Geithner signals tougher stance on China

[ray245]

Come on? Using Human rights as a reason to stall China's economic growth? At the least use a more reasonable argument if you are going to be more trade protectionist.

The "human rights" argument is mainly for the consumption of the American middle-class professional urbanite vote (yuppies, DINKs etc), who themsleves hate protectionism of any kind because they have drunk the "service economy" kool-aid, and don't want anything to get in the way of the foreign goods they crave. The only way to make them support protectionism is to use an excuse like "human rights" to make the reasons seem unrelated. "Protecting jobs" is of no concern to them, for as long as their jobs aren't in danger of being outsourced, they don't give a shit if Joe the Factory worker is reduced to flipping burgers because his job skills aren't transferable, or even if entrie cities turn into burned out high-crime hellholes because the local industry shut down and nothing moved in to fill the void.

Besides if "China's economic growth" is dependant on the US comitting economic suicide, then why should anyone have a problem with US protectionism stalling it (except the Chinese themselves, of course). Economic suicide may seem like an overly dire prediction but it really is the only logical conclusion of free trade with countries that refuse to open thier economy to you as you have to them (not to mention the robber-baronry that's allowed in China makes it impossible for Western industries with all their pesky labor laws to compete on a level playing field even if China did open up it's economy). It's like tying one of your arms behind your back in a fistfight, regardless whether the other guy agrees to do the same.

Finally, you consistently ignore the fact that China is highly protectionist of it's own economy (as mentioned earlier), yet cry foul when the US even lifts a finger to protect any aspect of it's own economy. Why are you so insistent that the US meekly allow foreign predation to exterminate it's strategic industries and vital economic organs, and in so doing completly destroy it's sovereignty and ability to decide it's own future? You whine about how the Americans try to make others their "puppets", yet seem to expect them to put other countries interests before their own.

I am fine with people using the following argument made by you. I do understand that we have to look at things from US's side, and I am fine with the US arguing against China on the basis of protecting their own national interest. Nor, do I mind Chinese arguing to defend their own national interest.

However, I am annoyed that the Democrats screaming human rights as a reasonable argument. Given the sheer amount of people on the left and right who will believe anything their government tells them about, it gets extremely annoying when I went into a debate with people using Human rights as a reason to stall China's economic growth.


Another question, I was wondering, can the Chinese even afford to buy US goods? Half of their modern day technology used by their middle-class is pirated anyway, which makes me wonder, is the Chinese consumer even capable of spending that amount of money to make free trade more balanced?

[Stuart Mackey]

Naturally, but is the US in a position to do that?

The same could be asked that of China. If their biggest customers don't buy their goods, who would they sell to? Themselves? With what money?

I wouldn't agree with that, where would we be without idealism to set our goals for our own improvement, whatever that might be?
I would say that realistic means and methods are required to achieve an ideal state or at least make gains in that direction.

Idealism has no place because no side will ever get what they want, and it then boils down to managing expectations and achieving the agreement that all sides will agree, and often that doesn't happen, which is why we just had a recent conflict in Gaza.

We had a conflict in Gaza because people have ideals, whatever we might think of them, that's human nature and that's just the reality of life. I have never got my way completely in my work history, or sometimes not at all, but if you have a goal and get fifty percent of it, that's better than nothing. Without an ideal goal we as nations will never achieve anything at all because you have nothing to work towards.
Look at slavery; Wilberforce et al had great ideals for its abolition, yet there is still slavery, should we abandon that ideal and cease work to prevent it just because that scourge has not been eliminated, because we don't always 'get what we want'? Without idealism we can never improve ourselves.

[mr friendly guy]

I heard it said that if the Government provided more social services (eg health), there would be less incentive for the average Chinese citizen to save, and hence more to spend. That being said despite having a health system that doesn't cover what tens of millions of their population the US consumer still spent a lot.

I think to some extent, providing more services will encourage the Chinese consumer to spend (and hence supports their economy), however I don't think its a good idea in the long term if China turns into USA mark II, that is using credit instead of savings for consumption. In short, they most probably should try to be somewhere in the middle from where they are now, and what the US was.

[Ma Deuce]

However, I am annoyed that the Democrats screaming human rights as a reasonable argument. Given the sheer amount of people on the left and right who will believe anything their government tells them about, it gets extremely annoying when I went into a debate with people using Human rights as a reason to stall China's economic growth.

Like I said, it's all politics. It is the only way the Democrats can sell protectionism to the suburbanite yuppies while still ensuring they'll vote for them, because while the suburbanites will more likely support the Democrats on social issues, they're still more likely to support the Republicans on certain economic issues (namely trade and taxes). Yes, the human rights angle is annoying even only if a political necessity, as I don't think national governments have any buisness criticizing or punishing the domestic social policies of other countries (even dictatorships), provided they don't do anything really vile like genocide.

Rest assured however, that if the US government does restrict trade with China in the near future, human rights will not be the real reason, no matter how much the yuppies believe otherwise.

Another question, I was wondering, can the Chinese even afford to buy US goods? Half of their modern day technology used by their middle-class is pirated anyway, which makes me wonder, is the Chinese consumer even capable of spending that amount of money to make free trade more balanced?

A few years ago it was predicted that China would surpass the US as the world's biggest automobile market by 2020, so the Chinese middle class are certainly capable of absorbing more imported goods than they currently are (for the record, most Chinese cars, even of foreign marques, are assembled locally). That alone wouldn't cover the shortfall by a longshot, but consumers aren't the only people who buy imported items: The US exports larger items that aren't necessarly bought by consumers (airliners, locomotives, farm equipment etc), as well as other items like foodstuffs, and many of these items comprise what the US does export to China. Bottom line is, if a given economy as a whole is capable of exporting a certain value of goods, then it has the capacity of importing the same value of goods.

