The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher Trump, Xi Navigate Minefield At First Summit
by Tyler Durden
Today�s China-U.S. summit meeting is an event that could also have enormous implications
- in both directions.
As Bloomberg's Richard Breslow notes, one can't help but be intrigued by the fact that
while everyone is looking at the S&P 500, this morning the Shanghai composite traded
at its highest level of the year.
Notably, the Dollar relationship to China's currency relative to the rest of the world's
relationship to the Yuan is following a very similar pattern to last year's 'Shanghai Accord'
- stronger Yuan vs USD as China weakens its basket against all majors.
Fooling Trump et al. that China is 'not' devaluing?
There doesn't appear to be any scheduled press conferences just yet but, as Deutsche Bank's
Jim Reid notes, it�s worth keeping an eye on the headlines as the next two days progress.
Clearly North Korea will be a subject near to the top of the agenda.
Importantly though the meeting is the start of a new China-US bilateral relationship so
the rhetoric which follows from the leaders will be closely scrutinised and debated one
would imagine.
The stage is set for a carefully choreographed dinners with family and displays of bonhomie,
but beneath the facade runs a wary, almost palpable, anxiety -- as the men face a make
or break moment.
As AFP reports, Xi is arriving at the resort with a gift-basket of "tweetable deliverables",
sources say, peace offerings on Trump's signature issues -- trade and jobs -- that he hopes
will smooth over a relationship that began on shaky ground following disagreements over
Taiwan.
In return, he hopes to get assurances from Trump on American sales of arms to the island,
as well as trade.
But what Trump wants is less clear.
Although his comments during a Fox New interview this morning offer some visibility:
*TRUMP: WE HAVEN'T BEEN TREATED FAIRLY ON TRADE WITH CHINA
*TRUMP SAYS WILL DO REALLY WELL IN MEETINGS WITH CHINA'S XI
So, what's at stake as President Trump sits down with China�s Xi?
Greg Wright (via The Conversation) explains...
The U.S. and China together account for one-third of global economic output, so there is a lot
at stake as President Donald Trump meets with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, not least
the fate of the world economy over the next few years.
And it is precisely the magnitude of the stakes involved that has led some observers to assume
that both countries will play it safe and focus on the areas of the relationship that
are �win-win� relative to the areas that are more likely to produce conflict.
But there is no guarantee that this will happen.
In fact, Trump may have already dealt himself a poor hand thanks to his past rhetoric on
trade, which has heightened the political risk that he faces in negotiating with Xi.
Perhaps more worryingly, Trump�s focus on achieving short-term victories could also
tip the balance against the U.S.
At the end of the day the two countries not only drive the world economy but also rely
critically on one another, a fact that should moderate the decisions of these two strong-willed
leaders.
In fact, my research (with fellow economists Giovanni Peri and Gianmarco Ottaviano) has
highlighted the economic risks of miscalculating on trade deals, particularly those with developing
countries.
National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, right, argues trade is important to economic
growth.
A tricky trade balance
Trump has a difficult political balancing act to maintain.
On the one hand, 85 percent of Republicans believe that trade has cost more U.S. jobs
than it has created.
This group will presumably expect results in raising barriers to U.S. imports, particularly
those from China.
In fact, there is perhaps no other issue more salient to Trump�s base than the perceived
harm done to U.S. workers due to international trade, and Trump has been unequivocal in his
promises to scale back trade agreements, from NAFTA to the now-rejected Trans-Pacific Partnership.
On the other hand, Trump�s more moderate advisers, such as Gary Cohn, head of the National
Economic Council, have likely cautioned him that trade is ultimately good for economic
growth.
And any disruption would be bad both for the U.S. and for Trump�s political future.
Having repeatedly (and unrealistically) promised at least 4 percent to 5 percent annual economic
growth, Trump must be careful not to inadvertently push the economy into a ditch by abandoning
the free trade principles that have made the U.S. one of the richest countries in the world.
Who will �win�?
Another potential pitfall for Trump is that the search for a perceived �victory� in
the negotiations � something the president typically prizes above all else � is actually
more likely to favor Xi.
This is because Xi�s grip on power is such that he does not need headline-grabbing wins
to the extent that Trump does.
Instead, he can try to extract more substantive concessions behind the scenes.
This suggests that a possible outcome is that the status quo will be effectively maintained.
