Cramer says ‘tariffs worked,’ Trump’s strategy forced China to agree to a trade deal

WSJ says we came through the trade war with barely a scratch. MAGA! Go Trump, go Trumpers!

 

Geez, Moonglow, you're about as Negative Nancy as they come... I've been watching the stock market for a few years now and they don't begin to trend up or down unless they know something. One of the biggest factors in its rise, and sometimes fall, has been the China Trade Deal.

 

Go Orange Man! Go Orange Man! MAGA!

 

I dunno, same reason the leftist think we do I guess ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

I have not seen that from your posts at all about China.

And it also puts China on a path to buy 200 billion in American goods. Did you think the treaty would have to be one sided to be a success?

And it only lowered the tariffs not eliminated them.

Based on what? clairvoyance?

Its pretty clear you haven't read what the treaty entails. It goes far beyond your generalizations.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-details-factbox-idUSKBN1YH2IL


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The deal includes stronger Chinese legal protections for patents, trademarks, copyrights, including improved criminal and civil procedures to combat online infringement, pirated and counterfeit goods.

The deal contains commitments by China to follow through on previous pledges to eliminate any pressure for foreign companies to transfer technology to Chinese firms as a condition of market access, licensing or administrative approvals and to eliminate any government advantages for such transfers.

China also agreed to refrain from directly supporting outbound investment aimed at acquiring foreign technology to meet its industrial plans — transactions already restricted by stronger U.S. security reviews.


CURRENCY
The currency agreement contains pledges by China to refrain from competitive currency devaluations and to not target its exchange rate for a trade advantage — language that China has accepted for years as part of its commitments to the Group of 20 major economies.

The deal subjects any violations of currency commitments to the agreement’s enforcement mechanism, under which they could incur U.S. tariffs.

A senior Trump administration official said the currency agreement is based on provisions in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement trade deal, which require the three countries to disclose monthly data on international reserve balances and intervention in foreign exchange markets, along with quarterly balance-of-payments data and other public reporting to the International Monetary Fund.

ENFORCEMENT
Under dispute resolution is an arrangement allowing parties to resolve differences over how the deal is implemented through bilateral consultations, starting at the working level and escalating to top-level officials. If these consultations do not resolve disputes, there is a process for imposing tariffs or other penalties.

Lighthizer told reporters the United States expected neither side would retaliate if appropriate action was taken as part of the process and following “consultation in good faith.”


CHINA FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. officials said the deal includes improved access to China’s financial services market for U.S. companies, including in banking, insurance, securities and credit rating services. It aims to address a number of longstanding U.S. complaints about investment barriers in the sector including foreign equity limitations and discriminatory regulatory requirements.

China, which has pledged for years to open up its financial services sector to more foreign competition, said the deal would boost imports of financial services from the United States.

That would be much more believable if Trump's thoughts on China were not one of his key campaign promises and reiterated over and over again.

You may have well just said you were curious about Trump's immigration stance. Its never been a secret what his goal was with China so why the playacting?

 

Then you haven't been paying attention. China is a terrible state actor who's committing genocidal crimes against its Uighur population. I think they are insidiously injecting their influence into African nations through economic loans that chain these countries to their sphere of influence. I don't believe they have western nations best interests at heart and am quite happy to see any efforts to reduce their global influence.

No successful treaty is one sided. The whole point is mutual exchange.

I'm simply skeptical of whether or not this is a good thing and worth all the effort and cost.

I know what Trump has said. I was asking what Lord Helmet thought. Simple as that. Sorry, there is no underlying plot.

And no, not clairvoyance, just an understanding of what they are like and an overall distrust.

 

~ China is an evil empire and friend to nobody. Their interests are selfish and dictatorial . The world is much better off if the USA remains the largest most influential economy and maintains the most powerful military.
Just the facts as I see them ...

 

Go Hong Kong! Go Taiwan! Go Hong Kong! May all those Communists get snapped and go to hell.

 

Kramer always needed another sound effect for the giant sucking sound your money made as it dwindled into nothingness if you followed his investment advice. If he thinks Trump is triumphing over China I'm dusting off my course on Mandarin

 

LOL..

I heard it described today as Trump is the guy that lit your curtains on fire, but wants you to thank him for putting them out.

 

I very much agree. The problem is we are not going to retain our paramount position by taxing ourselves to subsidize those Americans who produce shoddy goods while shutting ourselves out of foreign markets which the Chinese will eagerly step right into.

Nose, meet face.

We destroyed the Soviet Union by exploiting their paranoia in defense. Now the Chinese are doing that to us in trade.

