Posted on Jun 24, 2018
Why China can’t count on Brazil to fill soybean gap in US trade rift
488
6
11
4
4
0
China
International Trade
Geopolitics / International Relations
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
From the article, I got that China's demand for soy is higher than Brazil can currently supply, but I also got that:
1. China isn't just playing tit-for-tat here. They see a superpower on the brink of destroying the very thing that made it so powerful while they themselves are the #2 in line.
2. Our pressure relief is a realignment to Europe. Except we're instituting tariffs there too, so the smart money is they double up on whatever China is doing.
3. China is redoubling its efforts to invest elsewhere. Any relief will be temporary while China moonshots breaking Brazil's agricultural capabilities. We get a year or two maybe, but China is prioritizing alternative trading solutions.
Yeah, not so sure a China that doesn't really need us anymore is a net positive.
1. China isn't just playing tit-for-tat here. They see a superpower on the brink of destroying the very thing that made it so powerful while they themselves are the #2 in line.
2. Our pressure relief is a realignment to Europe. Except we're instituting tariffs there too, so the smart money is they double up on whatever China is doing.
3. China is redoubling its efforts to invest elsewhere. Any relief will be temporary while China moonshots breaking Brazil's agricultural capabilities. We get a year or two maybe, but China is prioritizing alternative trading solutions.
Yeah, not so sure a China that doesn't really need us anymore is a net positive.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
Sgt Wayne Wood -
-China's economy is fragile but it's in a position that their pain is our pain and it benefits the most from the US being a dick. Secondary effects are not in our favor.
-The EU has been in trouble because of Brexit, but we're showing the UK that their backup plan isn't dependable. A reversal on Brexit would not be good news in the zero-sum game the US is trying to play
-NAFTA is great and all, but we're treating our partners the same way. We are not a single economic entity because it provides no benefit in this instance.
We're like that guy that walks into a bar and tries to start shit with everyone at once. We might be the best fighter in the room, but we're still going to end up bloody in the ditch outside.
Besides, the question isn't really whether or not we can "win" a trade war (which is by no means clear). It's whether or not it's actually worth it. What are the objectives and are any gains temporary at best?
-China's economy is fragile but it's in a position that their pain is our pain and it benefits the most from the US being a dick. Secondary effects are not in our favor.
-The EU has been in trouble because of Brexit, but we're showing the UK that their backup plan isn't dependable. A reversal on Brexit would not be good news in the zero-sum game the US is trying to play
-NAFTA is great and all, but we're treating our partners the same way. We are not a single economic entity because it provides no benefit in this instance.
We're like that guy that walks into a bar and tries to start shit with everyone at once. We might be the best fighter in the room, but we're still going to end up bloody in the ditch outside.
Besides, the question isn't really whether or not we can "win" a trade war (which is by no means clear). It's whether or not it's actually worth it. What are the objectives and are any gains temporary at best?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Wayne Wood
First of all, your penultimate paragraph added nothing to the discussion there, Dick.
You make claims with no supporting evidence. Search my articles, posted here on RP over the past 2 or 3 months... for my supporting arguments, Dick...
Finally, you are correct, i could stand a refresher in economics, i try to stay current. Unfortunately, when i was in a position to do so i was wrapped up in other maths.
Dick.
You make claims with no supporting evidence. Search my articles, posted here on RP over the past 2 or 3 months... for my supporting arguments, Dick...
Finally, you are correct, i could stand a refresher in economics, i try to stay current. Unfortunately, when i was in a position to do so i was wrapped up in other maths.
Dick.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
Sgt Wayne Wood - Ok, I deserve that one. The refresher comment was pretty dickish. My point was that the forces at play make winning a trade war somewhat pointless. It represents a myopic, zero-sum view of trade that will not serve us well over the long haul as we alienate allies and lose our reputation as a trustworthy partner.
Also, note that my intent with that paragraph was to highlight the foolishness of starting a bunch of fights all at once, including with nations that are traditionally our allies.
In any case, some sources. I'm otherwise out of time for now.
The US weakness to China - http://www.industryweek.com/economy/us-needs-china-more-china-needs-us
Labor cost comparisons - https://www.conference-board.org/ilcprogram/index.cfm?id=38270
China reducing investment in the US - http://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/2128601/chinas-investments-us-fell-35pc-2017-due-outflow-curbs-and
#1 Economy - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-18/who-has-the-world-s-no-1-economy-not-the-u-s
The US's top trading partners - http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/15/news/economy/us-trade-canada-china-mexico/index.html
The Chinese strategy in light of history that points out that the Chinese use soy for feedstock, making it replaceable - - https://www.card.iastate.edu/ag_policy_review/article/?a=80
Harley Davidson to shift production overseas - https://www.ft.com/content/54a6cc82-7867-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475
Also, note that my intent with that paragraph was to highlight the foolishness of starting a bunch of fights all at once, including with nations that are traditionally our allies.
In any case, some sources. I'm otherwise out of time for now.
The US weakness to China - http://www.industryweek.com/economy/us-needs-china-more-china-needs-us
Labor cost comparisons - https://www.conference-board.org/ilcprogram/index.cfm?id=38270
China reducing investment in the US - http://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/2128601/chinas-investments-us-fell-35pc-2017-due-outflow-curbs-and
#1 Economy - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-18/who-has-the-world-s-no-1-economy-not-the-u-s
The US's top trading partners - http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/15/news/economy/us-trade-canada-china-mexico/index.html
The Chinese strategy in light of history that points out that the Chinese use soy for feedstock, making it replaceable - - https://www.card.iastate.edu/ag_policy_review/article/?a=80
Harley Davidson to shift production overseas - https://www.ft.com/content/54a6cc82-7867-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475
US Needs China More Than China Needs the US
In the 1930s, protectionist tariffs and a global trade war exacerbated the Great Depression and destabilized the international order. Sadly, one of the most painful lessons of modern history is now at risk of being ignored.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Wayne Wood
My point is this. If our domestic industry has to pick up the slack for products we currently import, in the LONG TERM we win.
If we have to go to new sources to get items we currently import then the new suppliers have to step up their game. They win (long term) by boosting their economy. We (potentially) win by negotiating a new trade deal.
Now, looking specifically at the EU (as a bloc) and our NAFTA ‘partners’ who are they gonna sell to? Their unfair, and largely unilateral, tariffs have already priced most of their products out of the market for any but first world countries.
We have the stronger hand.
All we want is for the dealer to be honest and an unmarked deck.
If we have to go to new sources to get items we currently import then the new suppliers have to step up their game. They win (long term) by boosting their economy. We (potentially) win by negotiating a new trade deal.
Now, looking specifically at the EU (as a bloc) and our NAFTA ‘partners’ who are they gonna sell to? Their unfair, and largely unilateral, tariffs have already priced most of their products out of the market for any but first world countries.
We have the stronger hand.
All we want is for the dealer to be honest and an unmarked deck.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google