Knowing how much merchandise China sells to America, Trump will tax consumers with a tariff to fund his "stay in power so I do not go to prison" schemes.
Last edited:
White House considers slashing China tariffs after Trump hints at de-escalation.
- Thread starter Ceiling Cat
- Start date
Knowing how much merchandise China sells to America, Trump will tax consumers with a tariff to fund his "stay in power so I do not go to prison" schemes.
What would be amazing is if tariffs are lowered to 89.64%. I wonder how chinese media would report that, although they have already censored the word "tariff" and "145" off social media.
Attachments
Tariffs will not be set at 89%, 44.5%, or even 22.25%. In fact, a tariff as low as 22.25% would still trigger severe inflation across the American economy. Trump has maneuvered himself into a difficult position and is now scrambling to resolve the very issues he created himself. He once hurled insults at Kim Jong Un, only to later embrace him as a friend, likely in exchange for significant incentives to secure North Korea’s cooperation, or at least its silence. Meanwhile, China is well-positioned to adopt a patient, strategic approach. All they need to do is wait for Trump to impose tariffs on Europe and other global partners. In doing so, President Xi stands to gain powerful allies and isolate the U.S. economically. Trump's tariffs on the countries of the world will likely spark global outrage, as well as resistance from Americans. Even if tariffs imposed on the American public are only 10%. Trump will attempt to stage a fake deal with China, offering hidden concessions to make himself appear like a savvy negotiator. Trump will sell out his own country to make himself look good or for personal gain. The Hainan spy plane incident allowed China to enter the World Trade Organization with Most Favored Nation status. Trump may have to "Give away the store" to make himself look good. The concessions that Trump may have to give away may be as big as the ones given away in the Hainan incident.
How many times do you repeat this lie? Blatant misinformation. Most favoured nation status was already negotiated in 2000. The Hainan incident had no bearing on China's WTO entry.
You really got to stop.
Just for a bit of reference to expose Ceiling Cat's constant lies about this which were already highlighted in another thread.
From wiki regarding us and china and the WTO.
The U.S.–China Relations Act of 2000 is an Act of the United States Congress that granted China permanent normal trade relations (NTR) status (previously called most favoured nation (MFN)) when China becomes a full member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), ending annual review and approval of NTR. It was signed into law on October 10, 2000, by United States President Bill Clinton. The Act also establishes a Congressional-Executive Commission to ensure that China complies with internationally recognized human rights laws, meets labor standards and allows religious freedom, and establishes a task force to prohibit the importation of Chinese products that were made in forced labor camps or prisons.[1] The Act also includes so-called "anti-dumping" measures designed to prevent an influx of inexpensive Chinese goods into the United States that might hurt American industries making the same goods. It allows new duties and restrictions on Chinese imports that "threaten to cause market disruption to the U.S. producers of a like or directly competitive product."[2]
Prior to passage of the bill, China was subject to an annual review by Congress of China's trade status with the United States. Since 1980, the president has had to issue annual waivers to trade with China. The act removed the review, eased some trade barriers, and facilitated China's entry into the WTO.[3][4][5][6] China became a member of WTO on December 11, 2001, and its permanent normal trade relations status with the US was made permanent on December 27, 2001.[7]
Regarding the Hainan incident.
The Hainan Island incident was a ten-day international incident between the United States and the People's Republic of China (PRC) that resulted from a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals intelligence aircraft and a Chinese Air Force J-8 interceptor on April 1, 2001.
The EP-3 was flying over the South China sea at a point roughly midway between Hainan Island and the Paracel Islands when it was intercepted by two J-8II fighters. A collision between the EP-3 and one of the J-8s caused damage to the EP-3 and the loss of the J-8 and its pilot. The EP-3 was forced to make an emergency landing on Hainan without permission from the PRC, and its 24 crew members were detained and interrogated by Chinese authorities until a statement was delivered by the United States government regarding the incident. The ambiguous phrasing of the statement allowed both countries to save face and defused a potentially volatile situation.[1][2]
Both the cause of the collision and the assignment of blame were disputed:
The U.S. government stated that the Chinese jet bumped the wing of the larger, slower, and less maneuverable EP-3. After returning to U.S. soil, the pilot of the EP-3, Lt. Shane Osborn, was allowed to make a brief statement in which he said that the EP-3 was on autopilot and in straight-and-level flight at the time of the collision. He stated that he was just "guarding the autopilot" in his interview with Frontline.[19] The U.S. released video footage from previous missions which revealed that American reconnaissance crews had previously been intercepted by the same aircraft.[20]
The Chinese government stated that, according to Wang Wei's wingman, the American aircraft "veered at a wide angle towards the Chinese", in the process ramming the J-8.[21][22][23][24][25]
Neither claim can be verified since the Chinese government did not release data from the flight recorders of either aircraft, both of which are in its possession.[21][22][23][24][25]
So you're suggesting that after a U.S. military spy plane was caught flying off China's coast—forced down with a damaged nose cone, and its crew detained—the whole incident was brushed aside within weeks, with no real investigation? And we're supposed to believe it's just a coincidence that, around that same time, the U.S. and other countries were suddenly flooded with low-cost, Chinese-made consumer goods? To me, it sounds like significant concessions were made behind the scenes, right when that incident took place. Before the Hainan incident the USA was opposed to China's membership in the WTO. The WTO voted on China's membership only after the Hainan incident, the vote was passed without objection from The United States.
Trump has painted himself into the corner. He is calling for China to make a deal. China is in a position of strength and will become even stronger when the other countries around the world rally around the cause of stopping a madman from driving the world economy into recession/depression. Trump will have to pay up this time to get himself out of a shit hole, maybe as much as was paid after the Hainan incident.
Trump has painted himself into the corner. He is calling for China to make a deal. China is in a position of strength and will become even stronger when the other countries around the world rally around the cause of stopping a madman from driving the world economy into recession/depression. Trump will have to pay up this time to get himself out of a shit hole, maybe as much as was paid after the Hainan incident.
Last edited:
You do realize many of chinas ASEAN partners werent very receptive to Xi's visits. While the trips to Cambodia and Malaysia were touted on chinese state media as productive, once Xi left Cambodia, two Japanese naval vessels docked at their bases (which china built for them) and malaysia is asking the U.S. to purchases the boeings that china put sanctions on. Xi's trip to vietnam isnt even mentioned on chinese state media anymore because it looks like they are actively seeking greater partnerships with the U.S.
The former singaporean first lady has blasted Xi recently calling him a leader who rules like a mafia leader and the world is no longer charmed by them.
These 4 countries have historically very pro china and CCP policies and seemed to have actively seeked increased engsgements with the U.S.
Throw in India, a founding BRICS, member who is imposing tariffs on chinese steel and aluminum and actively seeking deals with the U.S.
Your chronology of events is completely off therefore your arguments hold absolutely 0 validity.
Oct 2000 - clinton pushes for chinas accession into the WTO and extending China preferred nation status. Chinas MFN is approved by congress and signed into law. So your claim that the U.S. was opposed to china being a member of the WTO until after the Hainan incident is unequivocally false.
Apr 2001 - hainan incident occurs at a midpoint between paracel islands and hainan island. This is officially international waters as ruled by UNCLOS. It is called freedom of navigation so transport can move freely to increase trade routes. Where the incident occured is not in China's EEZ.
Hoping to not deteriorate relations, the bush admin hoped to separate this incident and chinas WTO entry. The CCP made several demands, ie a sorry letter lol, paying compensation for the incident and i believe the us issued a letter of condolence for the wife of the killed chinese pilot but refused to pay the compensation china demanded.
Also important to note, THE CCP DID NOT RELEASE DATA FROM THE FLIGHT RECORDERS OF EITHER AIRCRAFT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE IN ITS POSSESSION.
