Connect with us

Latest

News

America

Trump’s trade war a ‘symptom of paranoid delusions’

Trump’s protectionism is therefore protecting consumers and investors from their confidence in the stability of the market

Published

on

518 Views

US president Donald Trump initiated, then backed off, then resumed, an ongoing trade war with China over its alleged theft of technology and intellectual property, as well as the trade deficit between China and the US. In Trump’s mind, applying pressure on the Chinese through economic tariffs can spur the Chinese to be more ‘fair’.

Trump doesn’t seem to understand, however, that much of what Americans buy is manufactured in China and then exported to America, meaning that Trump’s ‘pressure campaign’ stands to increase the cost of doing business and therefore increase the cost of many of the products which his own constituents purchase.

For this reason, some Chinese media describes Trump’s brand of protectionism as a form of ‘paranoid delusions’, which will come back to bite hits own constituents. Trump’s protectionism is therefore protecting consumers and investors from their confidence in the stability of the market, and in the purchasing power of the USD, of which it will take more to purchase goods which Americans buy and which are largely Chinese produced.

Reuters reports:

BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) – U.S. protectionism is self-defeating and a “symptom of paranoid delusions” that must not distract China from its path to modernization, Chinese media said on Friday as Beijing kept up with its war of words with Washington while markets wilted.

President Donald Trump threatened on Monday to hit $200 billion of Chinese imports with 10 percent tariffs if China retaliates against his previous targeting of $50 billion in imports.

Investor fears of a full-blown trade war have weighed on markets, including Chinese shares, which posted their worst weekly loss since early February. Even ordinary Chinese people aired their unhappiness on social media.

China’s commerce ministry accused the United States on Thursday of being “capricious” over trade issues and warned that the interests of U.S. workers and farmers would ultimately be hurt, vowing to hit back with “quantitative” and “qualitative” measures.

The official China Daily said in an editorial the United States had failed to understand that the business it does with China supported millions of American jobs and that the U.S. approach was self-defeating.

The English-language newspaper cited research by the Rhodium Group saying Chinese investment in the United States declined 92 percent to $1.8 billion in the first five months of the year, its lowest level in seven years.

“The woes the administration is inflicting on Chinese companies do not simply translate into boons for U.S. enterprises and the U.S. economy,” it said in an editorial headlined “Protectionism symptom of paranoid delusions”.

“The fast-shrinking Chinese investment in the U.S. reflects the damage being done to China-U.S.-trade relations … by the trade crusade of Trump and his trade hawks,” it said.

The U.S. administration on Tuesday issued a report about how Chinese policies, and what it described as China’s economic aggression, were threatening the technologies and intellectual property of not just the United States but of the world.

While the White House report did not go beyond what the U.S. has said previously – that China engages in theft of technologies and intellectual property (IP) – it did not help to soothe tension. China has repeatedly denied accusations of IP theft.

U.S. FIRMS
The 30-stock Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped for an eighth consecutive session on Thursday as shares including Caterpillar Inc and Boeing Co wilted.

Big U.S. manufacturers and automakers were also under pressure after Germany’s Daimler cut its 2018 profit forecast and BMW said it was looking at “strategic options” due to the Sino-U.S. trade war.

Shares of Apple Inc, whose iPhones are assembled in China by Foxconn, also declined.

Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou said on Friday the U.S.-China trade war was the Taiwan company’s biggest challenge.

“What they are fighting is not really a trade war, it’s a tech war. A tech war is also a manufacturing war,” Gou said.

A Sino-U.S. trade war could disrupt supply chains for the technology and auto industries – sectors heavily reliant on outsourced components such as those supplied by Foxconn – and derail growth for the global economy, analysts say.

Uncertainty over how the tariff war would unfold in the near term is also starting to move commercial decisions in the energy sector.

Industry sources told Reuters that Chinese oil buyers will keep taking crude from the United States through September, but plan to cut future purchases to avoid a likely import tariff.

China has put U.S. energy products including crude and refined products on lists of goods that it will hit with import taxes. But no activation date has been specified for this cluster of products yet.

‘TUMBLING’ INDEX
Shares in Shanghai dropped 4.4 percent for the week, while China’s blue-chip CSI300 index fell 3.8 percent.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index shed 3.2 percent for the week, its poorest weekly showing since late March.

The share losses have prompted sarcastic posts in China’s social media, while others compared the falling stocks to China’s 2015 market crash.

