Join institutional investors, analysts and strategists from the world's largest banks: Subscribe today for as little as $7/month
Already have an account? log in
Cold War Headlines
China's upset with the West. Or the West is upset with China. Both. It's both.
"Essentially, it's protectionism," Mao Ning, a spokeswoman for Xi Jinping's foreign ministry snapped, feigning irritability at a daily press briefing on Monday.
Mao was referring to efforts in Western capitals to level the proverbial playing field in the face of what US and EU officials claim is a deliberate effort on Beijing's part to export its way out of an economic slowdown.
This isn't exactly a new concern, bu
A BYD Seagull costs $11,000 (prior to tariffs). A Tesla Model 3 starts at $40,000.
We will see what the American consumer wants!
Where could I buy one without tariffs? Asking for a friend….
Well, the current 50% tariff rises to just over 100% on August 1.
All of that could be over the second Xi decides it. All he has to say is:
“We renounce to invade Taiwan now and in perpetuity and recognize its de facto independence, until such time they willingly join us”
Do you really believe that all of the tariffs and trade restrictions are being imposed solely to defend Taiwan?
By and large, yes. There are 2 arguments for these tariffs.
1 – national security (see above)
2- industrial policy. Our elites have belatedly realised that cheap goods for consumers doesn’t quite compensate for job losses for industrial workers.
How 1 and 2 gets weighted by individual politicians/this administration is anyone’s guess. But my bet is that, if Xi unilaterally promises peace (and acts in accordance with that), a fair few of these tariffs/the levels would be adjusted.
That vague hope is not worth giving up their ultimate bargaining chip for.
Especially if Cotton or Rubio is the VP pick: it’ll be all China, all the time until November.
I’m not sure what you consider the ultimate bargaining chip here? Xi about Taiwan?
To be clear, I think a cold war between the West and China sucks for both and a hot war would be way worse. I don’t see any upside for anyone here as opposed to peace where both China and us could keep on reaping that peace dividend.
Now, a subtle point could be that what’s good for China isn’t necessarily what’s good for the CCP and Xi but…
I taught over 12,000 university students in business subjects over a 40 year career. Frankly, most of them were lazy and did little to create the foundation for a useful career. My elite students knew what they could do and worked accordingly. I helped make as many of them better off as they would allow me to. I, for one don’t see the value of the tradeoff you posit in #2 above. I had to earn every dollar I made. Our workers don’t deserve “money for nothin’ and chicks for free.” They should be offered work, which the unemployment rate seems to indicate they are, at a wage level that makes sense. We can’t guarantee high paying jobs for all if that makes our home-grown goods too expensive for service workers to buy. Companies will do everything they can to keep lowing costs and AI is going to eliminate a lot of the free riders in our workforce the same way offshoring has been doing for many decades. Its called economics, my friends. Between cheaper and more expensive, no business will willingly volunteer for the latter.
Forgive my ignorance, and I do at least know this isn’t an apples to apples comparison: but what is the difference between China’s “chip’s fund” and the US “chips act” or massive tax breaks/refunds, etc.?
There isn’t. Chips are the constrained variable, and constrained variables are one of the three most powerful forces in the universe.
Since I know you’re curious, the other two are compound interest, and exclusionary zoning.