Connect with us
Wise usd campaign
ADVERTISEMENT

China

US–China trade war : will there be a winner ?

The U.S. and China are hours away from a new round of tariffs on each other’s goods, with no improvement in relations between the two rivals in sight. Will there be a winner, or only two big losers ?

Published

on

The U.S. and China are hours away from a new round of tariffs on each other’s goods, with no improvement in relations between the two rivals in sight.

 

In a significant escalation, $200 billion of Chinese products will be subject to increased tariffs from 12:00 p.m. Beijing time on Monday, on top of the $50 billion in goods already charged higher duties earlier in the year. The combined $250 billion in products facing levies is almost half the value of imports from China last year.

Meanwhile, $60 billion of goods from the U.S. will become subject to Chinese higher tariffs around the same time, adding to the $50 billion already levied. That’ll mean about 70 percent of the value of goods China bought from America in 2017 face tariffs.

There are three major explanations for why the United States began its recent trade war with China

United States wants to reduce its trade deficit

The first is that the United States wants to reduce its trade deficits. US President Donald Trump tweeted on 4 April 2018 that ‘[the United States has] a Trade Deficit of $500 Billion a year, with Intellectual Property Theft of another $300 Billion. We cannot let this continue!’. Many US commentators think that the gargantuan imbalance translates into an incremental increase in US indebtedness to China, which they consider to be a huge vulnerability for the United States.

The United States wants to slow China’s progress toward being a high-tech superpower

The second is that the United States wants to slow China’s progress toward being a high-tech superpower. The main sectors in China getting hit are machinery, electronics and IT technology. This is tantamount to the United States’ directly targeting Made in China 2025.

The final explanation is that ‘Trump favours highly transactional exchanges’ and wants an increased stock of bargaining chips. Trump may well have begun a trade war with China now so that he can relinquish it later in exchange for cooperation over perplexing political and security issues.

Whatever the cause, China has been bashed by the trade war. Over the last five months, the Shanghai Composite Index — a barometer of the Chinese stock market — has plummeted by approximately 18 per cent and the Chinese renminbi has depreciated nearly 8 per cent. Because China is still export dependent, the trade war will make Chinese export firms lose approximately US$22 billion and will cause unemployment, especially in China’s east coast.

China faces daunting domestic challenges

Even without the trade war, China faces daunting domestic challenges.

After years of work, China’s economic structural change is slowly progressing. China’s private consumption as percentage of GDP has been increasing since 2010, but it has not yet breached 40 per cent (compared to a US average of 68 per cent). China’s gross savings rate is more than 46 per cent of GNP against the United States’ 17.3 per cent.

Continued high national savings for a long time fully financed Chinese investment and sustained it at a very high level. Even today, China’s investment accounts for 44.4 per cent of GDP. This prolonged investment on a massive scale has created significant overcapacity in a range of sectors and has engendered much debt — part of which has become non-performing loans.

The trade war will only drive the renminbi to further depreciate

Amid China’s internal issues, the trade war will only drive the renminbi to further depreciate. In recent months, Beijing has taken a series of monetary and fiscal initiatives to boost lending and restructure debt.

These initiatives may ameliorate the situation in the short term, but solving the problems completely and successfully will take much longer than expected. If the trade war lingers on until the end of 2018 or even till 2019, market sell-off pressure on the renminbi will likely increase. In addition, US economic indicators look sublime and the almost-inevitable interest rate raise will facilitate further renminbi depreciation.

The worst case scenario would be a persistent trade war coupled with US interest rate increases. This would elicit very negative sentiment and might cause large-scale capital flight from China.

But can the United States achieve the objectives it seeks from the trade war?

The United States cannot drive down or stop trade deficits for the foreseeable future. Anyone who understands balance of payments accounting knows that the sum of the current account and the capital account must equal zero. The United States has very flexible and liquid capital markets with highly credible governance, which lures countries with trade surpluses to export a large part of their excess savings to the United States.

In 2017, US net financial inflows stood at more than US$375 billion, and the capital account surplus exceeded US$400 billion. Further, in today’s trade regime, the capital account drives the savings account. Unless the United States can flip around its capital account surplus, overall trade deficits will remain huge.

Similarly, the United States will struggle to blight China’s Made in China 2025 initiative.

Technology innovation and investment are being promoted by the Chinese government.

There are now 1775 Chinese venture capital firms. China is determined to narrow the income gap between itself and the advanced countries. So a trade war aiming to refrain China from technological enhancement will ‘only strengthen Chinese leaders’ resolve to boost innovation and achieve technological supremacy, as they realise that they can’t rely on others’, as Joseph Stiglitz notes.

Finally, if Trump plans on using a trade war as a bargaining chip, he should know that China will not likely compromise, at least in the short term. Popular anger and national sentiment may well surge about the trade war, which would leave the Chinese government with little choice but to stand firm. China could use ‘strong sales of US brands’ as its own bargaining chip, but if the trade war lasts for more months and China’s economy continues to worsen, the US bargaining chips might increase in potency. Yet still, China could hardly give in to any conditions that violate its national interests.

The trade war will accomplish neither country’s objectives.

China and the United States need to install an effective communications channel, dispatch high-echelon officials who deeply understand each other, come to negotiations, and as Harvard economist Dani Rodrik suggests, ‘do not impose on other countries constraints that you would not accept if faced with their circumstances’.

Yuhan Zhang is an economist and independent researcher.

Who will be the winner of the US–China trade war? | East Asia Forum

Continue Reading

Business

Russia’s Booming Economy is Straining a Vital Trading Route with China

Published

on

Russia’s railway industry is experiencing a significant downturn, with a nearly 30% investment cut and a 5% freight volume decline, complicating trade with China amidst the economic impacts of the Ukraine war.


Downward Trend in Russia’s Railway Industry

Russia’s railway industry is currently experiencing a significant downturn, largely due to the impacts of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. According to MMI Research, this sector is facing its biggest slowdown since the Great Financial Crisis, with freight volumes dropping by 5% in the first 11 months of 2024. The war-driven economy has hindered trade, particularly with China, which heavily relies on rail transport.

Investment Cuts and Economic Consequences

Investment in Russia’s railways is set to decrease by almost 30% next year, dropping to 890 billion rubles (approximately $8.5 billion). This reduction is attributed to high interest rates, currently at a record 21%, which further complicate financing options. The state-owned Russian Railways is reconsidering future investments, indicating potential cuts by another third through 2030.

Challenges Affecting Trade with China

The decline in rail capacity poses significant challenges for Russia’s trade with China. As Western sanctions push Russia to diversify its trade routes, rail transport has become increasingly vital for moving goods. However, supply bottlenecks, exacerbated by the need to transport war-related materials, threaten to disrupt this crucial trading relationship further.

Source : Russia’s overheated economy is squeezing one of Moscow’s key trading channels with China

Continue Reading

Business

Democrat Claims Musk is Undermining Spending Bill Due to China Restrictions – The Hill

Published

on

A Democrat claims Elon Musk influenced the reduction of a spending bill due to its restrictions on China, suggesting his actions impacted the legislation’s progress and funding allocation.


Allegations Against Musk

A prominent Democrat has accused Elon Musk of deliberately sabotaging a significant spending bill in response to China-related restrictions. This accusation comes amid ongoing tensions between the U.S. and China, particularly regarding technology and trade policies. The claims suggest that Musk’s influence is affecting critical legislative processes, raising concerns among lawmakers about foreign influence in American politics.

Implications for Legislation

The potential ramifications of Musk’s alleged actions could be significant. As a major player in the tech industry, his decisions can sway public opinion and impact the economy. Lawmakers fear that if influential figures like Musk oppose necessary legislation, it might hinder efforts to address vital issues such as national security and economic stability.

Political Reactions

The controversy has sparked debates among both Democrats and Republicans, highlighting the intersection of technology and politics. Many are demanding greater transparency and accountability from tech giants. As the situation unfolds, lawmakers may need to reassess their strategies to ensure that essential legislation moves forward uninterrupted.

Source : Democrat accuses Musk of tanking spending bill over China restrictions – The Hill

Continue Reading

China

Dissolving a Company in China: A Comparison of General Deregistration and Simplified Deregistration

Published

on

China promotes simplified deregistration to enhance its business environment, offering a faster process requiring fewer documents than general deregistration. Companies must meet eligibility criteria, resolve issues, and can choose procedures based on their situation, ensuring compliance for both options.


In addition to the general deregistration procedures, China has been promoting simplified deregistration as one of the key measures to enhance its business environment. This article highlights the differences between the general and simplified procedures, explains the eligibility criteria, and clarifies common misunderstandings about these processes.

Foreign investors may decide to close their business for multiple reasons. To legally wind up a business, investors must complete a series of procedures involving multiple government agencies, such as market regulatory bureaus, foreign exchange administrations, customs, tax authorities, banking regulators, and others. In this article, we outline the company deregistration process overseen by the local Administration for Market Regulation (AMR), comparing the general and simplified procedures.

Before 2016, companies could only deregister through the general procedure. However, on December 26, 2016, the Guidance on Fully Promoting the Reform of Simplified Company Deregistration Procedures was released. Effective March 1, 2017, simplified deregistration procedures were implemented nationwide. Since then, there have been two options: general procedures and simplified procedures.

Companies must follow the general deregistration process if any of the following conditions apply (hereinafter referred to as “existing issues”):

Companies not facing the above issues may choose either the general or simplified deregistration process.  

In summary, simplified deregistration is a faster process and requires fewer documents compared to general deregistration. Companies that meet the criteria typically would typically opt for simplified deregistration. Those that do not meet the criteria may choose this route after resolving outstanding issues. For companies with unresolved issues but seeking urgent closure, they can first publish a deregistration announcement. Once the announcement period ends and all issues are addressed, they can proceed with general deregistration. Some companies may question the legitimacy and compliance of simplified deregistration. This is a misconception. “Simplified” does not mean non-compliant, just as “general” does not imply greater legitimacy. Both processes are lawful and compliant. The AMR provides these options to enable companies ready for closure to complete the process efficiently while granting those with unsolved issues the necessary time to address them after publishing the deregistration announcement. Companies can select the most suitable process based on their specific circumstances.

 


This article was first published by China Briefing , which is produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The firm assists foreign investors throughout Asia from offices across the world, including in in ChinaHong KongVietnamSingapore, and India . Readers may write to info@dezshira.com for more support.

Read the rest of the original article.

Continue Reading