 

Is it? How is the trade deficit? Is it solved? Doubt it.

 

I do not see it either. 2 years of trade war, others moved in, replaced the US. The tariffs are still there
Which products will the US sell, arg, ok, cars besides Teslar, none.
Teslar got its own deal, did not have to take any Chinese on board.
Chip technology, maybe, but the Chinese are rather good at that.
200 billion is quiet a large sum, were is it supposed to come from, its a promise and nothing more. If the US had that ability and the quality products, why does it have every were trade deficits.
I would love to have anybody point out to me which industrial products the US should and can export to China.

 

I've been paying attention to your posts Cubed and I see your defense of China Cubed despite your current claims in your posts

- of the 13% of companies surveyed who are leaving China, only 3% say they will re-locate back to the US.
https://www.axios.com/us-companies-...ays-bf443362-03fd-4292-ba79-223fc79fe2b2.html

----

So with these facts in mind - Plus the growing affects to the US Economy thanks to China's stoppage of Agricultural Imports from the US - Is having a game of 'kick each other in the nuts repeatedly until one side falls over' really the best approach?


What? They have been a successful economy for 30 years. The first 15 were under a complete and utterly Central Plan. That was the first bit of the rise. Then in 93 they opened themselves up to some Market Reforms yet still kept State Run monopolies in a few industries, then in 05 they started back to a more Centrally Planned version under Xi. It wasn't until the Tariff war with the US that they have started to really falter.


Not at all. I think it'll cost you outright, but I think it's the hilarious lack of honestly around it that is both sad and hilarious at the same time.

China Bad. I know, i'll slap steel/aluminum tariffs on them.


So once again we have what you claim to say vs what you have actually said.

Then stop pretending the only way for you to consider Trump successful is by that standard.

Based on what? And what would you do differently? How would you stop the intellectual theft and unfair tariffs? For someone who pretends to care you are very short on ideas while attacking Trump for producing some.




I know what Trump has said. I was asking what Lord Helmet thought. Simple as that. Sorry, there is no underlying plot.

And no, not clairvoyance, just an understanding of what they are like and an overall distrust.[/QUOTE]

I see you need to be reminded of your own words. He said this treaty was a step in the right direction to which you responded:

What's the end game of this? 100% Chinese goods?

No one has ever suggested that was the final outcome. Not Lord Helmet and certainly not Trump so this pretend game that you are "curious" by offering an end game no one has supported is disingenuous at best and you know it.

 

I see you need to be reminded of your own words. He said this treaty was a step in the right direction to which you responded:

What's the end game of this? 100% Chinese goods?

No one has ever suggested that was the final outcome. Not Lord Helmet and certainly not Trump so this pretend game that you are "curious" by offering an end game no one has supported is disingenuous at best and you know it.[/QUOTE]

What did Trump accomplish, nothing. While he engaged in this trade war with tariffs, everybody moved in, from the Europeans to the South Americans, the cut real deals with China, long time contracts.
Let me remind you the tariffs are not gone, from both sides, just the next escalation has been stopped. US farmers are still competing with a tariff burden, which the rest of the world does not have.

Yes it is good that China and US have slowed down the trade war. But lets not forget its a US war, started by the US and the trade deficit just kept on growing.
Its an armistice, nothing more.

 

funny how you selectively quote (and even remove part of one of those posts. Why not just hotlink to the post rather then copying and pasting?) or even outright miss other posts

Just because I can recognize the reality of how the Chinese economy works, and how a tariff war wasn't and isn't the best way to deal with them doesn't automatically mean I support them in anyway.

He was successful, if the standard by which one measured success is to more integrate the US and the Chinese markets. I was simply under the impression that the end-goal was to limit Chinese inroads into the US and western economies, shift production to the US side and become less dependent on Chinese goods.

Well for starters, I would have not pulled out of the TPP. Then, I would ban chinese Govt technology firms (like Huewei) from security infrastructure, and then basically make it very very difficult for Chinese nationals to hold positions in the Federal Govt that could expose sensitive secrets and the like.

Private companies, is much more difficult without heavy handed govt intervention. That said, if they don't take the time to guard against such practices, then that would be more their own fault. The Fed Govt can only really do what is necessary to protect itself.

lol I proffered a potential endgame. I never suggested anyone else suggested it (nice strawman), but was simply taking the current situation to it's logical endpoint. There are only 3 outcomes, 100% chinese goods, 0% chinese goods, or a mixture. And really, he can defend himself if he has an issue with my words.