[Delta0311]

Well the NBA sure as hell caved to the Chinese.

[WestRace]

Originally Posted by Delta0311

Well the NBA sure as hell caved to the Chinese.

It depends. If I paid some chick only $7 buck to lick my a$$, she saved. But if I paid her $7Mil, I caved

[SSW]

FWIW, Trump cannot possibly win a trade war w/China.

The best case sceanario is a draw which will hurt both countries but China is already "winning" the trade war by stopping any purchase of soybeans and buying that produce from Brazil and other countries instead and there's no reason why China would resume buying soybeans from American growers (many of whom who have already gone bankrupt as a result) again after Trump is dumped and the trade war is ended.

[Torgus]

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/76856...ts-complicated

Boom.

[WestRace]

Originally Posted by Torgus

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/76856...ts-complicated

Boom.

Saying China is hurting is missing the point. Yes, they are hurting pretty bad, but it's like trying to mud-wrestling with the pig. Sure you're winning but so what. Ain't no beef there, only pork :-)

The problem on the US side is there does not seem to be a clear objective.

1. Is the trade war is meant to prevent China from getting bigger?
2. If China gets big so be it, but the trade war is to force China playing fair regardless?

To me it's a no win situation.

If 1, then it's going to be a draw out game with no end game in sight. It's will just be back and forth like Afghanistan but in term of economics. That is we are just going to squeeze China until all its juice comes out :-) (They should hire me for this job)

If 2, then it's still a no win game because China is not going to play fair because for them it's do or die. If they going to play fair, eventually they will lose control of their country because their entire economy will be taken over by Western corporations simply because their companies are just inferior to their western counterparts, all the hypes not withstanding.

There is an option #3. Both sides can come up with a faked solution to save face. The agreement will not be of any substance but it will let both sides to declare victory.

So back to the original question, will Trump cave in with option #3?

[schoy]

#3 with almost 99% certainty. Trump is going to make up some story that China bowed to the US’s demands (they won’t), declare the trade war over, and then when the media calls him out on the fact that nothing substantial changed from pre-trade war, he’s going to tweet #FAKENEWS. And all his supporters are going to eat it up.

[WestRace]

I kind of like #1.

[NormanConquest]

I much rather we don't do any business with China, their tactics has been harmful to the entire planet and they have not change for the better. Vietnam and India are better potential trade parters and are morally better nations then china.

[other_evolved]

Originally Posted by NormanConquest

I much rather we don't do any business with China, their tactics has been harmful to the entire planet and they have not change for the better. Vietnam and India are better potential trade parters and are morally better nations then china.

Do you think there is even a remote possibility of not doing business with China?

[Torgus]

I want to see the Chinese economy collapse and a revolution where them become a democratic country and not communists. Let the people be free. Unfortunately a literal metric fuck ton of people will have to die most likely.

The chinese people could be of great help to the Human race getting off this rock so we don't go extinct. They are only so horrifically evil because of their rules and their government. China can be fixed.

[WestRace]

Originally Posted by NormanConquest

I much rather we don't do any business with China, their tactics has been harmful to the entire planet and they have not change for the better. Vietnam and India are better potential trade parters and are morally better nations then china.

A few months ago, there was a group of executives representing some of the largest western corporations went to India to see if there were any alternatives in term of cheap manufacturing and they all agreed that the answer was "NO". India just does not have the infrastructures to support large scale manufacturing compared to China. Like it or not, China has been in the making for the last 30 years to get where it is today. In order to replace China, it will take time and I am not sure it's even doable. The best is to diversify so we don't 100% rely on China for cheap manufacturing which is happening right now. A lot of the manufacturing has moved to the surrounding south eastern asian countries but it will take time.

We all love to make China as an bad guy but because all of the cheap manufacturing been going on, their environment has been taking a toll. It's not all rosy over there.

[WestRace]

Originally Posted by Torgus

I want to see the Chinese economy collapse and a revolution where them become a democratic country and not communists. Let the people be free. Unfortunately a literal metric fuck ton of people will have to die most likely.

I don't think we want another Iraq.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by WestRace

I don't think we want another Iraq.

