Connect with us

Latest

News

America

China approves retaliatory tariffs worth $50 billion on US imported goods

Economic security, worldwide, is therefore much less certain as Trump pursues this path

Published

on

944 Views

Earlier this year, Trump announced tariffs against Chinese goods, which prompted retaliatory tariffs from Beijing.

Trump followed up China’s retaliation with even further punitive measures, which China then responded to before negotiations in Washington managed to cool the tensions down somewhat.

However, within a very brief time, Washington came back out with its tariffs against China, particularly relative to Chinese metals, in a similar fashion as was also being applied to other US trade partners with the pretext of reducing trade deficits which were perceived by the Trump administration as a threat to American national security, sparking outrage from US European, Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and Mexican trade partners, among others.

With the Trump administration’s renege on the trade wars truce which had just been hashed out, China is now responding with tariffs of its own worth $50 billion.

The South China Morning Post reports:

China’s Finance Ministry has imposed an additional 25 per cent tariff on some US$50 billion of US imports and said the US has invalidated recent high-level talks aimed at averting a trade war

China has hit back at US President Donald Trump after he slapped punitive tariffs on Chinese goods on Friday, announcing that it would place its own additional 25 per cent tariffs on 659 US imports worth a total of US$50 billion.

Tariffs on about US$34 billion of those products will start on July 6, and be applied to soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, sorghum, beef, pork, poultry, fish, dairy products, nuts and vegetables, autos and aquatic products, China’s finance and commerce ministries said.

In addition, China said Trump’s move invalidated recent high-level negotiations aimed at averting a trade war.

“All the previous agreements reached through talks will become invalid,” the Ministry of Commerce said in the statement. “China doesn’t want to engage in a trade war, but in face of the shortsighted acts from the US side … China is forced to take strong and forceful measures to hit back,” it said.

The effective date of the tariffs on the remaining US$16 billion of American goods will be announced later, the commerce ministry said. Among those items are crude oil, natural gas, coal and some refined oil products.

The list of 659 US goods was longer than a preliminary list of 106 products published by the Chinese commerce ministry in April, although their remained unchanged at US$50 billion. Aircraft, which were previously included, were not on the revised list.

China’s response came on Friday afternoon, hours after Trump confirmed his plan to slap punitive tariffs on Chinese products that “contain industrially significant technologies”. The move is part of his effort to close a bilateral trade gap and force Beijing to change the way it acquires US technology.

The US will put a 25 per cent tariff on US$50 billion worth of annual imports from China, including “goods related to China’s Made in China 2025 strategic plan to dominate the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the United States and many other countries”, Trump said in an official White House statement.

Made in China 2025 refers to Beijing’s industrial policy of subsidising domestic companies developing strategic advanced technologies, including robotics and artificial intelligence.

China has “long been engaging in several unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology. These practices … harm our economic and national security and deepen our already massive trade imbalance with China,” Trump said.

US stocks retreated on Friday amid the countries’ competing announcements, with major indices in the red the entire session, although they closed above their session lows.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.3 per cent to end the week at 25,090.48. The broad-based S&P 500 slipped 0.1 per cent to close at 2,779.42, and the tech-rich Nasdaq Composite index lost 0.2 per cent to 7,746.38, retreating from Thursday’s record.

Large multinationals active in China were among the worst performers in the Dow, with Caterpillar losing 2 per cent and Boeing and General Electric both falling more than 1 per cent.

Petroleum-linked shares also tumbled on a pullback in oil prices due in part to the trade discord. Chevron fell 2 per cent, Halliburton 2.4 per cent and ConocoPhillips 4.1 per cent.

Trump’s announcement on Friday follows up on pledges he has made since he campaigned in 2016 to address the long-running US trade deficit with China.

That gap rose to a record US$375 billion last year and amounted to US$119 billion in the first four months of 2018, according to US government data.

Trump vowed to fight any retaliation by China – be it tariffs, non-tariff barriers or “punitive actions against American exporters or American companies operating in China” – with additional tariffs, raising the possibility of an all-out trade war.

“The Trump administration is now committed to tariffs on US$50 billion of imports from China, and China has signalled that it will retaliate on US$50 billion of US exports,” David Dollar, a China expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, told the South China Morning Post.

“The question that no one can answer right now is whether Trump will then escalate into a full-blown trade war. It is hard to see either side backing down in the near future.”

Trump has bipartisan support among lawmakers to take measures to curtail acquisition of US technology by Chinese interests, as many of them see such transfers as strengthening China’s military capabilities.

Some technology sought by Chinese investors has military applications, the US Defence Department warned in a report published last year.

The Trump administration’s tactics are bumping up against Beijing’s overarching economic ambitions.

“One of the things that [Chinese President] Xi Jinping is focused on is the transformation [of his country] from the manufacturing centre of the world to the innovation centre of the world,” Elizabeth Economy, director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a discussion at the Wharton Global Forum on Thursday.

“They’re using subsidies to encourage Chinese firms and give them an advantage,” she said. Moreover, “a number of restrictions or regulations … make it difficult for foreign companies to compete” in China, Economy said.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has led investigations into the trade and investment practices Trump has targeted.

A nearly 200-page report from the trade representative’s office published in March alleges, among other things, that these policies “deprive US companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations with Chinese companies and undermine US companies’ control over their technology in China”.

Still, some in the US corporate sector are condemning Trump’s decision to address trade imbalances and investment restrictions through unilateral tariff measures.

“We urge both governments to sit down and negotiate a solution to these important issues. American companies want solutions, not sanctions,” US-China Business Council (USCBC) President John Frisbie said in a statement.

“Tariffs will not solve these problems, but will harm American economic interests and jobs. Rather than inflicting damage on ourselves, we should be seeking ways to address the problems with China,” he said.

“Pursuing pragmatic outcomes in coordination with other like-minded trading partners is a better approach than going it alone and exposing American workers, farmers and companies to retaliation.”

Some analysts played down the urgency of the latest phase in US-China trade tensions, pointing out that both sides have returned to dialogue despite regular rhetorical flare-ups.

“Clearly there’s a lot of ups and downs, and both sides seem to be OK with that,” Bart Oosterveld, director of the Washington-based Atlantic Council’s Global Business and Economics Programme, told the Post.

“They do seem to get past pretty rough statements made against each other and then get back to the table again.”

Oosterveld said he expected the parties would strike an agreement that could halt the confrontation “probably at some point this year”.

Allowing the trade battle to continue would be “very costly” over time for “both economies and for consumers in both economies”, the director said. “In the meantime, we may see some further escalations.”

Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute, another Washington-based think tank, agreed.

“This is far too small a step to lead to a serious trade conflict,” Scissors told the Post.

“I believe the initial tariffs will go into effect July 6. However, the second set of tariffs allows time for negotiations, which could lead to the initial tariffs being lifted after only a few months.”

The White House announcement on Friday did not say when the US tariffs would take effect.

Trump is pushing forward on his agenda to even things out with America’s trade partners, regardless of the consequences, under the assumption that he can just throw America’s economic weight around in an aggressive manner while expecting that respect for America alone will serve as enough of a deterrent against meaningful consequences adversely impacting America’s political and economic hegemony, as well as its own domestic well being.

Not only is China broadening its trade horizons with an ever growing list of markets, but so too is Europe.

Mexico, too, is looking for other suppliers from which to purchase certain agricultural goods in a bid to decrease the detrimental effect of an escalating trade conflict with America.

Economic security, worldwide, is therefore much less certain as Trump pursues this path, and the trade arrangements that have brought America, China, Europe, and North America to their respective places in the global economy are changing in very radical ways, often in ways that don’t respect America’s position. Meaning, therefore, that Trump’s policies, rather than putting America first, are, in effect, putting America last.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
4 Comments

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Rastislav Veľká MoravaJNDillardghartwellDaisy Adler Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rastislav Veľká Morava
Guest
Rastislav Veľká Morava

It is time to END Globalism, US Led, China Led, EU Led, or any other.

JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

What is to keep China from simply shifting its trade to other, non US markets, as Russia has done and Iran is doing with the US and EU?

ghartwell
Guest

Sounds like a set up to increase cooperation, trade and development in other than American countries to their benefit like sanctions benefited the Russian economy. Punish other and punish yourself. Break cooperation with the world and the world leaves you behind.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Latest News:
China “threatened to impose tariffs on US energy products in response to $50 billion in tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump. Such tariffs would inhibit Chinese refiners from buying US crude imports, potentially crashing US energy markets and hitting the fossil fuel industry where it hurts the most…
China imports approximately 363,000 barrels of US crude oil daily. The country also imports about 200,000 barrels a day of other petroleum products” https://sputniknews.com/world/201806171065497038-china-crude-oil-tariff-US-suprise/

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending