Rattan furniture

[webfact]

Signs of new U.S.-China trade discussions emerge as increased tariffs loom

By David Lawder and Stella Qiu

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. dollar and China yuan notes are seen in this picture illustration June 2, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas White/Illustration

 

WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States and China gave signs on Thursday that they will resume trade talks as the two economic superpowers discussed the next round of in-person negotiations in September ahead of a looming deadline for additional U.S. tariffs.

 

A new round of U.S. tariffs on some Chinese goods is scheduled to take effect on Sunday, threatening to escalate an already bitter trade war.

 

President Donald Trump said some discussions were taking place on Thursday, with more talks scheduled. China's commerce ministry also said a September round of meetings was being discussed by the two sides, but said it was important for Washington to cancel a tariff increase.

 

"There is a talk scheduled for today at a different level," Trump said in an interview with Fox News Radio, without giving details. A spokesman for the United States Trade Representative could not immediately be reached for comment on the planned call.

 

"China wants to make a deal," Trump said in the interview, adding that China was losing millions of jobs under pressure from U.S. tariffs. "I think they want to make a deal, I sort of think they have to make a deal. We’ll see what happens."

 

The Trump administration on Sunday is scheduled to begin collecting 15% tariffs on more than $125 billion in Chinese imports, including smart speakers, Bluetooth headphones and many types of footwear.

 

Trump last Friday said he was increasing existing and planned tariffs by 5% on about $550 billion worth of Chinese imports after Beijing announced its own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods.

 

Tariffs of 15% on cellphones, laptop computers, toys and clothing are to take effect on Dec. 15. The U.S. Trade Representative's Office said on Thursday it will collect public comments through Sept. 20 on a planned tariff increase to 30% on a $250 billion list of goods already hit with a 25% tariff.

 

U.S. stocks rallied more than 1% on Thursday on positive sentiment about the trade talks, although some analysts noted that Trump's comments were light on substance.

 

CANCEL THE TARIFFS

In Beijing, Chinese commerce ministry spokesman Gao Feng told reporters that China hopes Washington can cancel the planned tariff increase to avoid an escalation in the trade war.

 

"The most important thing at the moment is to create necessary conditions for both sides to continue negotiations," he said during a weekly briefing, adding that China was lodging "solemn representation" with the United States.

 

Gao said China had "ample" countermeasures to retaliate against the planned U.S. tariffs, but talks in the current circumstances should focus on whether the tariffs could be canceled. He did not answer directly when asked if his remarks suggested China would not retaliate against the latest U.S. tariff threat.

 

For two years, the Trump administration has sought to pressure China to make sweeping changes to its policies on intellectual property protection, forced transfers of technology to Chinese firms, industrial subsidies and market access.

 

China has consistently denied Washington's accusations that it engages in unfair trade practices, vowing to fight back in kind and criticizing U.S. measures as protectionist.

 

A survey of U.S. companies doing business in China found that they are largely still making profits in China, but 81% said escalating U.S.-China trade tensions have affected their business operations.

 

That marks an 8 percentage-point increase from 2018, said the U.S.-China Business Council, which represents more than 220 U.S. companies ranging from Boeing Co <BA.N> to Archer Daniels Midland <ADM.N> and Hewlett Packard <HPE.N>.

 

The council's president, Craig Allen, a former senior U.S. government official and expert on China, urged the United States and China to return to the negotiating table to end damaging tariffs and avert lasting damage to bilateral business ties.

 

The survey showed U.S. companies are losing sales because their Chinese customers increasingly view U.S. companies as unreliable business partners given the volatility of the bilateral commercial relationship.

 

Nearly 40% of those surveyed said they lost sales because of Chinese partners' concerns about doing business with U.S. companies, a seven-fold increase over 2018.

 

In July 2018, the U.S.-China trade dispute boiled over in tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of each other's goods and threatens to engulf all trade between the countries, putting global growth at risk.

 

(Reporting by David Lawder in Washington and Stella Qiu and Se Young Lee in Beijing; Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal in Washngton; Writing by David Lawder and Yawen Chen; Editing by Clarence Fernandez and Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-30

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

I will belive it when I see it would be nice if it proves to be true and fruitful 

[zydeco]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. stocks rallied more than 1% on Thursday on positive sentiment about the trade talks, although some analysts noted that Trump's comments were light on substance.