I want people to be free from communism and Xi rule. China commits horrific human rights violations daily and no one blinks an eye. Over 1M Muslims in reeducation camps.

[SoCalS2k]

Originally Posted by schoy

#3 with almost 99% certainty. Trump is going to make up some story that China bowed to the US’s demands (they won’t), declare the trade war over, and then when the media calls him out on the fact that nothing substantial changed from pre-trade war, he’s going to tweet #FAKENEWS. And all his supporters are going to eat it up.

Yes that is most likely what will happen but likely some corruption will also happen in the process like some bribe or something along the way. This is almost always the case

[WestRace]

Originally Posted by Torgus

I want people to be free from communism and Xi rule. China commits horrific human rights violations daily and no one blinks an eye. Over 1M Muslims in reeducation camps.

I think you have to consider everything within proper context.

Originally Posted by Torgus

Over 1M Muslims in reeducation camps.

Come on! Trump told them to do that.

[WestRace]

I don't think the "end" is the correct word. It's more like "reshuffling" with politics as the priority as opposed to profits as was in the past.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...=mw_latestnews

The end of globalization is here — now investors need to prepare for what’s next

However, the one de-globalization scenario that is especially concerning is a deep split between China- and U.S.-led economic blocs. Admittedly, it seems unlikely that trade and investment flows between the West and China dry up completely, in a repeat of the Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. But a mix of restrictions on trade in specific sectors and products seems likely, as does some sort of technological iron curtain. Were this to happen, it would have a more deleterious effect on global growth, not to mention geopolitical stability.

[other_evolved]

Multiple reports (WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters) suggested some of the optimism surrounding US-China trade truce touted by President Trump last Friday may have been a bit overdone. Deal leaves in place US tariffs on $350B+ of Chinese imports, allows China to kick down the road key concessions, including on industrial subsidies, it does not want to make. Beijing never confirmed the $40B-$50B of US ag purchases highlighted by Trump, while US ag industry experts skeptical. Bloomberg reported China wants more talks to hammer out details of the "phase one" trade deal, may push for US to scrap December's new tariffs.

The Oval Office announcement of a phase one trade deal was "contingent on it being written," Trump said, with no apparent irony.

*thud*

[Torgus]

Guess who wins a new 'cold war' against China? USA and our allies. China is already having major issues. Now we just need to turn on the pressure and watch the economy and government collapse.

[WestRace]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

Multiple reports (WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters) suggested some of the optimism surrounding US-China trade truce touted by President Trump last Friday may have been a bit overdone. Deal leaves in place US tariffs on $350B+ of Chinese imports, allows China to kick down the road key concessions, including on industrial subsidies, it does not want to make. Beijing never confirmed the $40B-$50B of US ag purchases highlighted by Trump, while US ag industry experts skeptical. Bloomberg reported China wants more talks to hammer out details of the "phase one" trade deal, may push for US to scrap December's new tariffs.

The Oval Office announcement of a phase one trade deal was "contingent on it being written," Trump said, with no apparent irony.

*thud*

I agree. It seems like I've seen this movie before. Kind of like China trade war Groundhog Day.

The Chinese just wants to play delay tactics until what they hope to be a new US president after 2020 so they can get a better deal like Obama who just let them have whatever they want. Obama probably went to bed with the silicon valley crowds who may not always have the best of interest in term of national security. Idealism and nationality are not always mutually inclusive.
Warren with all the tough talks of protectionism will probably follow the same O path lols.

Trump with all his antics is probably our best hopes.

[WestRace]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Guess who wins a new 'cold war' against China? USA and our allies. China is already having major issues. Now we just need to turn on the pressure and watch the economy and government collapse.

Apparently that didn't happen to Putin, Iran, North Korea ... and the Chinese economically in much better shape than Russia. I mean we couldn't do anything against Saddam Hussein until actually having to invading Iraq which is relatively a tiny little country. And good luck invading China.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by WestRace

I agree. It seems like I've seen this movie before. Kind of like China trade war Groundhog Day.

The Chinese just wants to play delay tactics until what they hope to be a new US president after 2020 so they can get a better deal like Obama who just let them have whatever they want. Obama probably went to bed with the silicon valley crowds who may not always have the best of interest in term of national security. Idealism and nationality are not always mutually inclusive.
Warren with all the tough talks of protectionism will probably follow the same O path lols.

