Trump issues tough response to China's treatment of Hong Kong

[riclag]

On 7/15/2020 at 2:01 PM, twocatsmac said:

They Chinese won’t be “chortling” at all.

They’re set to lose billions and other countries will follow suit. The Chinese love money and influence above all, this could be the beginning of the end I hope.

It was a Globalist experiment ,letting China in the WTO!

The same as the  EU!

 

Like Mr. Trump says he doesn't blame China for taking advantage, he blames the idiots before him

[Damual Travesty]

11 hours ago, JCauto said:

So, along with all the other Chicken Hawks

I will stop at the first line. I am a retired Navy CPO. I would be proud to have children in the navy. Unfortunately mine is prevented from joining.  You brought up family, you brought up honor. You a have been alowed unfortunately to make such a post. I don't know you. That is a good thing.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Damual Travesty
sp

[Sambotte]

Trump is such a shame and a mistake for USA. 

And it impact the whole world, USA is losing a stabilizing leadership. Trump made America weak again...

 

Trade war ? Any winner ? Any progress ? Nop.

Incidently just after that, came THE virus. Coincidence ? Seriously ? Any loser ? Yep : Western countries, with a total economic mess, and totalitarian reactions (like oh... China). China win.

China got finally Hong-Kong in the middle of all this. Next in sight : Taiwan. China win.

They don't care about US financial control (totalitarian too, and abused with so many countries already that alternative systems are born) : USA lose again.

 

Trump is like a sick kid playing poker (at best) like a bully.

Before West was really good at chess. But chess game is local, it's a single battle.

CHINEESE PLAY GO. Much bigger game.

 

Europe is... too old to move, it looks. (And the Brits went back on there island... ????)

 

I just wonder what the Russians are planning... Good chess players, close culturally to the West (haaa Tolstoï, Dostoïevsky...), but not so far from the GO country, and they can fly (in space i mean ????)...

 

The only sure thing is Trump is an extreme and unbelievable disaster.

[Sambotte]

12 hours ago, JCauto said:

And China has no need to fight, they've taken advantage of everyone sleeping to entangle the Third World in a spiderweb of debt and other commitments. Why bother fighting? 

And they know they can not win a military war, nor USA attack them so. Not in their plan at all i think.

They know better :

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Edited July 17, 2020 by Sambotte

[cantata]

10 hours ago, riclag said:

Comon Reuters,  it would of read much better if you included Trump ,Pompeo and  the world together, blame 

What harmful thing did China do to the US that it hasn't done to those other nations that have been so much more successful in fighting Covid?

Please, share with us the details. 

[tonbridgebrit]

9 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

I will stop at the first line. I am a retired Navy CPO. I would be proud to have children in the navy. Unfortunately mine is prevented from joining.  You brought up family, you brought up honor. You a have been alowed unfortunately to make such a post. I don't know you. That is a good thing.

So you would be proud to have your children in the navy, but they are prevented from joining ?  Look, if people join the navy and America fights a war against China, then, all lives lost are a waste.

You're lucky that your children are prevented from joining.

[Logosone]

9 hours ago, Sambotte said:

Trump is such a shame and a mistake for USA. 

And it impact the whole world, USA is losing a stabilizing leadership. Trump made America weak again...

 

Trade war ? Any winner ? Any progress ? Nop.

Incidently just after that, came THE virus. Coincidence ? Seriously ? Any loser ? Yep : Western countries, with a total economic mess, and totalitarian reactions (like oh... China). China win.

China got finally Hong-Kong in the middle of all this. Next in sight : Taiwan. China win.

They don't care about US financial control (totalitarian too, and abused with so many countries already that alternative systems are born) : USA lose again.

 

Trump is like a sick kid playing poker (at best) like a bully.

Before West was really good at chess. But chess game is local, it's a single battle.

CHINEESE PLAY GO. Much bigger game.

 

Europe is... too old to move, it looks. (And the Brits went back on there island... ????)

 

I just wonder what the Russians are planning... Good chess players, close culturally to the West (haaa Tolstoï, Dostoïevsky...), but not so far from the GO country, and they can fly (in space i mean ????)...

 

The only sure thing is Trump is an extreme and unbelievable disaster.

Trump has been a disaster for the REST of us in terms of world economy, ie Europe, China. However, the US's gepolitical goals are to weaken the EU and China. This is obvious. For the US however Trump has not been a disaster. He has secured China's agreement to buy US agricultural products, he has succeeded in getting China's products slapped with tariffs, he has succeeded in knee-capping Huawei globally (who would buy a Huawei product now knowing it is banned from the google universe?), reduced Chinese imports massively, to say nothing of the political PR nightmare for China which Trumps administration has unleashed and now he has taken away Hong Kong's special treatment.

 

The fact that Trump is acting like this shows America's weakness in that it can no longer get nations to comply without using coercive pressure, however, from an American perspective all this may be in the US' best interest.

 

In a trade war there is no doubt at all that the US will win and has the advantage. China has huge problems. For a start its gargantuan population has to be kept employed,  in the last 5,000 years of Chinese history one can see that labor unrest led to the demise of many Chinese dynasties, so the first job of the Chinese leadership is to keep its humongous population busy. Hence, after Chinese exports started dropping because the US and Europe imported less Chinese products, China intensified its infrastructure projects. The result? Ghost towns, useless excess capacity and a massive debt explosion which some predict could lead to a financial crash in China.

 

As we have seen overall growth is slowing in China. Chinese fixed-asset investment in manufacturing rose just 3.0% in June from a year earlier, continuing the slide from more than 30% growth rates in 2010-2011. The economy is fading fast with manufacturing employment falling at the fastest rate in June since 2009. 

 

Whilst Beijing sees its salvation in high tech production, and has made some headway in areas like artificial intelligence, however, it still desperately needs Western technology. That is why it is buying western companies in such large volume, however, the West has started to become protectionist of its high tech industries like never before. See the Huawei saga, where the inability to incorporate Google's technology basically means the end for Huawei products outside of China. 

 

But the key is this: America is a buyer and China is a seller. With ample supplies of productive capacity in the world, the buyer—America—inherently has the upper hand over the seller—China. Huawei's exec put a brave face on the expulsion from the Google universe and of course said they will sell elsehwere. However the US and Europe are the largest markets. Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand will not make up for it, they can't.

 

As we have seen also China's labour costs are rising. As a result Chinese and foreign producers are moving factories outside of China. And Chinese leaders are aware that once these facilities leave and labour is trained and supply chains established elsewhere, they are highly unlikely to return.While China suffers from the departure of high margin production, the U.S. will still enjoy low-cost imports from other Asian countries. In a world of surplus goods and services, the buyer has the upper hand. 

 

Therefore, in the long term the US will win the trade war. Even if the US itself will have to take some pain in the short term, in the long term the buyer wins a trade war and the seller loses.

 

Chess and Go notwithstanding. By the way, the winner of the World Go Championship for the last three years was not Chinese.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Trump has been a disaster for the REST of us in terms of world economy, ie Europe, China. However, the US's gepolitical goals are to weaken the EU and China. This is obvious. For the US however Trump has not been a disaster. He has secured China's agreement to buy US agricultural products, he has succeeded in getting China's products slapped with tariffs, he has succeeded in knee-capping Huawei globally (who would buy a Huawei product now knowing it is banned from the google universe?), reduced Chinese imports massively, to say nothing of the political PR nightmare for China which Trumps administration has unleashed and now he has taken away Hong Kong's special treatment.

 

The fact that Trump is acting like this shows America's weakness in that it can no longer get nations to comply without using coercive pressure, however, from an American perspective all this may be in the US' best interest.

 

In a trade war there is no doubt at all that the US will win and has the advantage. China has huge problems. For a start its gargantuan population has to be kept employed,  in the last 5,000 years of Chinese history one can see that labor unrest led to the demise of many Chinese dynasties, so the first job of the Chinese leadership is to keep its humongous population busy. Hence, after Chinese exports started dropping because the US and Europe imported less Chinese products, China intensified its infrastructure projects. The result? Ghost towns, useless excess capacity and a massive debt explosion which some predict could lead to a financial crash in China.

 

As we have seen overall growth is slowing in China. Chinese fixed-asset investment in manufacturing rose just 3.0% in June from a year earlier, continuing the slide from more than 30% growth rates in 2010-2011. The economy is fading fast with manufacturing employment falling at the fastest rate in June since 2009. 

 

Whilst Beijing sees its salvation in high tech production, and has made some headway in areas like artificial intelligence, however, it still desperately needs Western technology. That is why it is buying western companies in such large volume, however, the West has started to become protectionist of its high tech industries like never before. See the Huawei saga, where the inability to incorporate Google's technology basically means the end for Huawei products outside of China. 

 

But the key is this: America is a buyer and China is a seller. With ample supplies of productive capacity in the world, the buyer—America—inherently has the upper hand over the seller—China. Huawei's exec put a brave face on the expulsion from the Google universe and of course said they will sell elsehwere. However the US and Europe are the largest markets. Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand will not make up for it, they can't.

 

As we have seen also China's labour costs are rising. As a result Chinese and foreign producers are moving factories outside of China. And Chinese leaders are aware that once these facilities leave and labour is trained and supply chains established elsewhere, they are highly unlikely to return.While China suffers from the departure of high margin production, the U.S. will still enjoy low-cost imports from other Asian countries. In a world of surplus goods and services, the buyer has the upper hand. 

 

Therefore, in the long term the US will win the trade war. Even if the US itself will have to take some pain in the short term, in the long term the buyer wins a trade war and the seller loses.

 

Chess and Go notwithstanding. By the way, the winner of the World Go Championship for the last three years was not Chinese.

Both short and long-term Trump politics have been a disaster for US domestically.

What you see as his successes were not that, just making up for losses.

 

US is a consumption society, so has to buy. China will survive without exports, so China will win a tradewar.

[cantata]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Both short and long-term Trump politics have been a disaster for US domestically.

What you see as his successes were not that, just making up for losses.

 

US is a consumption society, so has to buy. China will survive without exports, so China will win a tradewar.

It's also useful to note that China has been transforming itself from being an export reliant economy. In 2018 about 19.5 percent of China's GDP was due to exports. In that same year. U.S. exports share of GDP was about 12.2%. China has nearly halved its reliance on exports since 2006.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

has secured China's agreement to buy US agricultural products, he has succeeded in getting China's products slapped with tariffs, he has succeeded in knee-capping Huawei globally (who would buy a Huawei product now knowing it is banned from the google universe?), reduced Chinese imports massively, to say nothing of the political PR nightmare for China which Trumps administration has unleashed and now he has taken away Hong Kong's special treatment.

You may wish to know these facts.  
1. China has not fulfilled the commitment under phase 1 of the trade deal especially on agriculture products.

2. Huawei global smart phone market share has not declined leaving goggle orbit. 

3. Tariffs only hurt US consumers. 
4. taking away Hong Kong’s special treatment only hurt Hong Kong and US foreign policy PR. 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Both short and long-term Trump politics have been a disaster for US domestically.

What you see as his successes were not that, just making up for losses.

 

US is a consumption society, so has to buy. China will survive without exports, so China will win a tradewar.

Whilst I understand you are a leftist and dislike Trump intensely in terms of the trade war you are missing the point entirely:

 

Between the US and China the US is the buyer and China is the seller. In a trade war, given excess capacity in the world, the buyer will win over the seller in the long term.

 

The US can still get cheap goods from other low cost production countries. However China can never replace the giant US market with Vietnam, Cambodia or Thailand.

 

So there is no doubt at all that the US will win the trade war.

 

Of course China will survive as a country, but the trade war will impair Chinese economic performance greatly, much more than the US' economic performance.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Whilst I understand you are a leftist and dislike Trump intensely in terms of the trade war you are missing the point entirely:

 

Between the US and China the US is the buyer and China is the seller. In a trade war, given excess capacity in the world, the buyer will win over the seller in the long term.

 

The US can still get cheap goods from other low cost production countries. However China can never replace the giant US market with Vietnam, Cambodia or Thailand.

 

So there is no doubt at all that the US will win the trade war.

 

Of course China will survive as a country, but the trade war will impair Chinese economic performance greatly, much more than the US' economic performance.

Repeating your arguments, whilst throwing in an, undeserved but thanks anyway, compliment without addressing the counter arguments given, does not make your argumentation more convincing.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, cantata said:

It's also useful to note that China has been transforming itself from being an export reliant economy. In 2018 about 19.5 percent of China's GDP was due to exports. In that same year. U.S. exports share of GDP was about 12.2%. China has nearly halved its reliance on exports since 2006.

 

Even more useful to note is that:

 

China's personal disposable income was only 28,228 yuan, or about 4,000 U.S. dollars, in 2018, far below the U.S. and UK, which had incomes of around 50,000 and 33,000 U.S. dollars respectively.

 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-17/China-s-GDP-per-capita-just-passed-10-000-but-what-does-this-mean--NkvMWAMYNO/index.html

 

So whilst China's exports keep falling and it is focusing on its own internal market the personal disposable income of the average Chinese was 4000 US dollars compared with 50,000 dollars in the US.

 

Thus, with China's companies trying to extract profits from its own domestic market, where personal disposable income is significantly lower than in the US obviously its economic performance will get even worse.

