The New Trade Deal With China Does Almost Nothing For The United States

The Federalist ^ | 12/17/2019 | Helen Raleigh

[SeekAndFind]

RE: And even the China hawks consider Pillsbury a China hawk.

Pillsbury must really believe that we can take China at her word ( must like we could take Kim Jong-Un at his word ).

Well, what we know is this -— China has agreed to increase its purchase of U.S. agricultural and other goods, but by how much is unclear.

China supposedly made commitments on intellectual property, including “counterfeiting, patent and trademark issues and pharmaceutical rights, as well as on preventing the forced transfer of technology from firms entering the Chinese market.” However, those commitments include no details, not even in the statement from the U.S. trade representative’s office.

It all boils down to this — CHINA *PROMISED* in exchange for the USA NOT increasing tariffs even more. We ACTED, China gave us her word. Nothing more.

If Pillsbury can believe that the Chicoms will make good on their promise, well and good. The question is this — given her record in the past, and her “promising” to give Hon Kong autonomy , only to redefine autonomy the way China understands it, can we believe her promises?

[Beagle8U]

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes.

[LRoggy]

Then the deal falls through down the line and we go full commando and disengage fully. But you keep the pressure on as you engage. Fully support a similar approach to the South African Divestment Movement to the Uyghur situation and make it worldwide. Shame the Euros into following along.

[central_va]

Trump cannot and will not immediately reimpose the tariffs and even increase them?

Won't happen. We should have kept the tariffs and imposed the ones that were set to go into effect 2 days ago.

[billyboy15]

Ok WHY won’t it happen if China renegs? Will it not NOT happen because Trump hasn’t the authority? Will it NOT happen because Trump is afraid?

What? Give a clear sensible response backed up by something other than your opinion.

[Ancesthntr]

What the reporter doesn’t know is exactly what is in the proposed agreement.

What the reporter doesn’t understand is that Donald Trump is not a sucker, and knows how to read an agreement. This is a TEMPORARY agreement, and if the Chinese think that they are going to fool Trump and cheat as if there was no agreement, then they have another thing coming (like vastly higher tariffs, which won’t come off for the duration of the Trump Presidency - i.e. 1/20/2025 - if then). So let them cheat...then Trump can say that he gave them a chance, that they lied to him and cheated, and then he can do whatever he wants to do to the Chinese.

[CGVet58]

not to worry, bud, let this douche and the rest of the never-Trumpers/baglady leftists keep talking. Everytime they open their traps attacking our Guy, the Prez puts on his golf shoes and stomps on their scrawny necks.

the above is the short version. For more details, read below, but remember always - the commies always F this up.

The commie Chinese can’t help themselves, they’re amoral, stinking liars who F their own people and think nothing of it.

And if they could, they would continue taking from us on the order of 400 Billion in trade imbalance, another 2-300 billion in IP Theft/forced tech transfer, just as they have since Clinton, Bush 43, & Hussein...

then came Trump.

Rest assured, the commie scum will renege, break their word again, and Trump/Lighthiser will be right there, bumpin’ up yet more tariffs...

And in response, the rest of the world nations that might yet still have infrastructure invested in China will continue remapping their supply chains - decoupling their economies away from such a dishonest partner and towards other, more reliable partners like Koreas, VietNam, Malaysia, Indonesia... all nations (coincidentally that...) Trump has been making deals with. Not to mention Mexico, now that USMCA will be signed. Uncertainties as to where to put $$$ will vanish, and YUUGE corporations with gazillions of bucks are going to start investing in safer places that are aligned with our American Market.

for better explanation than the above, read TheLastRefuge blogspot - this and FR are my daily stops for best info.

The JG

[Migraine]

Great answer; enjoyed reading it!

[Migraine]

It is implied, “idiocy”, because I read the headline first. It says there’s nothing in it for the USA. If that’s the case, then anyone who would make such a trade deal could by implication Be assumed to be an idiot.

[Zhang Fei]

[All the Chinese cared about were the tariffs. Everything else is BS. The Chinks got what they wanted and they will renege on the rest. We are suckers.]

---

Ten thumbs up.

[Zhang Fei]

[Scratch Helen Raleigh off the list of believable writers. WSJ = Chamber of Commerce these days. Low cost labor and race to the bottom are no longer the main drivers of American attitudes.]

---

Isn’t Trump succumbing to Chamber of Commerce arguments by doing a deal with China? Unless you think China has higher labor costs than the US. This writer is arguing *against* the trade deal and essentially flashing the Chamber of Commerce her middle finger.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It says there’s nothing in it for the USA

You forgot the word “almost”.

But bottom line is still this — We get PROMISE. They got what they wanted — a cancellation of the December 15 tariff increases.

We shall see if they keep their promise, if not, then the title is apt.

[Zhang Fei]

[It all boils down to this — CHINA *PROMISED* in exchange for the USA NOT increasing tariffs even more. We ACTED, China gave us her word. Nothing more.

If Pillsbury can believe that the Chicoms will make good on their promise, well and good. The question is this — given her record in the past, and her “promising” to give Hon Kong autonomy , only to redefine autonomy the way China understands it, can we believe her promises?]

---

Pillsbury isn’t just a China watcher. He’s also a China scholar who translates historical materials from the original Chinese. To retain access to those materials, which are accessible only in China, he needs to appear conciliatory from time to time. This isn’t some kind of Machiavellian scheme for him - it’s part of the push-pull nature of interacting with the Chinese, who guard those materials jealously, to induce compliance with the Party’s edicts by foreign scholars. That is why Pierre Ryckmans had to adopt a nom de guerre* (Simon Leys) when he wrote essays that could have been interpreted as critical of the Communist Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Leys

* Because this is a civilizational and ideological war.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Pillsbury isn’t just a China watcher. He’s also a China scholar who translates historical materials from the original Chinese.

I’d like to ask Pillsbury -— what in the Communist Party’s recent record of “agreements” ( note the quotes ) gives us confidence that we can trust their promises?

Didn’t they promise to give HK autonomy before 1997?

Alas, their idea of autonomy is DIFFERENT from what the people of HK understood it.

I have not even discussed her building military bases in disputed islands with the Philippines.

So, where in the party’s record, Mr. Pillsbury does it tell us that we can trust China to keep her promises?

[SeekAndFind]

BTW, What I see in this Phase 1 deal is this — IT IS A TEST to see if China keeps her promises.

If she passes the test, then yes, we can proceed with the next phase.

If not, ADD ON THE TARIFFS !!

If this is what Phase 1 is about, then I am on board this “Trust but verify” train. In effect, China this December, dodged a proverbial bullet, but as long as we are not unloading the bullets, I’m fine with that.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

See #1 in my post above. He is one of the few in the world who has seen the full agreement.

[Migraine]

My money is on my president. He’s doing us a lot of good. My money is also on the chinese to do all they can to play fast and loose and inscrutable with it.