Dec 2001 - china is admitted ti the WTO
To your claim that after the Hainan incident, the US were suddenly flooded with chinese goods. This was already happening. US imports of chinese goods doubled from 1996 -2001. Nothing to do with Hainan.
Stop peddling these lies to try to rewrite history.
QUOTE="40micmic, post: 8936518, member: 219145"
You do realize many of chinas ASEAN partners werent very receptive to Xi's visits. Speculation, unless they say so, there was no dissatisfaction with Xi While the trips to Cambodia and Malaysia were touted on chinese state media as productive, once Xi left Cambodia, two Japanese naval vessels docked at their bases (which china built for them) Scheduled visit, US Navy ship has visited Montreal Harbor, what does that mean? and malaysia is asking the U.S. to purchases the boeings that china put sanctions on. If Boeing will sell out planes from China, they would be driving China towards Airbus planes, a stupid move Xi's trip to vietnam isnt even mentioned on chinese state media anymore because it looks like they are actively seeking greater partnerships with the U.S.
The former singaporean first lady has blasted Xi recently calling him a leader who rules like a mafia leader and the world is no longer charmed by them.
These 4 countries have historically very pro china and CCP policies and seemed to have actively seeked increased engsgements with the U.S.
Throw in India, a founding BRICS, member who is imposing tariffs on chinese steel and aluminum and actively seeking deals with the U.S. Can India get better prices from the USA than they can get with China, even when shipping is not taken into consideration.
QUOTE
==============================================================================================
This only proves that all countries have some politics to play. Trump is not playing politics, he is playing thug. Give me what I want or I will beat you!
You do realize many of chinas ASEAN partners werent very receptive to Xi's visits. Speculation, unless they say so, there was no dissatisfaction with Xi While the trips to Cambodia and Malaysia were touted on chinese state media as productive, once Xi left Cambodia, two Japanese naval vessels docked at their bases (which china built for them) Scheduled visit, US Navy ship has visited Montreal Harbor, what does that mean? and malaysia is asking the U.S. to purchases the boeings that china put sanctions on. If Boeing will sell out planes from China, they would be driving China towards Airbus planes, a stupid move Xi's trip to vietnam isnt even mentioned on chinese state media anymore because it looks like they are actively seeking greater partnerships with the U.S.
The former singaporean first lady has blasted Xi recently calling him a leader who rules like a mafia leader and the world is no longer charmed by them.
These 4 countries have historically very pro china and CCP policies and seemed to have actively seeked increased engsgements with the U.S.
Throw in India, a founding BRICS, member who is imposing tariffs on chinese steel and aluminum and actively seeking deals with the U.S. Can India get better prices from the USA than they can get with China, even when shipping is not taken into consideration.
QUOTE
==============================================================================================
This only proves that all countries have some politics to play. Trump is not playing politics, he is playing thug. Give me what I want or I will beat you!
A few points:
- Japanese requested port visit on tuesday to symbolize friendship between the 2 nations of Japan and Cambodia. Xi concluded his visit on Friday, the Japanese vessels docked on Saturday. This is definite a loss of face for Xi given the history between China and Japan and the fact that China financed and built the port of Ream. The Japanese defense minister stated that the visit would help ensure Cambodia has an open and transparent naval port, while noting the concerns over China’s growing efforts to secure overseas outposts for military expansion.
- You realize that Boeing has received several inquiries about the their planes from various countries including India (who is hoping to built their fleet to service their emerging market), Malaysia and even Russia, just to name a few. Airbus has a backlog of 8500 planes already. Who are they going to cut out so that they can give preferential treatment to China?
- India won't get better prices for goods vs. China, but what they will get is increased investment into factories to start upgrading their manufacturing industry i'm sure
Apparently top people at Walmart and Target warned Trump of "empty shelves " if he doesn't back off the extreme tariffs on China.
Trump is slowly destroying his credibility, at this rate by the mid term election he will even lose the support of the MAGAs. There should be more stability in the stock markets at that time.