“The tumbling Shanghai Composite index must be China’s so-called quantitative and qualitative counter-measures,” one social media user mused.

Not helping sentiment, the yuan extended its decline against the dollar this week, falling to its lowest in more than five months on Friday.

“Chinese exports are now contained, domestic demand has long been weighed by soaring home prices, and the yuan will depreciate, so everyone, hurry up and convert to U.S. dollars,” one social media user quipped.

The Global Times, a tabloid published by the ruling Communist Party’s official People’s Daily, said in an editorial China needed to be realistic about how it could handle the United States and look at other strategies.

“The U.S. has the upper hand over China in technology, defense and international influence, and therefore the country will continue to have a strategic initiative over Beijing for the foreseeable future,” it said.

“As long as China remains clear-minded in strategy, level-headed in its U.S. policy, and avoids a full-fledged geopolitical competition or a strategic clash against the U.S., China will be able to withstand U.S. pressure. In other words, China should focus on its domestic affairs.”

China should keep promoting its own economic development and ensure its growth exceeds that of the United States in both quantity and quality, the paper said.

“As long as China can effectively utilize its successful policies and experiences accumulated since the reform and opening up, and avoid subversive mistakes, the country will see robust momentum for development,” the Global Times said.

China got its economic boom largely because of American corporations’ desire to decrease their expenses by conducting their production in an environment of relaxed regulations and depressed wages, which is a large part of what China has to offer American firms.

Trump’s tariffs, therefore, aren’t as much of a pressure applied to the Chinese as it is to American firms producing their goods in China and shipping them back to America to be sold to the American consumer.

These tariffs increase the expenses which these corporations will bear, which, by extension, the American consumer will bear. Ergo, Trump’s pressure campaign, via tariffs and eliminated international trade participation agreements, isn’t enough to incentivize those companies to return their production to America, at least not as long as it’s cheaper to produce their products elsewhere and as long as they can pass the expense of Trump’s tariffs on to the consumer. In the end, Trump is damaging a world market system which America built to benefit America, and America will realize the effects of market pressures applied by the president who they elected to relieve their economic concerns.

 

 

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

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
DenLilleAbeJackJohn MasonAndré De KoningDidierF Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
DenLilleAbe
Guest
DenLilleAbe

320 million American citizens cant be wrong! They put him the the WH. Everything else is fake news. Jobs will return in millions, healthcare will be free and all the nasty Mexicans and Canadians will have to go home, as will the Chinese and Indians and some other ones too.
Everything will be fine!
Some people on this earth is in for a rude awakening, hehe!

Jack
Guest
Jack

A load of cobblers. He is totally right and knows exactly what should be done to revers the incredibly dreadful situation inherited after previous administration.

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

In psychopathology and psycho-dynamic theory we call it “paranoid defensiveness”, not really “delusion” (which implies psychosis). Trump uses narcissistic psychic defenses, but indeed it always leads to trouble for the person and those who suffer the impact of their power as it is all self-defeating rather than constructiveness. On the other hand, he also has a healthier side and this might come through in terms of his wish to make less war and look for peaceful solutions. He also has the strength to counter the deep state for which one would need sufficient gratification, so that is useful in the… Read more »

John Mason
Guest
John Mason

US is asking for it so why doesn’t Russia or China or whoever do the world a favour and put that useless nation out of its’ misery. May as well do it now, going to happen sooner or later but the sooner the better. No one wants, cares or even likes the US and they won’t be missed.

DidierF
Guest
DidierF

The free market system failed the US.

Terry Ross
Guest
Terry Ross

US tariff policy , by needlessly increasing the imported price to US consumers of US goods produced in China, bears some similarity to the nonsensical decision of Ukrainians to needlessly hike the cost of Russian gas by buying it from reselling countries.

Bill Spence
Guest
Bill Spence

Trump cannot direct corporations to start producing the products from China that he wants to stop. Trump must restart US manufacturing but he lacks power. The US political system is a derelict in need of rebirth owing to the archaic Constitution.

Tariffs will not do the job.

Tommy Jensen
Guest
Tommy Jensen

As American I need to tell you guys the party is over. The days you could suck America dry is finished. Whining, howling and barking, yes we know it hurts when you have to pay for what you filled in your basket.

Vince Dhimos
Guest
Vince Dhimos

And the tragedy is that none of this trade war is based on economics, it is all politics: http://www.newsilkstrategies.com/news–analysis/todays-america-politics-trumps-economics

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

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

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

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

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

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