 

It's not just about quantity. It's about quality too. And European and US consumers just have far more disposable income than Chinese consumers. So the internal market will not be an attractive substitute for US and EU markets to Chinese companies.

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Whilst I understand you are a leftist and dislike Trump intensely in terms of the trade war you are missing the point entirely:

 

Between the US and China the US is the buyer and China is the seller. In a trade war, given excess capacity in the world, the buyer will win over the seller in the long term.

 

The US can still get cheap goods from other low cost production countries. However China can never replace the giant US market with Vietnam, Cambodia or Thailand.

 

So there is no doubt at all that the US will win the trade war.

 

Of course China will survive as a country, but the trade war will impair Chinese economic performance greatly, much more than the US' economic performance.

If this is the 80s, I will agree with you that US will win. Then China was underdeveloped and needed western technology and manufacturing knowledge and the large middle class US market. Fast forward to present, the situation has reversed. 

 

China has most of what it needs now, and what it doesn’t have it can easily obtain from vendors outside the U.S. While the American market looked enticing a few decades ago, it is relatively mature, and today the newer emerging market countries have become much more interesting to Beijing. Emerging countries in Latin America and Africa are emerging markets that China has been deepening trading ties. 

 

The fastest growing markets for the best items China products like laptop computers and cell phones, are in developing regions such as India, Latin America, and Africa. In contrast, China itself is a market that the U.S. can hardly ignore. Big corporations like Apple and Boeing need China and agriculture products need China’s massive markets. 
 

The most immediate effects of Trump’s trade war would probably be felt by companies like Walmart, which import billions of dollars of cheap goods that are bought mostly by the people who voted Trump into office. The prices on almost all of these items would quickly skyrocket beyond the reach of the lower economic brackets—not because of manufacturing costs, but because of the tariffs. The result would be an economic war of attrition that China is infinitely better positioned to win. That will caused an inflationary spike and creat economic problems on policies and catastrophic for companies and employments. 
 

China also has a big war chest foreign currency reserves which now stand at more than $3 trillion. China has therefore much more room to deploy their reserve to distressed sectors in terms of fiscal policies. As wages are relatively low, the impact on majority of unemployed workers will be much muted as the unemployed will go back to their home in the provinces and farm. 
 

Still trade wars are never good for the US and China and will have collateral damages to the rest of the world. 
 

Lastly, the American political system is relatively mature with checks and balances, but with a president who often acts uniquely based on his own beliefs regarding complex issues will have to answer to the people every 4 years. 

[Logosone]

48 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You may wish to know these facts.  
1. China has not fulfilled the commitment under phase 1 of the trade deal especially on agriculture products.

2. Huawei global smart phone market share has not declined leaving goggle orbit. 

3. Tariffs only hurt US consumers. 
4. taking away Hong Kong’s special treatment only hurt Hong Kong and US foreign policy PR. 

1. Because of Covid19, and Trumps response on Hong Kong, however, the fact that China agreed in the first place shows how sensitive it is to tariffs, how valuable the US market is to China. Unless China wants a total exclusion from the US market due to monster tariffs China will soon capitulate once again, after the current tensions on Covid and HK subside, and will agree to buy US agricultural products in exchange for reduced tariffs.

 

2. 

 

“The consumer business has been the major business for our growth,” said Vincent Pang, president of Huawei’s western Europe business, in a call with reporters to discuss the company’s 2019 financial results. He called 2019 a “big challenge” for the company. 

While Huawei never had a substantial presence with consumers in the US, the trade ban still hurts Huawei’s ability to compete abroad. It’s unable to buy new laptop processors from Intel, and flagship phones like the P40 and the Mate 30 Pro can’t offer Google’s apps or Google’s app store, making them nonstarters for many customers. “That gave us a quite a big difficulty” in growing smartphone sales, Pang said.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/31/21200183/huawei-2019-earnings-financial-results-us-trade-ban

 

US trade ban took its toll on Huawei

 

When news of a ban was first announced, it began to have serious effects on Huawei’s sales in the UK.

According to data by Kantar, Huawei's smartphone sales fell by two per cent between the first quarter and second quarter of 2019. By comparison, the company had a market share of 9.8 per cent in the second quarter of 2018, growing to 15.7 per cent in early 2019, so whilst the new figures are still higher than last year, it demonstrates that the Huawei surge is slowing down.

In addition, Huawei's sub-brand Honor appears to be falling too, from 3.9 per cent market share of sales in the second quarter of last year down to 2.3 per cent now.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/huawei-google-ban-uk-us-government-5g-network-a4333636.html

 

Of course in the US Huawei is completely banned now. Whats more it's not just about google, recently the UK appears to have been persuaded not to use Huawei 5G equipment by the US.

 

 Huawei derived 50 per cent of its revenue from China in 2017, which was followed by Europe, the Middle East and Africa as one unit (27 per cent), Asia Pacific in third place (12.3 per cent), the Americas in fourth (6.5 per cent) and other markets accounting for 3.5 per cent of total sales.

 

Any notion that the overseas market is not important to Huawei is misguided.

 

3. Tariffs do not just hurt US consumers, that's ludicrous of course. Tariffs clearly hurt Chinese companies and very badly. After all Huawei is not trying for nothing to get the trade ban reversed in court.

 

Sure, the US will hurt in the trade war, but a seller nation like China will hurt far worse.

 

4. Actually removing HK's special privileges also has some advantages to the US in terms of increased revenue. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Logosone

[sscc]

First of all,  the entire world is waiting for early November 2020.  Most outside America are not so keen about what Trump has done in the past 3.5 years, is doing now and will do in the next 3 months.  

 

On the larger scale,  there is still quite a gap between USA GDP and China GDP in 2008/2009 

( stats usually behind by many months ).   It was around  100 : 67 ratio,  so China GDP is currently still only two third of USA GDP.  Population of the two countries is of course on 1 : 4 ratio  --  USA 350 million  Vs China  1.4 billion.   

 

World Bank and IMF  somehow project  that  the World GDP ranking in 2025  is  1/China,  2/USA and 3/India.    Personally I am surprised about China would overtake the top spot so early 

( Projected India ranking position surprised too,  we are not talking India here )

 

Now I think one other factor will also be in play in the months ahead  ( regardless outcome of Trump or Biden ).   I do buy the prediction of the a specific global financial expert voiced in May 2020 ( you can search for it )  saying  USD is going to drop by significant margin within 18 months --  USD lower against EURO and USD lower against China RMB --  projecting about 35 % down trend.     Due to this possible change,  the GDP ranking change appears on the way within next few years.   The impact is of course  PSYCHOLOGICALLY,  it is to going to hurt,  for both Americans  and all the pro-Americans.   

 

 

On the smaller scale,  Hong Kong is now one of the cards in USA Vs China issue.  Not the biggest card,  but it is still a card.   Hong Kong is going to continue this Hong Kong self-destructive course that had been happening for a number of years.   There is a long list of reasons about it.  Outsiders are just not in a position to understand it.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

If this is the 80s, I will agree with you that US will win. Then China was underdeveloped and needed western technology and manufacturing knowledge and the large middle class US market. Fast forward to present, the situation has reversed. 

 

China has most of what it needs now, and what it doesn’t have it can easily obtain from vendors outside the U.S. While the American market looked enticing a few decades ago, it is relatively mature, and today the newer emerging market countries have become much more interesting to Beijing. Emerging countries in Latin America and Africa are emerging markets that China has been deepening trading ties. 

 

The fastest growing markets for the best items China products like laptop computers and cell phones, are in developing regions such as India, Latin America, and Africa. In contrast, China itself is a market that the U.S. can hardly ignore. Big corporations like Apple and Boeing need China and agriculture products need China’s massive markets. 
 

The most immediate effects of Trump’s trade war would probably be felt by companies like Walmart, which import billions of dollars of cheap goods that are bought mostly by the people who voted Trump into office. The prices on almost all of these items would quickly skyrocket beyond the reach of the lower economic brackets—not because of manufacturing costs, but because of the tariffs. The result would be an economic war of attrition that China is infinitely better positioned to win. That will caused an inflationary spike and creat economic problems on policies and catastrophic for companies and employments. 
 

China also has a big war chest foreign currency reserves which now stand at more than $3 trillion. China has therefore much more room to deploy their reserve to distressed sectors in terms of fiscal policies. As wages are relatively low, the impact on majority of unemployed workers will be much muted as the unemployed will go back to their home in the provinces and farm. 
 

Still trade wars are never good for the US and China and will have collateral damages to the rest of the world. 
 

Lastly, the American political system is relatively mature with checks and balances, but with a president who often acts uniquely based on his own beliefs regarding complex issues will have to answer to the people every 4 years. 

You don't believe that yourself that emerging markets are more important to China than the US market.

 

The US has disposable personal income of 50,000 USD, China has 4000 and many of those emerging markets have far less than 4000. Which market do you think Chinese companies will consider more attractive?

 

Huawei would trade every emerging market right now for full access to the US and EU markets, no questions asked.

 

By contrast Apple can produce in Vietnam, Thailand or elsewhere, it doesn't matter to them.

 

Yes, it's true, the sheer size of China's market does make it enticing as well, even if personal disposable income is only 4000 USD in China. However the small level of personal disposable income means China, overall, is less important than say the EU's market. Not to mention the constant trade barriers to operating in China, which are by design of course.

 

You're absolutely right of course that the US too will suffer in the trade war, at least in the short term, as you rightly say Walmart's prices may rise, until Walmart can establish supply lines with other low cost production countries in Asia. However, in the long term quite clearly the US is far better poised to come out as winner, you say China but offer no evidence for that view.

 

I agree that for everyone else the trade war is terrible news, including Europe, however, for the US, in terms of retaining some of its economic pre-eminence what Trump is doing clearly makes sense. Weakening China does benefit the US, in the long term, even if for the rest of us it's terrible news and even if in the short term the US will suffer as well.

[cantata]

35 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Even more useful to note is that:

 

China's personal disposable income was only 28,228 yuan, or about 4,000 U.S. dollars, in 2018, far below the U.S. and UK, which had incomes of around 50,000 and 33,000 U.S. dollars respectively.

 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-17/China-s-GDP-per-capita-just-passed-10-000-but-what-does-this-mean--NkvMWAMYNO/index.html

 

So whilst China's exports keep falling and it is focusing on its own internal market the personal disposable income of the average Chinese was 4000 US dollars compared with 50,000 dollars in the US.

 

Thus, with China's companies trying to extract profits from its own domestic market, where personal disposable income is significantly lower than in the US obviously its economic performance will get even worse.

 

It's not just about quantity. It's about quality too. And European and US consumers just have far more disposable income than Chinese consumers. So the internal market will not be an attractive substitute for US and EU markets to Chinese companies.

Even more useful to note that there is a huge disparity between rural and urban population in terms of disposable income.  Average urban disposable income for China stood at 42159 renminbi in 2019. There are 831 million urban chinese. Not just that but there is the question of PPP, purchasing power parity, currently at a ration of 3.5 to 1.  If you adjust for that Urban disposable income that amounts to about $21000 disposable income per urban chinese. Divide the number of urban chinese by the total number of Americans and you'll come up with a ratio 2.55 to 1. Multiply the average chinese disposable income figure of 21000  and multiply by 2.55 and you come up with a figure of $53,550, slightly higher than the average US per capita figure. That's a huge market. It's no wonder that the Chinese market is so important to the German and American automobile industries. Keep in mind that more cars are sold in China now than in America.

[Logosone]

25 minutes ago, cantata said:

Even more useful to note that there is a huge disparity between rural and urban population in terms of disposable income.  Average urban disposable income for China stood at 42159 renminbi in 2019. There are 831 million urban chinese. Not just that but there is the question of PPP, purchasing power parity, currently at a ration of 3.5 to 1.  If you adjust for that Urban disposable income that amounts to about $21000 disposable income per urban chinese. Divide the number of urban chinese by the total number of Americans and you'll come up with a ratio 2.55 to 1. Multiply the average chinese disposable income figure of 21000  and multiply by 2.55 and you come up with a figure of $53,550, slightly higher than the average US per capita figure. That's a huge market. It's no wonder that the Chinese market is so important to the German and American automobile industries. Keep in mind that more cars are sold in China now than in America.

Wow that's quite an intricate mathematical acrobatics routine you have to make there, but one question:

 

Why "Divide the number of urban chinese by the total number of Americans and you'll come up with a ratio 2.55 to 1. Multiply the average chinese disposable income figure of 21000  and multiply by 2.55 and you come up with a figure of $53,550, slightly higher than the average US per capita figure."

 

Looks like you're just desperately trying to imply that the urban chinese have equal or greater personal disposable income to Americans. Which is just not true.

 

Even if you exclude the huge rural population of China, the urban Chinese only have 42,359 yuan of personal disposable income.

 

Which is 6000 USD.  Compared to 50,000 USD in the US.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278698/annual-per-capita-income-of-households-in-china/#:~:text=In 2019%2C the annual per,rising at a high pace.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Logosone

[cantata]

55 minutes ago, Logosone said:

1. Because of Covid19, and Trumps response on Hong Kong, however, the fact that China agreed in the first place shows how sensitive it is to tariffs, how valuable the US market is to China. Unless China wants a total exclusion from the US market due to monster tariffs China will soon capitulate once again, after the current tensions on Covid and HK subside, and will agree to buy US agricultural products in exchange for reduced tariffs.

Don't be ridiculous. A total exclusion from the U.S. Market would be economically disastrous for the USA. You might want to consider the issue of supply chains.

[Logosone]

4 minutes ago, cantata said:

Don't be ridiculous. A total exclusion from the U.S. Market would be economically disastrous for the USA. You might want to consider the issue of supply chains.

Of course the US market will hurt with the trade war, nobody ever said it wouldn't.

 

However, the US can produce supply chains in Vietnam, Thailand, where ever it wants.

 

And it can buy cheap products wherever it wants, in a global over-supply market, where plenty of cheap production countries vye for buyers.

 

However, a seller like China has very limited huge markets to sell its fantastic production.

 

And don't think for a second that Trump is not capable of excluding China altogether. With the total ban on Huawei he should he has no concerns in that regard.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Logosone

[cantata]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Wow that's quite an intricate mathematical acrobatics routine you have to make there, but one question:

 

Why "Divide the number of urban chinese by the total number of Americans and you'll come up with a ratio 2.55 to 1. Multiply the average chinese disposable income figure of 21000  and multiply by 2.55 and you come up with a figure of $53,550, slightly higher than the average US per capita figure."

 

Looks like you're just desperately trying to imply that the urban chinese have equal or greater personal disposable income to Americans. Which is just not true.

 

Even if you exclude the huge rural population of China, the urban Chinese only have 42,359 yuan of personal disposable income.

 

Which is 6000 USD.  Compared to 50,000 USD in the US.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278698/annual-per-capita-income-of-households-in-china/#:~:text=In 2019%2C the annual per,rising at a high pace.

You don't understand the concept of PPP. Purchasing Power Parity. In the case of China, it means that you can buy, on average, 3.5 times as much stuff in china for the same amount of money as you can in the USA.

And there are 2.55 of those chinese consumers for every one American.

And as proof of the power of the Chinese market, I pointed out how crucial it is to German auto manufacturers and to American auto manufacturers. The Chinese purchase more autos yearly than do Americans.

[cantata]

Just now, Logosone said:

Of course the US market will hurt with the trade war, nobody ever said it wouldn't.

 

However, the US can produce supply chains in Vietnam, Thailand, where ever it wants.

 

And it can buy cheap products wherever it wants, in a global over-supply market, where plenty of cheap production countries vye for buyers.

 

However, a seller like China has very limited huge markets to sell its fantastic production.

First of all, do you think that supply chains can pop up by magic? All those chinese engineers and production specialists can also be produced in Vietnam, Thailand  virtually instantly?. And Vietnam is already experiencing shortages of workers to supply factories that have moved there. There just isn't enough population in those nations to supply the difference.

[JCauto]

16 hours ago, Damual Travesty said:

I will stop at the first line. I am a retired Navy CPO. I would be proud to have children in the navy. Unfortunately mine is prevented from joining.  You brought up family, you brought up honor. You a have been alowed unfortunately to make such a post. I don't know you. That is a good thing.

Good for you, quite unusual in my experience to have someone willing to walk the walk. Out of curiousity, why is your child not allowed to join the Navy?

I still don't see China having any hope of challenging the USA anywhere militarily.

[JensenZ]

On 7/16/2020 at 11:37 AM, sscc said:

 

 

Regardless of this new Security Law and whatever consequence,  the trend will continue as it has been for year/decade :

Mainland China is on the way up  ;  Hong Kong is on the way down. 

 

Regarding the currency,  HKD will continue to peg with USD at 7.7-7.8 HKD to $1 USD  in the near future.  However,  USD is going de-value and on the way down in the months ahead,  so HKD is going down hand-in-hand with USD.  

 

De-pegging currency exchange rate is VERY BIG issue whether it is good or bad move.  No way it is going to happen in a year or two and near future.

 

 

  

 

 

All currencies will move together as the entire world's economy is in bad shape. In other words they will more or less devalue in sync, so relative to one another they won't change much. They will all be worth less and buy less.

 

There's more reason for the EURO to devalue than the USD as Europe is in a much bigger financial mess, however it is FX traders' sentiment that drives the FX pairs, not real economics and it has been this way ever since the major fiat currencies began to float in 1973. Now traders decide what they are worth.  