Trump with all his antics is probably our best hopes.

Yup! China would kill for a push over liberal who will cave to their desires. I just don't see them trying to be tough on China.

[WestRace]

Meanwhile ... First it's the silicon valley caving, then the NBA, now it's the banks :-). But I don't know whether it's caving or milking. Maybe "caved" then "milked".

https://www.investopedia.com/big-ban...ral&yptr=yahoo

Big Banks Rushing for Piece of $43 Trillion China Market Amid Trade War.

Amid the bitter US.-China trade war, a largely unnoticed development is the attempt by big U.S banks to compete in China's rapidly-growing financial sector. China recently announced specific dates when it will begin allowing full foreign ownership of mainland-based financial services companies. The China Securities Regulatory Commission said foreign ownership controls on futures firms, fund management firms and securities firms will be scrapped next year on January 1, April 1 and December 1, respectively.


“China is very determined to reform its financial markets and knows that without the major American players, it is very hard to talk about having a truly internationalized market,” observes Michael Pettis, a professor of finance at the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University, per a detailed report in Bloomberg. “It also makes sense for China to accommodate a very important source of lobbying support, especially as there’s so little in the U.S. right now," he added.


To this end, executives of leading U.S. financial firms, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), and Morgan Stanley (MS), as well as hedge fund and private equity firms The Blackstone Group (BX), and Citadel, recently met with senior Chinese regulators in Beijing. However, a new round of hostilities may be clouding their hopes. Specifically, the U.S. recently imposed export restrictions on more than two dozen Chinese firms, accusing them of abusing Muslim minorities, while also placing visa restrictions on Chinese officials, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Significance for Investors
The world's most populous country with nearly 1.4 billion people, China has a financial system already worth $43 trillion, per Bloomberg. Total profits earned by Chinese commercial banks in 2018 were nearly $267 billion, according to a report from the China Banking Association reported by China Daily. The U.S. banking sector reported profits of $62.6 billion in 2Q 2019, per data from the FDIC reported by Reuters.

The Chinese financial system has been beset by a number of problems that regulators believe can be brought under control if leading foreign institutions with better business practices are allowed to enter the market. Among these issues are record high corporate bond defaults, rising numbers of bad loans, large accounting errors by public companies, and inaccurate filings by IPO candidates.

“Opening up is a way of putting pressure on financial system reforms, especially considering the many competing interest groups,” Li Haitao, the dean’s distinguished chair professor of finance at Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing, remarked to Bloomberg.

Meanwhile, as its middle and upper classes grow, China's economy is becoming more consumption-driven, and the demand for wealth management services also is increasing. Additionally, its trade surplus was diminishing even before the trade war.

“To avoid balance of payments challenges, Beijing needs to attract correspondingly large capital inflows, and is plunging ahead with financial sector opening with this long-term reality in mind,” as Daniel Rosen, a partner at economic research firm Rhodium Group, was quoted in the same report.

“We’re all in. We’re not slowing down,” JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon asserted in a Bloomberg interview earlier this year. His bank won approval for majority ownership of a securities joint venture in China, with the goal of becoming the sole owner when regulators permit it.

Goldman Sachs has applied to take majority control of its own JV in China, Goldman Sachs Gao Hua Securities, which provides investment banking services such as securities underwriting and M&A advice, Reuters reports. Goldman already exercised operational control of the JV, but was limited to a 33% stake by regulators. UBS Group AG (UBS) and Morgan Stanley also have applied to take majority control of their own JVs, while HSBC Holdings Ltd. (HSBC) launched a majority-owned JV in late 2017 as a result of being partly based in Hong Kong.

Looking Ahead
State-run Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. (ICBC) is the world's largest by assets, with annual profits about 33% higher than JPMorgan Chase, Bloomberg notes. “JPMorgan will need to be selective around the businesses they choose to be active in order to carve out a meaningful competitive foothold in China,” Benjamin Quinlan, CEO of financial services consulting firm Quinlan & Associates in Hong Kong, observes. “I don’t think they will ever contend against ICBC, given the sheer size of resources at ICBC’s disposal," he added.