For instance, Xi may be able to walk away with a win by simply avoiding a trade war
while also obtaining an implicit promise that the U.S. will look the other way on human
rights issues and Chinese regional expansion.
This isn�t to say that Trump does not have leverage � his campaign promise to raise
import tariffs on China to 45 percent would be a serious blow to the Chinese economy.
And of course the U.S. can always flex its political and military strength in opposition
to Chinese interests.
But perhaps most unnerving for the Chinese is Trump�s unpredictability which, despite
its downsides, keeps his counterparts off balance.
The concern is that Trump may use his leverage in order to obtain �tweetable� victories
that do not amount to much.
For instance, a likely outcome is that Trump obtains promises of future investments in
the U.S. of several billions of dollars.
In fact, Chinese and U.S. commentators have suggested that these investments may come
as part of a larger U.S. infrastructure program.
However, as with other investments that Trump has taken credit for, most of these would
be made in any case (China invested $45 billion in the U.S. last year) and so come at little
cost to the Chinese.
National Trade Council adviser Peter Navarro, right, views trade deficits as a key economic
metric.
A misguided focus on trade deficits
But as with the imposition of trade barriers, Chinese investments do not come without political
risk.
In this case, it is the Trump administration�s obsession with the trade deficit in goods
as the key metric by which it views success or failure on trade that will make life harder.
The trade deficit with China � US$347 billion in 2016 � is simply the difference between
U.S. exports to China and U.S. imports from China, and this value fluctuates for a variety
of reasons.
When the U.S. runs a trade deficit it means that, on net, the U.S. is sending dollars
to China in exchange for Chinese goods.
As a simple fact of accounting, those dollars must then end up back in the U.S. as investments
in U.S. assets.
So investments in U.S. assets are the flip side of a trade deficit.
As a result, inviting greater Chinese investment in U.S. assets will necessarily increase the
trade deficit with China.
While most economists believe that the trade deficit is a poor measure of the success of
a country in the world economy, National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro has repeatedly
pressed the case for trade deficits as a proxy for the overall health of the U.S. economy,
as has Trump.
And so, however inadvisable it may be to focus on the trade deficit, Trump is sure to pay
a political price if it were to grow over the course of his tenure.
Forging a bond before the clashes ahead
In the end, the most consequential outcome of Xi�s visit may be the extent to which
a bond is forged between the two leaders.
This is because Trump tends to personalize policy choices, and many of the most important
issues on which the U.S. and China will need to find common ground will arise over the
next few months.
For instance, although Trump has not yet formally labeled China as a currency manipulator (which
he promised to do on �day one�), later in the spring the Treasury Department will
publish its analysis of international currencies and may choose to place that label on China.
While the Chinese would likely simply ignore such a designation, it would require the U.S.
to take some form of punitive action if negotiations with China did not resolve the dispute.
But, of course, this may be small beer compared with the more pressing geopolitical issues
that will be in play.
These include dealing with North Korea, whether or not to confront internal repression within
China and the threat of Chinese regional expansion.
It would not be surprising to find that American cooperation on these fronts comes with a price
tag denominated in U.S. jobs.
Finally, it is worth noting that reducing the level of trade with China will do little
to help U.S. workers.
This is something that nearly all economists agree on, but that politicians rarely embrace.
This is because while the economy can be easily cured of a proliferation of trade agreements
by simply withdrawing from, or rewriting, those accords, there is no easy cure for the
proliferation of new technologies, which are the real culprits in the decline of U.S. industrial
production.
And so, since trade is a policy lever that can be easily pulled, politicians inevitably
rush to do so.
For more infomation >> TREINO DE PERNAS COMPLETO EM CASA Os Melhores Exercicios Para Ter Pernas Grossas e Gluteos Maiores - Duration: 4:47. 
For more infomation >> Wow South Asian Forest Escape walkthrough Wowescape. - Duration: 4:35. 
For more infomation >> КАК БЫСТРО ПОДНЯТЬ 4000 РЕЙТИНГА В ДОТЕ? ЛЕГКИЙ СПОСОБ | DOTA 2 - Duration: 6:05. 
For more infomation >> Disney Cars McQueen Puzzle Disney Cars Mack Truck Trailer and Mcqueen Kinder Surprise Eggs Unboxing - Duration: 22:07. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét