Bowsite.com

Trump to Unveil Massive ‘Package of Tariffs’ Against China

Matt

That's not MAGA, that's flat stupid!

Not really. According to most sources the tariffs will be on $30 - $60 billion of Chinese imports. The US imports over $500 billion each year from China. So, the tariffs will be imposed on roughly 10% of the imports, mostly technology and telecommunications products. We only export about $130 billion/year to China.

I see this as a slap on China's wrist for stealing our tech. China would be foolish to retaliate and get into a trade war. They have far more to lose.

Matt

Not sure where your getting your info, BEG. The DOW was trading around 24,900 at the time Trump made his tariff announcement on March 1st. It's trading at that same level currently.

The fact that Trump's replacement for Cohn as National Economic Council director, Larry Kudlow, admitted to having a $100,000/month cocaine addiction, or the fact that he claimed the economy was going to boom right before the Great Recession Yes he said that. But he only hires the best people, right?

The steel and aluminum tariffs have been in the news since mid-February, when the market was trading closer to 25,200 (though the President spoke publicly for the first time on March 1st) and the market has moved off the daily lows when I quoted the -2.5% number. No, it's not a crash -- but it's an unnecessary headwind IMO.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/news/economy/steel-aluminum-tariffs-trump/index.html

And I give Trump about as much credit for the 20% run-up since his inauguration as I do Obama for his 20% run-up in the same period. That is to say, not much. I'm for his deregulation measures, but I think they've largely been targeted towards losing industries. I'll give him some credit on taxes, but more so to Congress. All of this is to say that the economy and the market are far, FAR bigger than any one man or one administration.

You should know by now that, around here, when the economy does well under a republican POTUS, it's all because of the president. When the economy does well under a democrat POTUS, it's all in spite of the president.

Matt

And here’s the market over the last 10 years going back to essentially Obama’s inauguration. Can you point to the spot on the graph when the recovery ended? Looks to me like a market that’s been continuing an upward climb following a major recorrection.

Prices of steel and aluminum have risen significantly since Trump was elected.

Why?

Because of expectations he would follow the tariff road.

So if you're wondering why the price of things you buy that contain steel and aluminum has risen over the past year (thereby leaving you with less money to spend on other things and thereby causing people who produce and sell those other things to lose their jobs), Thank Trump!

"The politics that matter for the market are the ones that impact the fundamentals," said Stephen Auth, chief investment officer of equities for Federated Investors. "Which politics have moved the market? The tax deal, and now the tariffs. The other stuff tends to be noise."

More at link....

But I'm sure Piggy knows better than a chief investment officer of a company that manages $400 billion in assets.

Matt

The total doom and gloom outlook being talked of here is not entirely correct. Nor does it consider the long term effects. Yes, some goods will become higher. But, better paying, sustainable American jobs will become more prevalent. It all depends on what one believes is bad and one believes is good. I drive cars until they fall apart. I buy American made clothes because they last longer. I'd prefer to buy an american made tool, even if they cost more, because they are a life investment. I'd prefer to have equal trade tariffs and pay a little more for american produced goods. Will that hurt investments initially? Yes it will. Will that hurt the average American? Not in the long run.

Plagerisim?

Or did you write that yourself?

Because you cited a source verbatim without crediting the source, it's plagerism.

I never looked at any source to write that. I've been saying that since July 2016. You've been too high in your butt, miffed because your investment lifestyle stands to take a hit from economic practices that benefit a compromised America. Not the currently invested. It doesn't take a genius or cited article to understand what I wrote. Nor a cited article to understand why you are against it. Only two different views on whats Best for America.

I get it, you've made money in your lifetime. I understand your love for it. But, I UNDERSTAND economics. I didn't verbatim quote anyone but myself. I've don't even know what the link you quoted is. I didn't click on it. I don't need to in order to disagree on your gloom and doom predictions. They are self motivated and, have been since Donald Trump started campaigning on this. Get over it frat boy, life is gonna change. People are gonna have to do something beside live off of paper generated wealth if this country is to retain a middle class.

BS!

It's essentially word for word!

"American consumers are spoiled. American labor is spoiled. Americans are spoiled. If you want a strong manufacturing base, you gotta give up on some cheap and readily available goods for, a higher manufacturing base. It will be a trade off but, it will correct over time. China's economy is becoming more and more like a free trade market. It's time they invested in our economy. They are becoming huge consumers of worldwide goods. It only makes sense to put our products in the running to such a large economy. It only makes sense to move some of their American aimed production to this country.

The total doom and gloom outlook being talked of here is not entirely correct. Nor does it consider the long term effects. Yes, some goods will become higher. But, better paying, sustainable American jobs will become more prevalent. It all depends on what one believes is bad and one believes is good. I drive cars until they fall apart. I buy American made clothes because they last longer. I'd prefer to buy an american made tool, even if they cost more, because they are a life investment. I'd prefer to have equal trade tariffs and pay a little more for american produced goods. Will that hurt investments initially? Yes it will. Will that hurt the average American? Not in the long run.

Then, here's what the person on the link I posted wrote:

"American consumers are spoiled. American labor is spoiled. Americans are spoiled. If you want a strong manufacturing base, you gotta give up on some cheap and readily available goods for, a higher manufacturing base. It will be a trade off but, it will correct over time. China's economy is becoming more and more like a free trade market. It's time they invested in our economy. They are becoming huge consumers of worldwide goods. It only makes sense to put our products in the running to such a large economy. It only makes sense to move some of their American aimed production to this country.

The total doom and gloom outlook being talked of here is not entirely correct. Nor does it consider the long term effects. Yes, some goods will become higher. But, better paying, sustainable American jobs will become more prevalent. It all depends on what one believes is bad and one believes is good. I drive cars until they fall apart. I buy American made clothes because they last longer. I'd prefer to buy an american made tool, even if they cost more, because they are a life investment. I'd prefer to have equal trade tariffs and pay a little more for american produced goods. Will that hurt investments initially? Yes it will. Will that hurt the average American? Not in the long run. "

So pleeze dont tell us "I never looked at any source to write that" , because its a damned lie!

I've scrolled thru the link you posted twice, and still don't see the words you claim WV plagiarized. What am I missing?

Matt

Matt, I will apologize to you. I admit that I took a shot at you there. It wasn't meant with malice. It was in poor taste on my part. I don't mind spirited debate but, I deplore cheap shots from a computer. And, that is what that was in jest. I apologize and hope you accept it as much.

While Kyle sorts out his mistake, I'll respond to your comments.

I don't think Americans are spoiled. I think they are lazy. We figured out that we can do all the R&D legwork, then have another country with cheaper labor rates build our stuff. The problem is those other countries steal our ideas, then capitalize on it to the rest of the world.

If I had to model a county's system, it would be Germany. They develop the ideas, protect them, and then figure out a way to manufacture them viably.

Matt

Lol...sure. Tariffs are great for the economy. Just look at the market today. Go look at Smoot Hawley and lecture me on economics. You seem very unfamiliar with the concept of taxes and dead weight loss. Tell me how lost jobs and higher prices for consumers equate to a love of country.

The government shouldn’t be picking which industries are winners, the free market should.

We have for far to long relied on foreign steel. What happens if shite really hit the fan, do anyone really think they are going to keep supplying our military needs....

In 2015, America's middle class population, for the first time in history, wasn't the largest population bracket in the country. Tell us again how the "free markets" you prefer, is better for America's future then a level playing field. Should we give up our Middle class future's? Or, should we level the field and let the chips fall where they may? I'm all about the second option. Since you aren't, why don't you give us another option that is fair to future Americans.

Wrong. In 2015 the middle class no longer represented over 50% of our population. It's still the largest population bracket by far at 49.9%. In the last 25 years the upper class has grown from 14% to 21.1%. And the lower class has grown from 25.2% to 29%.

I never thought mediocrity should be a goal.

Matt

I’ll tell you why a pre-tariff market is better than a post-tariff market. Because the second you try to “level the playing field” with respect to business by deciding who you want to win, you are stepping further away from a free market, not closer to it, and bringing the inefficiencies that come with it - lost output, higher prices, lost jobs, and lost wages. If you want to make everyone middle class, then subsidize their lives - that’s far more efficient than doing it through tariffs. Trying to force industries to succeed by burdening the American consumer is not the way to a better life for any Anerican (except those working in the industries that the government decides they want to be winners).

Matt

BEG, in all reality, I think we have both had the schooling to understand what economies do and, how they respond to lows and highs. Your insinuation of what Smoot Hawley did for the depression, is no more credible then the boom of production that followed the great depression I attributed to in house manufacturing. There were far more variables to be considered then what we are exampling. The one thing that we both agree on is that free markets find a way to work. Unfortunately, we all know that is not what we have. So, lets fix it is what I want. At least make them fair. I'm not a huge middle class guy. I want people to have the ability to be what they work to be. That's all. And, the policies that have led to the demise and decline of the american middle class are not fair and no where near free market.

Hey Kyle, see how I handled that with Matt. You admit you made a mistake, albeit being a wise guy or in a hurry and not communicating well, say so and move on. I know its hard when you make a total Butthead out of yourself repeatedly. But, it is what any man that isn't spineless does. Get a cup of coffee when you roll your butt out of bed, drink the wine dizzy off and, apologize like a man for acting like a fool.

What demise, WV? In the last 25 years the middle class has shrunk by 11%. 7% went to the upper class, and 4% went to the lower class. I wouldn't call that a demise, just a shifting allocation. I'm sure the 7% are pretty happy with our economic policies.

Besides, where is it written in stone that a country should be predominately middle class? What if the US was split evenly between the 3 classes, 33.3% in each group. Would our country be stronger or weaker?

Lastly, what specific economic policies are you talking about that aren't "fair" to the middle class?

Matt

I'd like to hear this answer, too. That's why I tend to put "unfair" in quotes. Most of the economic policies in China benefit our low and middle class moreso than they hurt them.

WVM, it sounds like we want the same thing. I will pivot a bit and say that if this is a negotiating tactic and we end up with freer trade in the end (ie, the rollback of tariffs and restrictions), I will be happy and will give credit where credit is due. That said, I'm pessimistic that will happen and I think it's more likely we end up in some degree of a trade war versus having China come to the table with a bunch of concessions.

I disagree about helping the lower and middle class as effects of current policy. I guess I have a different definition of help and needs then you do. Cheap goods don’t define help and needs. Opportunity does.

I'd say a system in which a larger percentage of folks are moving from middle to upper class, instead of the other direction, is working pretty well.

Again, I ask, what if it was a even three way split between classes? Would America be even stronger? I say yes.

And I'm still curious on what economic policies are "unfair" to the middle class?

Matt

BEG, as in all things Trump, there is no one saying tariffs need to be long termed. Only used as a tool to get the field leveled.

1) China places restrictions on trade, and we respond with similar restrictions so that we are equal in the hurdles we face -- any new restrictions will be met tit for tat. Net we end up with more restrictions and obstacles to free trade, but the field is now "level" -- ie, they face a similar amount of hurdles to doing business in our country as we face in doing business in theres.

2) China responds to our tariffs by rolling back restrictions to trade that they've imposed on our country in a hope that we will respond in kind. On net we end up with fewer overall restrictions, freer trade, and a more level playing field.

In both scenarios you can argue that the playing field is now level -- but in both the playing field is very different. Personally, I think scenario 1 is more likely than scenario 2. Why? Precedent with China and because Trump hates losing, or made to appear as if he's losing. I don't see him giving up on a plan if it's not working as that is an admission of defeat. How long do we (or more specifically, Trump) tolerate scenario 1 before we give up on scenario 2?

Says the guy that doesn’t understand the difference between having debt and being broke. So Pig Doc, everyone with, say, a mortgage is broke? Either you don’t understand the distinction or you’ve decided that personal insults would be a better tactic. In other words, you’re either an idiot or an a$$hole. I’ll let you decide. What a joke.

It's working out fine, Piggy, thanks for asking.

Meanwhile, we just had another week of flat markets since Trump started talking tariffs. I guess the chief investment officer I quoted was correct.

Matt

That’s all he is doing Mint. Leveling the field. I and many others, including those that deplore him, saw where he said as much last week. We also have all heard him talk about getting better terms in our trade deals. To anyone with a brain cell that is willing to use it, Trump’s intent is clear for these reasons. However, some would rather bash things not change or, are willing to take every opportunity it’s to express their disdain for the man himself. With no regards to what his real motives are.

China and other developing countries need our economy just as much as we Americans enjoy an easy life. There will be negotiations. And, We will get better trade deals.

The Fed hasn't raised interest rates since last December, and they are still extremely low relative to historic averages. Furthermore, the expectations of at least 3 rate hikes in 2018 has been priced into the markets for a long time, IMO.

I'm not sure what Facebook crimes has to do with it. Care to explain?

Matt

Do your own homework or stay clueless.

You made the claim "facebook crimes" are moving the markets. Back it up.

Matt

Matt

The concerns regarding inflation and the impact they have on interest rates certainly have weighed on the markets (not the Fed decisions which have been largely priced in). Expectations that we're entering a protectionist era have impacted the market as well IMO. No one thing or man deserves the entire credit for market moves in either direction - that's not to say things don't matter. GG's earlier post hit the nail on the head. The below quote is spot on.

"The politics that matter for the market are the ones that impact the fundamentals," said Stephen Auth, chief investment officer of equities for Federated Investors. "Which politics have moved the market? The tax deal, and now the tariffs. The other stuff tends to be noise."

I don't give Trump a majority of the credit for tax cuts as I think that would have happened regardless of which Republican was in office and it's more Congress' doing than his, but he deserves some credit. Tariffs, however, fall squarely on his shoulders.

Nobody is suggesting that the “threat” of tariffs is not affecting futures and the stock market. But, what’s being improperly used is the intent Trump himself has spoke of. He’s going to wheel and deal by using everything in his tool box. Nobody believes he intends to cut off American imports or exports. Only make it more profitable for corporate business to invest here instead. No one has took their money and run so to speak. And no one will when it’s over. Quit being so influenced by your politics. Be patient and look at it for what it is. A better deal for the future of America.

Took about 2 minutes to find and post here...

But don't mind me...Not here to make a point or argue anything...

They forget that everything moves by trucks, the more a truck or container cost the more you will pay to have products in transport. Stocks have lost somewhere around 300billion today alone. He doesn’t understand how this will also effect the dollar too.

The market has weighed in on what it thinks the tariffs will bring with regards to negotiations and "leveling the playing field." Call me a pessimist, but I agree. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

Like what?

Those who do nothing but suck off the tit of the gorbal one world cabal only care about their portfolio, screw the Americans who will be better off with the tariffs, why let them eat cake.

Windmill, I suggest you google the following “benefits of a free market” and “how much more would it cost to buy only American.”

I'll make you deal. If 1 year from now we haven't recovered from this in the markets and the DOW, I will openly start a thread and link this thread in it. So everyone can "admire" your genius. I'll tell how you "told us so". However, if we have recovered, you must start a thread telling everyone your predictions were wrong. Where I will link this thread and we can all look back on it as well. Let's do this. What do you say?

God Bless men

As much as I’d like to take a bet where there’s apparently no downside to losing, I’ve never claimed that the markets will be down in a year due to tariffs. What I’ve claimed is that tariffs will do more harm than they will good as it relates to jobs and the economy; that they will generate deadweight loss. This is not up for debate. This is quite literally microeconomics 101. Tariffs make the producers better off and they make the government better off - but consumers are always worse off. And they’re always worse off by more than the government and the producers are better off (triangles d and f). The economy loses.

That doesn’t mean the market will stay down or that it will be down a year from now.

1) nobody knows where the market is going to be. My hunch is that the market will be higher at year end because, despite the cold water that Trump is throwing on things with the tariffs, the fundamentals are strong and I expect a continuation of the strong earnings we’ve been seeing for the last few years.

2) with tariffs, I don’t have a hunch. It’s a fact that they will create economic loss. Please refer to my previous post. You can’t escape the impact on consumer surplus that tariffs will bring and those losses will always more than offset gains by producers and the government. The net result will be higher prices, less consumption, a loss of jobs, and lost wages. Again, this is not a hunch and I’m not playing devil’s advocate. This is economic fact. I’m guessing it’s been awhile since some of you have played around with supply and demand curves?

As an economic model trade wars are destructive. Economic is not the only measure. As a geopolitical tool..... there are reasons they are even considered. I have customers I will not do business with or others I refuse to make any concessions to. It actually may effect my business gross income. But in the long term I believe it is best for the business to not have to deal with them. Or if I do it is on MY terms,not theirs.

This move was not taken out of boredom and for the sport of it. It was taken to get China to the table and take some action. Maybe on more levels than we will ever know.....

Michael Pillsbury: Trump Seeks to Thwart China’s Hundred-Year Plan for Economic and Military Dominance

China expert Michael Pillsbury of the Hudson Institute, author of The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower, joined SiriusXM host Rebecca Mansour on Thursday’s Breitbart News Tonight to defend President Donald Trump’s trade battle with China.

Pillsbury noted that Trump praised Chinese President Xi and thanked China for its assistance with the North Korean nuclear missile crisis even as tariffs were announced, framing the situation as a “major negotiation” between friendly states with competing interests rather than an all-out “trade war.”

“He’s offering them some solutions that he hopes they’ll move toward,” Pillsbury said. “One of them is, they simply purchase $100 billion worth of U.S. exports. Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, went on television tonight and even hinted what that might be. It might be natural gas and oil – various kinds of products we sell them already, but they could buy a great deal more.”

Pillsbury found it necessary for Trump to take aggressive action to move negotiations forward because China simply has not taken American concerns seriously until now. Adding to the pressure on China is the release of a study that details “what China really has been trying to do to the United States.”

“It was thrilling to me because it picks up many of the themes I had in my book three years ago, The Hundred-Year Marathon. But it adds what’s been happening in the last three years,” Pillsbury said. “I had not realized myself that it’s actually gotten worse. The Chinese treatment of the United States has gotten more unfair, if I can put it that way, than was the case three years ago when I wrote my book trying to sound the alarm.”

Pillsbury described the response to the tariff memorandum and release of the supporting report as a “massive media attack on President Trump, and the stock market dropping on the theory that the Chinese are going to react very harshly.”

“They’re going to put enormous tariffs on American imports to China, they’re going to stop buying soybeans and sorghum and live hogs — three of our biggest products in the farm states — and so the farmers are going to be angry at President Trump, and this is all going to be terrible for world trade, because everybody sort of knows that as tariffs go up it’s a tax on all the countries involved so the world growth rate will drop. This is what the head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, said a couple of days ago,” he recalled.

“My own view is quite different from the critics of President Trump,” Pillsbury countered. “I think he’s on the right track and this is really a historic decision that takes the past presidents, like George W. Bush and Obama – they whined and they complained and they made speeches about Chinese unfair trade practices, but they really wouldn’t do anything about it.”

Pillsbury found China’s reaction to Trump’s announcement “remarkable,” as the Chinese ambassador in Washington, DC belligerently declared his country would “fight back” with furious intensity – a very different line than the top leadership in Beijing has taken.

“They knew this was coming,” he concluded. “The prime minister gave a press conference saying that China wants to open up further, wants to welcome more foreign investment, is totally for free trade, would never steal anybody’s intellectual property. He went through in this press conference almost point-for-point what President Trump was going to say today, and said China would not dream of doing these things.”

Pillsbury cautioned that many Americans retain an “out of date” image of China as poor, technologically backwards, and reluctant to provoke economic warfare with wealthier nations while so many of its people struggle with poverty.

“I wrote my book against that idea,” he said. “One of President Trump’s key advisers, who was obviously present today at the meeting with the president and has gone on television since, is a gentleman – a professor, actually, University of California Irvine in the past – named Peter Navarro. Very courageous fellow, he wrote three books blowing the whistle on Chinese unfair trade practices.”

“One of his books is called Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World. What this caused is the opening of a debate among China experts in America: are the Chinese really as friendly and poor? Often people say they will collapse soon. They sort of present a picture of China as about to collapse. While all this debate has been going on, the Chinese have doubled their economy again. They’re quite close to passing us. This is really a shock to most people. How can a poor, backward country surpass the size of the American economy? It’s just astonishing,” he said.

Pillsbury pointed to the new United States lawsuit against China in the World Trade Organization over the behavior outlined in yesterday’s report as another serious measure against Chinese trade practices, and further evidence that President Trump appreciates the scope of the problem.

“We’ve sued China before. China is the country we’ve sued the most in the World Trade Organization, but never this scale of criticism,” he noted.

Pillsbury added that Thursday’s actions actually represent the third and by far the largest round of tariffs against China under President Trump, and yet the president made it clear that even more measures could be forthcoming.

The products targeted by the new tariffs and the rationale for including them will send a strong message to China. “It’s going to be examples, as this report explained today, the examples are based on a kind of reciprocity that if China has stolen intellectual property, stolen trade secrets and then made money off of it, that is the kind of product that will have the tariff placed on it. It’s kind of like a stiletto, if you will, not a sledgehammer,” he explained.

Pillsbury predicted that the Chinese will now understand Trump means business, and will make concessions to hold off further sanctions.

“I happen to think they need us more than we need them,” he said. “I don’t measure just trade. I measure all the things we’ve essentially — I hate to use this phrase — given away to China over the last 30 or more years. They still need our investment, our technology, our goodwill, our buying their products, the scientific programs we share with them – there’s an extremely long list of the benefits China gets from the United States, counting everything.”

“We get very little benefit from them along those lines,” he continued. “We don’t get a wide, comprehensive set of benefits from China. We get some benefits. That’s where this debate is really happening.”

“My own forecast is there’s not going to be a big trade war. The Chinese are quite afraid of being demonized in the United States and around Asia. Despite the ambassador here in Washington making this unfortunate remark, I think what’s actually going to happen is we’re going to have some successful negotiations for the first time,” he said.

“The kind of stonewalling they were doing last year is going to end. They’re not going to roll over and just suddenly buy $100 billion worth of products in the month of April, but I think we will see a number of steps by the Chinese that will justify what President Trump did today in this historic decision,” he anticipated.

Pillsbury lamented that many people don’t appreciate the severity of the challenge to American interests posed by China.

“But they will when China begins to fight back, at least rhetorically,” he told Mansour. “They don’t understand what you and I are talking about tonight, that China is wrapped up with the loss of jobs, the competition for resources in Africa and Latin America – just a whole range of competitive things we’re engaged in with the Chinese.”

Even as the Trump administration pursues what Vice President Mike Pence described yesterday as “the end of the era of economic surrender,” Pillsbury advised keeping areas of productive cooperation with China in mind, most notably North Korea.

“That’s a brilliant way to start out,” he said of President Trump’s remarks on Thursday. “He didn’t say, ‘You’re bastards, I hate you, I’m going to bring China to its knees with my memorandum today.’ He didn’t say anything like that.”

Furthermore, he noted that even the American freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea, which the Chinese frequently complain about, do not represent an aggressive challenge because the American ships follow “innocent passage” protocols, keeping their weapons radars off and avoiding military maneuvers as they cruise through the area.

“We have not challenged China in the South China Sea yet. That’s the important thing to understand. Some people think we should. It’s very difficult to come up with specific measures, especially if you are looking at economics and trade issues as being more important. We can’t fight China on all fronts,” he said.

Pillsbury quoted U.S. trade representative Ambassador Robert Lighthizer’s statement on Thursday that in addition to imposing tariffs and blocking intellectual property theft, one of the Trump administration’s top goals is to place “restrictions on Chinese investment in the United States.”

“They blocked large sectors of their own country, and they say, ‘We will not permit foreign investment in this sector,’” Pillsbury said of the Chinese. “We’ve negotiated with them for more than ten years to try to reduce that list – it’s called the ‘negative list,’ for lack of a better phrase – and the Chinese just won’t budge.”

Pillsbury found it telling and encouraging that two days ago, with the Trump tariffs looming, Beijing for the first time signaled a willingness to open new sectors to foreign investment.

“The Chinese anticipated this, and they’re trying to deal with it calmly. They don’t want to squander the goodwill that they have, and the widespread belief in America that exists that China is our friend, and is a poor backward country that’s going to collapse,” he said.

“They want to continue what I described in Hundred-Year Marathon as a kind of stealthy acquisition of the role of the Number One economy in the world. They will blow all that if they follow the kind of rhetoric that the Chinese ambassador in Washington used. He actually did this on Fox News! Fox News called him up, apparently, and he made this comment,” he marveled.

“I think he’s going to be in trouble. I think the prime minister and President Xi have indicated more clearly what the future is: that they want to deal calmly, not emotionally, and they will be considering how their own reforms, if they open up their country more, that will meet one of President Trump’s requirements right there,” he said.

“We need to harden our own economy against Chinese theft, Chinese investment,” Pillsbury recommended. “Sometimes it can come in a small company. They will buy a technology in a joint venture or through a small company, let’s say in Silicon Valley, that no one’s ever heard of. Back in the days when robotics and artificial intelligence wasn’t a household word, they were acquiring these high technology companies, sometimes very small.”

“Frankly that scared friends of mine in the Pentagon, that American military superiority in the world depends largely on technology. Sure, we like to say that we have smarter troops, but technology is a big part of making weapons succeed. If we lose our technological edge, my Pentagon friends told me, we can’t get it back,” he noted.

“So China will be not only the dominant economy in the world, which they’re well on their way to doing, but they’ll be the dominant military power in the world. Now, this isn’t in the next few months or the next few years, but this is the trend. What President Trump is doing is trying to halt that too with these restrictions on Chinese investment in our high-tech sectors,” said Pillsbury.

Huh. Imagine that, immediate and serious trade talks with China. What could have prompted it???? Out of the blue I guess......

Market up 300 points I heard on the radio this morning. Must be a Trump trick prompting some insider trading by his buddies.....

Trump’s Tough Talk On China Works: China’s Premier Pledges Opening Market To Avert Trade War

MAGA

Then Kudlow mentioned one of the most courageous and stategic moves made by President Trump – to address the trade and information theft issues. Kudlow said –

Well look, this whole story on trade is coming together nicely. The President’s strategy appears to be working. we’ve seen this with USMCA [the new US, Mexico and Canada trade agreement]. Now, we’re holding trade negotiations with Europe. We’re holding trade negotiations with Japan. We issued a tri-part letter, the three companies basically saying non-market economies, read China on that, have got to shape up. China is probably the biggest culprit as you know. So look the key issues here [are] high tariffs, high non-tariff barriers, technology theft, intellectual property theft.

There’s a story in the paper yesterday, in the Wall Street Journal, “China expands its cyber security rule book, heightening foreign corporate concern”. This is brand new. They’re putting in new rules that will permit Chinese officials to inspect US companies and all foreign companies information tech and access proprietary information.

This is exactly a step in the wrong direction. This is forced technology transfer. This is IP theft. This is exactly what we’ve been warning about. We’ve tried to communicate these concerns to China. So far we’ve not had luck. Look, we’ll talk to them. Serious and significant talks any time but it looks to me like they’re moving in the wrong direction. Right now, I think this is most unfortunate.

You know, you talk about national security issues, I can talk about economic security issues. Why should we allow the Chinese to own American companies in China and moreover force us to lay out all of our technology blue prints in the name of cyber security, which by the way, they way they cyber hack us constantly. Why should we give them new advantages in the race for technology. That’s a big problem going forward.

Kudlow continued –

… President Trump is very strong on this issue. A lot of people blaming POTUS for imposing tariffs as part of his trade strategy. He is first and foremost a trade reformer. I think you know that. We have given China our asks any number of times regarding the technology issues, and the IP and the tariffs and the trade imbalances and so forth. I think you know that too.

My advice is don’t blame Trump. Help us, don’t hurt us, help us because there’s got to parity. There’s gotta be a level playing field. There’s got to reciprocity. China regrettably is not playing by the rules, and has not played by those rules for many years. Prior US Presidents have given lip service. President Trump is giving the toughest rebuttal and actions against them.

You gotta protect the US economy Maria. You gotta protect our technology family jewels, our inventiveness, our innovation. You’ve got to protect our workforce and our new businesses. That’s the strength of America’s free market economy. The President is doing just that!

“President Trump is taking the fight to China – It’s a worthy fight!”

In the long run, it will be another win.