Trump lied. His staffers now admit it. He lied to pump up the stock market. That is what they said. Why? Because Trump owns an ETF that tracks the S&P. He is clearly using his office to enrich himself with utterly false news. The SEC should investigate. And where are the Democrats? Feeding out of the same trough? This should be their impeachment cause.

[Mavideol]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

I will belive it when I see it would be nice if it proves to be true and fruitful 

that makes 2 of us.... couple days ago at the G7 summit Trump claimed receiving calls from vice chairman of China government, as always a lie and doing it live interview, Chinese government news outlets denying that such ever exist and calling Trump's bluff....

 

Just realized Zydeco above wrote about the same...

Edited August 30, 2019 by Mavideol

[pegman]

Trump is  starting to get weak knees.  Between the big drop in the stock market last Friday and his weakening poll numbers  he is losing his nerve.  Even some of his cheerleaders at CNBC are turning on him. Same thing happened before the midterms with NAFTA.  Next step will  be getting his son-in-law in to quickly close a weak deal.  Then of course claim victory. 

[oldrunner]

To all the naysayers, Trump/Pence (and thankfully Melania) will be in the White House for another 5 1/2 years. Democrats may hate him but the majority of Americans will vote him into office again. I likely won't be alive in 2024 so I don't much care what Republican will follow but if citizens don't realize what useless animals Democrat politicians are, just look at all US big cities (States) fare under Democratic rule.

 

[Cryingdick]

9 hours ago, zydeco said:

Trump lied. His staffers now admit it. He lied to pump up the stock market. That is what they said. Why? Because Trump owns an ETF that tracks the S&P. He is clearly using his office to enrich himself with utterly false news. The SEC should investigate. And where are the Democrats? Feeding out of the same trough? This should be their impeachment cause.

 

He props up the market because it's his only chance of winning. With the poll numbers perhaps the dems can now simply battle him in the election. This impeachment tripe is ridiculous. The dems are up ten points in the polls yet for whatever reason are scared for their lives of a fair election. 

 

That aside China not retaliating means they blinked. 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Dumbastheycome]

While  us  Senators  are permitted  insider trading practices it is difficult  to ignore the probability that the overall strategy  being  demonstrated  is a contrived game of profiteering at global impact  cost.

[Srikcir]

13 hours ago, webfact said:

"I think they want to make a deal, I sort of think they have to make a deal.

In Trump World All Hail the King.

This is just useless gibberish.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, oldrunner said:

To all the naysayers, Trump/Pence (and thankfully Melania) will be in the White House for another 5 1/2 years. Democrats may hate him but the majority of Americans will vote him into office again. I likely won't be alive in 2024 so I don't much care what Republican will follow but if citizens don't realize what useless animals Democrat politicians are, just look at all US big cities (States) fare under Democratic rule.

 

 

He wasn't voted in by the majority of Americans the first time, and this will probably repeat itself, even if he wins the elections.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

While  us  Senators  are permitted  insider trading practices it is difficult  to ignore the probability that the overall strategy  being  demonstrated  is a contrived game of profiteering at global impact  cost.

 

Permitted, Says Poster.

[Dumbastheycome]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Permitted, Says Poster.

The "Stock Act" which after many years of attempts  was  passed into law in 2012.

In 2013 most of the "Act" was repealed so permitting a vast  number of  state officials from the  top down to resume abuse of  subject only to tedious individual investigation if there is suspicion of abandoning "ethical"

practice.

So legislation that was intended to prohibit  what was once blatant has been reduced to an "honesty  box" ruling. In the realm of politics a tool to  take down  an individual should  there be cause.

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

The "Stock Act" which after many years of attempts  was  passed into law in 2012.

In 2013 most of the "Act" was repealed so permitting a vast  number of  state officials from the  top down to resume abuse of  subject only to tedious individual investigation if there is suspicion of abandoning "ethical"

practice.

So legislation that was intended to prohibit  what was once blatant has been reduced to an "honesty  box" ruling. In the realm of politics a tool to  take down  an individual should  there be cause.

 

 

Most of the "Act" Was Repealed, Says Poster.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment

 

 

And from the same:

 

Quote

This amendment modifies the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that some officials, but not the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress, can no longer file online and their records are no longer easily accessible to the public. In Section (a)2, the amendment specifically does not alter the online access for trades by the President, the Vice President, Congress, or those running for Congress.