[Logosone]

5 hours ago, cantata said:

You don't understand the concept of PPP. Purchasing Power Parity. In the case of China, it means that you can buy, on average, 3.5 times as much stuff in china for the same amount of money as you can in the USA.

And there are 2.55 of those chinese consumers for every one American.

And as proof of the power of the Chinese market, I pointed out how crucial it is to German auto manufacturers and to American auto manufacturers. The Chinese purchase more autos yearly than do Americans.

Because things are much cheaper in China, because people are a lot poorer and have a lot lower disposable income per person, 4000 dollars per person, 6000 if you take out the rural contingent. So basically companies would rather sell in the US and EU.

 

Okay for German luxury cars, absolutely, the world beating Mercedes Maybach GLS was only introduced in China at first, sure, the wealthy Chinese pay silly money for German cars. Okay that's true.  Yes the Chinese car market is important. You have a very rich top segment, but the breadth of the Chinese market is very thinly spread with purchasing power.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

3 hours ago, JensenZ said:

All currencies will move together as the entire world's economy is in bad shape. In other words they will more or less devalue in sync, so relative to one another they won't change much. They will all be worth less and buy less.

 

There's more reason for the EURO to devalue than the USD as Europe is in a much bigger financial mess, however it is FX traders' sentiment that drives the FX pairs, not real economics and it has been this way ever since the major fiat currencies began to float in 1973. Now traders decide what they are worth.  

You understand that currencies are traded in pairs? So if the USD/JPY goes up the dollar goes up but the Yen does not.

 

There's actually a lot more reason for the USD to devalue because the US is competing with China, who has devalued their currency. Indeed the White house considered this maneouvre for a while, they did that before, but for now decided against it. However, to help an ailing economy a devaluation of the currency is a tried and tested remedy.

 

Traders vary widely in their disparate view of the currencies, some go short, some go long, yes overall the biggest players decide, but they do so based on the way the real economies are doing or are perceived to be doing in the future.

[JensenZ]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

You understand that currencies are traded in pairs? So if the USD/JPY goes up the dollar goes up but the Yen does not.

 

There's actually a lot more reason for the USD to devalue because the US is competing with China, who has devalued their currency. Indeed the White house considered this maneouvre for a while, they did that before, but for now decided against it. However, to help an ailing economy a devaluation of the currency is a tried and tested remedy.

 

Traders vary widely in their disparate view of the currencies, some go short, some go long, yes overall the biggest players decide, but they do so based on the way the real economies are doing or are perceived to be doing in the future.

Read my reply again. I specifically mentioned FX trading and even FX pairs, so no education in this area is required. I trade them myself.

 

As I said, it's the sentiment of trader's that dictates where the price goes. Major economic events do create ripples in the price, but the USD will remain steady.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by JensenZ

[Logosone]

5 hours ago, cantata said:

First of all, do you think that supply chains can pop up by magic? All those chinese engineers and production specialists can also be produced in Vietnam, Thailand  virtually instantly?. And Vietnam is already experiencing shortages of workers to supply factories that have moved there. There just isn't enough population in those nations to supply the difference.

Who said instantly? It's already happening though. There's plenty of population in Indonesia.

[cantata]

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Because things are much cheaper in China, because people are a lot poorer and have a lot lower disposable income per person, 4000 dollars per person, 6000 if you take out the rural contingent. So basically companies would rather sell in the US and EU.

 

Okay for German luxury cars, absolutely, the world beating Mercedes Maybach GLS was only introduced in China at first, sure, the wealthy Chinese pay silly money for German cars. Okay that's true.  Yes the Chinese car market is important. You have a very rich top segment, but the breadth of the Chinese market is very thinly spread with purchasing power.

What are you on about? 

"New car sales in Europe, the biggest market for flagship German cars besides China, plummeted 76% in April, with sales in Germany, among the largest single car markets, crashing more than 61%."

https://www.dw.com/en/china-offers-hope-for-german-cars-after-stimulus-snub/a-53683919

Did you notice that China is a bigger market for German autos than is Europe? And those sales are all Maybachs? So you think that those auto companies place their hopes in Europe? They're doing a damned convincing job of pretending otherwise.

 

It seems you still don't get it about PPP. If you can purchase comparable goods for 29 cents or some multiple thereof in your country as can 1 dollar or an identical multiple thereof in the united states, then you aren't 12 or 13 times poorer but rather about 2.5 times poorer. And if there are 831 million of you vs. 325 million in the US...the aggregate purchase power of your cohort is actually slightly greater than that of the entire citizenry of the USA.  

  

Edited July 18, 2020 by cantata