Posted on 04/12/2017 4:33:50 PM PDT by springwater13
President Donald Trump said Wednesday he has offered Chinese President Xi Jinping a more favorable trade deal for Beijing in exchange for his help on confronting the threat of North Korea.
Mr. Trump, in a wide-ranging interview with The Wall Street Journal, said he would accept, for instance, a trade deal with China that does less to address trade deficits.
“I told him, I said, ‘You know we’re not going to let that [current trade deficit] go ahead,’ ” Mr. Trump said of his meeting last week with Mr. Xi. He added he told Mr. Xi: “ ‘But you want to make a great deal? Solve the problem in North Korea.’ That’s worth having deficits. And that’s worth having not as good a trade deal as I would normally be able to make.”
Mr. Trump also said his administration won’t label China a currency manipulator in a report due this week, despite promises he made on the campaign trail. Mr. Trump said China has stopped manipulating its currency and that it was more important to focus on cooperation with China on North Korea.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Trump—”You’re going to stop stealing our lunch, but if you take care of that crazy kid I’ll give you some of our potato chips.”
I agree and IF China were to address NK it would be far less costly to us then if we had to go to war with NK. I just don't think China will do enough. I don't see that happening. I would love to be proven wrong.
The art of the deal.
Clean coal technology and purchase of US coal
We both win and the lefties will be SO happy!
Help? Take them out. That’s all they can do for us.
North Korea has changed quite a bit from Kim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un. With the former, people starved but enforcement, etc., was more lax. With the latter, people don’t starve, but the enforcement is quite cruel. Something tells me that the upper echelon is not as happy with Kim Jong Un. All it takes is one bullet.
Already China scotched NK coal purchases, meaning they have increased purchases from us.
It was also revealed that their trade surplus with us has dramatically fallen. Right there you have two elements of the deal.
I have a feeling this will be just one of many “adjustments” with China to our benefit.
” I just don’t think China will do enough. I don’t see that happening. “
worth a try, though. easy enough to tell if china isn’t living up to their end of things, and proceed with a different deal or no deal at all.
“it was more important to focus on cooperation with China on North Korea”
Uniparty SOP for decades now.
I agree, we should not be making trade concessions with China to entice them to help deal with NK. The two should have been kept separate, and if China is a responsible member of the world community, they should be willing to work with the US on NK with no special deals.
Got the agreement and immediately moved warships to ensure China is an honest trader.
If they are and help with NK then a deals a deal.
If they are at the margin of the agreement, then the deal is off.
Looks like we are going to resolve NK once and for all.
“Already China scotched NK coal purchases, meaning they have increased purchases from us.”
Not even close to being true.
What they did was go way over their allotment of allowable purchase earlier this year after continuing to buy coal from them despite sanctions against it for about two years n
So earlier this year they pumped the Norks up with a billion dollars of coal purchase over a couple months so they can now pretend to stop (for a while).
I am not addressing their buying coal from us, which I am not saying is untrue.
I’ll trade you my cookie for North Korea.
Like the idea of trading something mostly impermanent for something permanent. If stopped the NK nuclear program will neber be restarted; trade policies change with the wind.
But the interesting story was that the Vinson carrier group sailed to Korea... right through the South China Sea.
Perhaps, but there is the reality that Americans will have to come to grips with: when you deal with a quasi totalitarian country that doesn’t care about its citizens, then you are limited. Yes, they MAY have a stronger interest there, but what’s in it for them may be far, far less than what’s in it for us.
We might, for example, be able to crush Mexico like an insect for something they did, but for the Chinese to come to Baja and do it in our back yard would be much harder. Likewise, when you run on “no foreign wars,” yet the likelihood that this NORK nut wants a war means you might have to violate that, then you have to decide which is more important, a relatively better/worse trade deal or another foreign involvement.
George Washington and John Adams paid tribute to the Barbary Pirates because we didn’t have a big enough navy to challenge them and even when we did, we just had other priorities. For the time being, it was worth the price.
The price however always changes, and if the NORKs are put away, China knows that they cannot go back to the way they were.
But it’s easy to say “We want to crush the NORKS, yet have no boots on the ground, yet also get everything we wanted from China.” Won’t happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.