 

Permitted, Poster Insists.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Most of the "Act" Was Repealed, Says Poster.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment

 

 

And from the same:

 

 

Permitted, Poster Insists.

 

Permitted by circumvention, use of proxies.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Permitted by circumvention, use of proxies.

 

No, they are not. Other than in your imagination, it would still be illegal. You could have claimed that the law is imperfect. Or that there are issues with the amendment. Instead, you go for all out nonsense about it being "permitted" - whereas it's obviously isn't.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Morch

[from the home of CC]

Although our Canadian canola seed industry has been kicked in the teeth due to holding the huawei witch on fraud charges for our neighbors to the south, the wheat industry due to US tariffs has had a good reason to celebrate. I guess that's in reality separation of the chaff..

[Dumbastheycome]

On 8/31/2019 at 3:01 PM, Morch said:

 

No, they are not. Other than in your imagination, it would still be illegal. You could have claimed that the law is imperfect. Or that there are issues with the amendment. Instead, you go for all out nonsense about it being "permitted" - whereas it's obviously isn't.

Did I claim it would be legal?

"permitted" does  not imply a "permit".

The  Stock Act in original  form would have allowed very public scrutiny of government officials at  all levels despite reports suggesting  even that legislation  was "watered  down" before  Obama signed it. Then the  amendments to that which  Obama also signed off  took away the  most significant effective tool for scrutiny and relegated it to a manually archived register instead of an internet based based system on the grounds  of  "privacy  and  personal  security"  concerns. That is the major aspect of the amendment which your  reference to a  Wikipedia basic acknowledgement of does  not  detail.

Where in the  Stock Act  does  it specifically state or imply that information gained prior to the public and provided in advantage to  proxy agents acting on behalf is equal to the individual having  gained such information?

IMO such information should  be considered  "state  secret" until made public when such information can have dramatic impact economically in terms  of privileged gain. And contravention of it  be subject to.

Thus  my use of the  term "permitted" is in the  sense that there is  no effective  block to activity in contradiction of legislation as  worded.

Trump  has continued to  maintain his and the vice  president's immunity or  exemption from the Stock Act primarily by virtue of an inclusion rolled into previous separate legislation from president  bush. And that is  not rescinded  by the Stock Act unless argued by ethical consideration which Trump seems incapable of  in almost all aspects.

What I  could have or did  not say should  be subject  to your deliberative dis-comprehension  ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Did I claim it would be legal?

"permitted" does  not imply a "permit".

The  Stock Act in original  form would have allowed very public scrutiny of government officials at  all levels despite reports suggesting  even that legislation  was "watered  down" before  Obama signed it. Then the  amendments to that which  Obama also signed off  took away the  most significant effective tool for scrutiny and relegated it to a manually archived register instead of an internet based based system on the grounds  of  "privacy  and  personal  security"  concerns. That is the major aspect of the amendment which your  reference to a  Wikipedia basic acknowledgement of does  not  detail.

Where in the  Stock Act  does  it specifically state or imply that information gained prior to the public and provided in advantage to  proxy agents acting on behalf is equal to the individual having  gained such information?

IMO such information should  be considered  "state  secret" until made public when such information can have dramatic impact economically in terms  of privileged gain. And contravention of it  be subject to.

Thus  my use of the  term "permitted" is in the  sense that there is  no effective  block to activity in contradiction of legislation as  worded.

Trump  has continued to  maintain his and the vice  president's immunity or  exemption from the Stock Act primarily by virtue of an inclusion rolled into previous separate legislation from president  bush. And that is  not rescinded  by the Stock Act unless argued by ethical consideration which Trump seems incapable of  in almost all aspects.

What I  could have or did  not say should  be subject  to your deliberative dis-comprehension  ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

"permitted" does  not imply a "permit".

 

About as nonsensical as expected. Especially when referencing legislation (and never mind over-the-top or plain incorrect comments made in your previous posts). The Pulp Fiction version sounded much better.

 

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

"permitted" does  not imply a "permit".

 

About as nonsensical as expected. Especially when referencing legislation (and never mind over-the-top or plain incorrect comments made in your previous posts). The Pulp Fiction version sounded much better.

 

 

 

You say. Up to  you.