is China affected, the U.S said that any other country that has anything to do with North Korea will be accused of helping the North Korean regime. Therefore bring trade and alliances to a halt.

How else can that be interpreted if not as an outright trade war?


Rhetoric! A negotiation tool. This is obvious. Yes?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's a good thing Wal-Mart's hiring. lol



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I'm a little more optimistic. Combined with the new head of the EPA, which at the least will curtail more regulatory decrees, is the solidifying of the SCOTUS and, hopefully soon to be replaced Ginsberg, et al, and the recent 46 firings of Federal Prosecutors by Sessions with more constitutionally minded replacements. The DOJ is key and while much slower than hoped is occurring.


Even with a favorable court it could take years before a legal challenge heads to the Supreme Court so any meaningful changes are far down the road and long after a trade embargo.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Yes but those evil Chinese could then start using those dollars buy stuff in America (the scoundrels) or even worse hold onto dollars without getting paid interest!!!!!! (The horror).


Only if they are following that other poster's cruddy economic principals.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
It's a good thing Wal-Mart's hiring. lol


Ouch.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

How do you know the OP meant it only as rhetoric? I prefer to take people at their word so it reduces the number of misunderstandings, while you seem to be re-interpreting their words to match your own views. Do you also give favorable reinterpretations when people say something that you disagree with? Are you giving my posts favorable reinterpretations right now, since I could simply be using rhetoric as well?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: nwtrucker

My posts in this thread are using the OP as context. The OP flat out says:


Donald Trump threatens to stop all trade with China if it continues to trade with North Korea. But, not only is China affected, the U.S said that any other country that has anything to do with North Korea will be accused of helping the North Korean regime. Therefore bring trade and alliances to a halt.

How else can that be interpreted if not as an outright trade war?


I suppose that's valid. My view was the thread was hyperbole, economically speaking, and posted as such.

As such, I responded to your post with how else it 'could' be interpreted. Again, can you really discount the point I made?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: nwtrucker

How do you know the OP meant it only as rhetoric? I prefer to take people at their word so it reduces the number of misunderstandings, while you seem to be re-interpreting their words to match your own views. Do you also give favorable reinterpretations when people say something that you disagree with? Are you giving my posts favorable reinterpretations right now, since I could simply be using rhetoric as well?


I was saying Trump's words were rhetoric, not the OP's. Did I miscommunicate that? The OP seems intent on instilling fear of a trade war that hasn't even remotely been approached. I'm pointing out the other possibilities.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I'm a little more optimistic. Combined with the new head of the EPA, which at the least will curtail more regulatory decrees, is the solidifying of the SCOTUS and, hopefully soon to be replaced Ginsberg, et al, and the recent 46 firings of Federal Prosecutors by Sessions with more constitutionally minded replacements. The DOJ is key and while much slower than hoped is occurring.


Even with a favorable court it could take years before a legal challenge heads to the Supreme Court so any meaningful changes are far down the road and long after a trade embargo.


Applications to the SCOTUS are accepted/rejected as that court pleases. An application can be made by any to that body...and accepted as they choose. Yes, years if the machine is left to do so. Very fast if an agreeable Judicial branch concurs with the executive....



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Applications to the SCOTUS are accepted/rejected as that court pleases. An application can be made by any to that body...and accepted as they choose. Yes, years if the machine is left to do so. Very fast if an agreeable Judicial branch concurs with the executive....


They typically want cases to progress through the lower courts first.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


All I'm saying is one only has to look back, what(?) two years and mind warping changes in the political direction of the U.S.. Given another three+ years, do not discount that continuing as a valid and real possibility.




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join