Bitcoin is actually infinite you just keep going down decimal places as its value increases. But you are right that the banking elitist and world governments would do whatever possible to prevent such a move by the worlds populace. They are never giving up their power and control to Bitcoin even if that means being under the boot of the US dollar.
Global weakness will hurt the US economy as well. It's already started to happen. You forget how the stock market has reacted to any negative news concerning China or parts of Europe since 2009. Tariffs have never worked in the past. This time is different ? I don't think you understand how everything links together in the world. In 2009, GM and Chrysler were by normal definitions insolvent. Out of business, every one go home you don't have a job anymore. So the taxpayers of the US and to a lesser degree Canada bailed them out. Now you can pretend that shutting down GM and Chrysler doesn't impact on the all powerful nation of the US, but I think it does. Under a full trade war, GM and Chrysler will shrink down considerably or they will become insolvent. So a better outcome then 2009, but a rough outcome for many Americans regardless.
From my perspective, both Trump and Xi really over-promised on this trade war issue. That's my takeaway. Globalization is here and it's more powerful than political rhetoric. Having said that, my sense is that China's $460B annual surplus with the United States (and the attendant dilemma of how TF to wash that many dollars) puts the US in a better position. I don't see US Soybeans going much lower - the arbitrage differential is too favorable against the Brazilian crop.
I never said it wouldn't hurt the US economy. I said it would hurt the US economy less in relation to its economic war competitors. Of course the US economy will also suffer.
Trump has no discernible planning abilities he's a short term kind of guy who ran several large businesses into the ground long run. It is foolish to think he has a plan he just reacts on a daily or maybe weekly basis. He has not surrounded himself with suitable expertise to cover his weaknesses; it just seems like celebrity/image and grandstanding most of the time. What he does have skills in is marketing and leveraging his projects based on large debt loads. So no surprise he's adding to the federal debt to create short term positives; I am not sure if your nation can afford what he is doing guess we'll find out.
The key is "Trump administration". It is never the President who directs the big policy movements of the United States, it is always the people behind him who are running their own agendas and influence the US President to act in a certain way. Like all presidents the US has had in recent history, Trump may think he is pulling the levers, but he isn't. It is a group of people behind closed doors calling the shots and directing this economic war. I have no idea who these people are, what their real motives are, or if they have any capacity to correctly assess what the likely outcomes will be. All I can do is try to take advantage of what I think will be happening during this war to protect my own assets.
Reply is inline below: "bone, post: 4708756, member: 10535"]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/world/asia/china-trade-war-trump-xi-jinping-.html Trump’s Trade War Is Rattling China’s Leaders Aug. 14, 2018 BEIJING — China’s leaders have sought to project confidence in the face of President Trump’s tariffs and trade threats. But as it becomes clear that a protracted trade war with the United States may be unavoidable, there are growing signs of unease inside the Communist political establishment. A protracted trade war is not in anyone's best interest and can be avoided by addressing inequities of past trade treaties. In recent days, officials from the Commerce Ministry, the police and other agencies have summoned exporters to ask about plans to lay off workers or shift supply chains to other countries. There are certainly some opportunities in new trade relationships with other countries, but the US consumer with its heavy DISCRETIONARY spending is the great prize. With stocks slumping into bear territory and the currency dropping 9 percent against the dollar since mid-April, censors have been deleting a torrent of criticism online, some of it directed at President Xi Jinping’s leadership. China, emerging markets, and base resources have been taking a beating relative to the US stock market. This is a short to medium term indication the US is "winning" the trade war so far. However, if the US loses low(not lowest cost, but high volume) cost Chinese production, US consumers will have to pay more for goods. Basic supply and demand says quantity of goods demanded will drop when prices rise. Especially descretionary spending. Less demand for goods means less jobs needed for manufacturing, less basic resources needed so less mining jobs, and less jobs means consumer less spending for other goods. A long term trade war will ultimately effect everyone. With high Government, Business, and consumer debt loads, severe financial crises are inevitable. Combined with unfavorable demographics in most developed countries and you are looking at a perfect economic storm. Even in the 1930's in the US, debt levels were much lower and the population was much more self-reliant. State news outlets, by contrast, have sought to promote the official line, with the authorities restricting the use of the phrase “trade war.” Still, policy disputes over how to bolster the economy have at times spilled into the open, with the state media sometimes coming under attack for boasting about China’s economic strengths. If the trade war escalates — and Mr. Trump has shown no sign of backing down — some worry that the public’s faith in the economy could be shaken, exposing the nation to much more serious problems than a drop in exports. New economic data on Tuesday showed slower growth in investment and consumer spending, and there are fears that the financial crisis in Turkey could spread. China currently has the problem of overbuilt infrastructure such as "ghost" cities, ghost airports, and ghost malls. There were China growth concerns before the current trade war. It could be said a significant amount of Chinese growth has been "manufactured". China’s leaders have argued that they can outlast Mr. Trump in a trade standoff. Their authoritarian system can stifle dissent and quickly redirect resources, and they expect Washington to be gridlocked and come under pressure from voters feeling the pain of trade disruptions. Based on previous trade agreements with the US, China's leaders were correct in taking a hard line in trade negotiations. The US media created the pressure of high expectations on those involved in trade negotiations and we would try to get a trade deal done in a single meeting! This created a serious negotiating disadvantage for the US. Trump has shown he is approachable. Although the US media will portray any offer to negotiate as weakness and characterize it as the other side "blinking", there are over-riding practical things to consider. The US has the moral authority of persuing a fair trade agreement. China has the leadership obligation to its people to persue the economic security of a reasonable trade agreement with the US. But the Communist Party is vulnerable in its own way. It needs growth to justify its monopoly on power and is obsessed with preventing social instability. Mr. Xi’s strongman grip may be hindering effective policymaking, as officials fail to pass on bad news, defer decisions to him and rigidly carry out his orders, for better or worse. Xi has played his hand well, but so has Trump to this point. Now that it is obvious the US leadership is unyielding on this issue, Chinese leadership needs to adjust to this reality and be willing to negotiate a trade agreement that may not have everthing they want, as may have been seen in other agreements, and make a workable deal. A less than "perfect" trade agreement is much better than no agreement. Beijing has already had to shift course once, edging away from threats to match American tariffs dollar for dollar. Confronting the possibility that the tariffs may remain for months or years and that Chinese access to the American market could tighten further, Mr. Xi does not appear to have settled on a strategy for limiting the damage or for persuading Mr. Trump to negotiate a deal. The lastest Chinese round of tariffs did seem to be a "token" response to US broad based tariffs and Chinese rhetoric towards the US has seemed constrained. It is time for XI to contact Trump and offer to negotiate a reasonable trade deal. Trump has shown that he is responsive to offers to talk as shown with Kim and Megyn Kelly. XI does not want to wait too long however, as the tariffs will increasingly start to weigh on the global economy. Some inside the government have argued China should be more aggressive and put Mr. Trump on the defensive, while others have proposed concessions to address American complaints, said Chen Dingding, a professor of international relations at Jinan University in the southern city of Guangzhou. He said the debate was “a healthy development” because it would “inform the public and make policymakers better.” Now we're talking. Others said it reflects indecision or political weakness on the part of Mr. Xi, who seemed unassailable in March when the Communist leadership abolished the presidential term limit. Xi is practical and is likely to persue a resolution to the trade rift with the US at some point. Chinese leadership tends to think long term and the prospect of an extended trade war and the severe and long term economic damage as well as internal political and geopolitical stress that normally develops in these conditions will likely convince Xi that cooperation with the US has the highest return over all other possibilities. “All of this coming together suggests Xi’s grip on authority has been loosened,” said Willy Wo-lap Lam, a longtime observer of Chinese politics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “He’s unable to fill his function as the final arbiter who settles differences among his closest advisers.” It is unlikely Mr. Xi’s position is in any jeopardy. But the trade dispute, along with a scandal over tainted vaccines and protests over failed investments, have already emboldened some critics of his sweeping centralization of power. “The recent Sino-American trade war has, in particular, revealed underlying weaknesses and the soft underbelly of the system,” wrote Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, in a denunciation of Mr. Xi’s hard-line policies that was shared widely despite censorship. “All of this has only served to exacerbate a widespread sense of insecurity in society at large.” In public, the leadership has argued that China can weather the trade war with ease. A widely circulated study by economists at Tsinghua University estimated that the tariffs imposed so far and those threatened would trim only 0.3 percentage points from China’s growth rate, which has been running at a robust 6.7 percent. A linear analysis grossly understates the long term affect of a trade war. A long term trade war will create a negative feedback loop in the global economy. Remember, we also have serious demographic and debt issues to deal with. Trying to inflate may cause resource prices to skyrocket on speculative demand and could cause a currency crises, increasing costs further, thus reducing demand of goods and services even more. Even so, the government last month requested that dozens of research institutes and universities each submit analyses on how different regions and industrial sectors would be affected if the trade war worsened and what the impact would be on unemployment and the financial markets. Or look at history and talk to a non partisan and knowledgeable economist. China sold roughly $500 billion worth of goods to the United States last year, accounting for nearly a quarter of its total exports and about 4 percent of national economic production. If the United States imposes tariffs on all Chinese goods, even pessimistic Chinese economists contend the country might suffer only a 1 percent drop of output from lost exports. China so dominates some industries, such as smartphone manufacturing, that tariffs may not do much damage. In other industries, China might lose business to rivals like South Korea but find opportunities to export its goods to other markets. They have no idea the ultimate economic severity that an extended trade war will bring. This is a dangerous lack of perception. The people who believe this may want to look at the financial markets for guidance, especially natural resource prices and the effect on both the micro and macro scale. For example, they may want to study the Brazilian sugar and soybean business environment right now and consider the driving forces behind it. While factories that make price-sensitive electronics and other electrical products are already beginning to lose orders, China is so competitive across so many sectors that exports to the United States are actually still rising despite the relatively limited tariffs that have taken effect. The US tends to lead in technology and has abundant and relatively cheap land. It is not in China's best interest to see the US become more self reliant on domestic manufacturing. Trump's has reduced the burden of taxes and regulations on US based businesses, making investment in the US more attractive. In addition, the mere perception that the political leadership in the US is business friendly should encourage more entrepreneurs to start or expand their businesses here. The worst case for China, however, is that the trade war undermines economic confidence. The nation’s housing market teeters on a mountain of debt, and low-interest loans from state banks have built overcapacity in many industries. The worry is that prolonged trade tensions could cause money to rush out of China despite currency controls and prompt much bigger financial and economic troubles. Building more "ghost" projects is merely treating a symptom and is certainly no cure. Censors have quashed discussion of such scenarios. There also has been almost no news coverage of the substance of American complaints about China’s trade practices. Instead, the state news media have been ordered to stop mentioning Made in China 2025, the industrial plan to transform the country into a high-tech superpower that Washington has criticized as unfair and predatory. To the extent there has been finger-pointing in the establishment, the focus appears to be less on China’s trade practices than on its propaganda message. Some analysts have argued that the trade war could have been avoided if Beijing had refrained from triumphalist rhetoric about China’s rise as a global power. That rhetoric is closely associated with Mr. Xi himself. The rhetoric the world needs right now involves the word "cooperation". Each country has its perception of its own national interests. This can conflict with other countries goals. Ultimately, we need to find solutions that do not involve war. War between major powers will have the worst possible return of almost any other choice. “There’s a lot of second-guessing about whether the great leader played his cards right,” said Jerome Cohen, faculty director of the United States-Asia Law Institute at New York University. As mentioned earlier, Xi has done fine up to this point. Now he needs to adjust to the new geopolitical realities before him. A group of alumni from Tsinghua, one of China’s most prestigious universities, recently circulated a petition calling for the dismissal of a well-known economist on the faculty who is an ardent defender of Mr. Xi’s policies. They accused the scholar, Hu Angang, of misleading the leadership by arguing last year that China had already surpassed the United States as an economic and technological power. The petition appeared weeks after a series of articles in the official People’s Daily newspaper mocked scholars and pundits making similar boasts about China’s strength. “A slowing economy and friction with the United States provides an opportunity for people to push back,” said Trey McArver, a partner with Trivium China, a research consultancy in Beijing and London. As the trade dispute festers, Chinese business leaders have been circumspect, saying almost nothing about it publicly for fear of angering Beijing. It is clear, though, that they and government officials were caught off guard. “Outside of government negotiators, few people took this possibility very seriously until July 6,” said Yu Yongding, a prominent economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, referring to the date when tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese goods took effect. Scott Kennedy, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the assumption that Beijing could avoid a trade war “suffused every conversation” he had with officials earlier this year. “They were wrong, and they are smarting over that, trying to find north and recalibrate,” he said. Tensions inside the government flared into the open last month when Xu Zhong, the research director of China’s central bank, published an essay rebuffing calls to bolster the economy by issuing more money. He castigated the Finance Ministry instead for a “dearth of effective fiscal policies,” referring to extra government spending and tax cuts. Soon afterward, the cabinet ordered more infrastructure spending to shore up growth. In the past week, the central bank has also pumped tens of billions of dollars into the economy and driven short-term interest rates down sharply. Presented with a choice of fiscal or monetary stimulus, the leadership in effect avoided making a decision by choosing both, despite the risk of exacerbating the nation’s budget deficit and chronic debt problems. Mr. Xi is presumably at the center of such decision-making. He has surrounded himself with officials who built their careers in part on their ability to deal with the United States and who might be damaged politically if the trade war goes badly for China. They include Wang Huning, the party’s chief ideologue, who helped craft the propaganda message trumpeting China’s rise that is now being criticized in China for alarming the West; Vice President Wang Qishan, Mr. Xi’s most powerful lieutenant, who appears to have distanced himself from trade policy in recent months; and Liu He, the Harvard-trained vice premier handling the stalled negotiations with the United States. The leadership can still divert criticism by blaming the United States. So far, it has not ratcheted up anti-American propaganda beyond the usual volume nor encouraged protests or boycotts of the sort directed at Japan in the past. Asked on a recent afternoon about the trade tensions, a worker making digital control panels at a factory in the southern city of Zhongshan paused before she replied. “If we are going to fight a trade war,” she said, “even if my job may be affected, I will still support our country.” In conclusion, it sounds like at least some people in China realize that cooperation on trade with the US will yield the best possible outcome for China. It seems likely, when faced with the altnernatives of no trade agreement, China will decide to come around. Hopefully this happens sooner rather than later, before the global economy ends up in a negative feedback loop.
Globalization is a positive sounding euphemism for the exploitation of poor people working for inhuman wages and many times, under inhuman conditions. Remove all tariffs in all countries and watch who wins that deal.
That is a deal the United States would dearly love. To me, that is the essence of legitimate, true “free trade”.
Glad to know this. Even if tariff wars go full swing, it will atleast not get ugly. China has been riding free stuff for long. Time to bring jobs back to US.