However, the US still has the problem that China can produce common consumer goods more cheaply even without the currency manipulation they currently employ, and so even if China opened it's economy to American exports and investment, the US would still be faced with the choice of watching some of it's industries vanish (like say, the textile industry, which has already been decimated in the US), or protecting them with tariffs. The Chinese can't be really blamed for that particular advantage even though it partially arises from conditions that would be illegal in any Western country (see the first paragraph), however neither can China's export partners be blamed for not wanting their domestic industres to drown under a flood of cheap imports, and taking action to prevent that from hapenning.

[ray245]

I heard it said that if the Government provided more social services (eg health), there would be less incentive for the average Chinese citizen to save, and hence more to spend. That being said despite having a health system that doesn't cover what tens of millions of their population the US consumer still spent a lot.

I think to some extent, providing more services will encourage the Chinese consumer to spend (and hence supports their economy), however I don't think its a good idea in the long term if China turns into USA mark II, that is using credit instead of savings for consumption. In short, they most probably should try to be somewhere in the middle from where they are now, and what the US was.

Which is funny, that given that China is supposed to be a communist state, yet there is less spending on health. I really have to wonder, did those idiots even think twice when they tried to call Obama a communist.

Rest assured however, that if the US government does restrict trade with China in the near future, human rights will not be the real reason, no matter how much the yuppies believe otherwise.

That is an argument which I can accept. Given the fact that China did improve on their human rights record, although at a rather slow pace, I really hope more democrats supporters can wise up to that.

Other than that, I still fail to understand how can the US possibly hope to benefit from a trade embargo, if they labeled China as a currency manipulator officially.

In regards to cheap imports, I really have to ask, why do the US wants to protect their cheap products industry? Cheap products meaning things like textiles and etc? I mean in a globalised world, trying to protect industries where all you need is cheap and relatively unskilled labour to produce your goods, you are bound to lose out against developing nations.

If you are trying to protect your skilled labour industries, then it will make more sense, and it is actually possible for you to protect them.

A nation that does not tried to seek an improvement on technology and more advanced industries is bound to fail against developing economies. The more conservatism tried to stick with status quo, the chances of them getting overtaken actually increased.

After all, those developing economies technically have less to lose than those developed nations.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Other than that, I still fail to understand how can the US possibly hope to benefit from a trade embargo, if they labeled China as a currency manipulator officially.

It's been repeated countless times and you still haven't gotten it into your head. The point of trade embargos is to protect industries. Labeling China a currency manipulator kicks a series of mechanisms to investigate Chinese manipulation and then lead on to possible sanctions.

In regards to cheap imports, I really have to ask, why do the US wants to protect their cheap products industry? Cheap products meaning things like textiles and etc? I mean in a globalised world, trying to protect industries where all you need is cheap and relatively unskilled labour to produce your goods, you are bound to lose out against developing nations.

God.. I wish Singaporeans like you grow a bigger mind. Have you ever realised that every country has a Gaussian distribution of intelligence and you cannot fucking expect everyone to work in a high tech industry or work in some shop or restaurant because there are only so many shops and restaurants? Where do you expect these people to work in? On the streets? Have you ever been to a ghetto area or a slum?

A nation that does not tried to seek an improvement on technology and more advanced industries is bound to fail against developing economies. The more conservatism tried to stick with status quo, the chances of them getting overtaken actually increased.

Just about any country tries to improve themselves and not fall behind. But you cannot expect everyone to be smart enough to be in such industries!

After all, those developing economies technically have less to lose than those developed nations.

Nonsense. Developing economies are pretty beholden to developed nations investment money and technology. Where do you think most of Singapore's success comes from?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

We had a conflict in Gaza because people have ideals, whatever we might think of them, that's human nature and that's just the reality of life. I have never got my way completely in my work history, or sometimes not at all, but if you have a goal and get fifty percent of it, that's better than nothing. Without an ideal goal we as nations will never achieve anything at all because you have nothing to work towards.
Look at slavery; Wilberforce et al had great ideals for its abolition, yet there is still slavery, should we abandon that ideal and cease work to prevent it just because that scourge has not been eliminated, because we don't always 'get what we want'? Without idealism we can never improve ourselves.

Are we confusing hope/dreams for ideals? What dreaming for an ideal is fine, when it comes to actual application, it's mostly a game of compromise, or a zero-sum game.

[ray245]

It's been repeated countless times and you still haven't gotten it into your head. The point of trade embargos is to protect industries. Labeling China a currency manipulator kicks a series of mechanisms to investigate Chinese manipulation and then lead on to possible sanctions.

I know it is to protect an industry. I am simply asking is such an act really going to help the economic recovery of the USA?

God.. I wish Singaporeans like you grow a bigger mind. Have you ever realised that every country has a Gaussian distribution of intelligence and you cannot fucking expect everyone to work in a high tech industry or work in some shop or restaurant because there are only so many shops and restaurants? Where do you expect these people to work in? On the streets? Have you ever been to a ghetto area or a slum?

Isn't there a difference between protecting those industries on a small scale? Say toy manufacturing for example, while protecting those industry on a small scale is certainly possible, trying to maintain that competitiveness against a developing nation is an near impossible action.

Look, I am not saying any developed nation should abandon their low tech industry totally.

Just about any country tries to improve themselves and not fall behind. But you cannot expect everyone to be smart enough to be in such industries!

I am not expecting everyone to be smart. Is expecting the majority to be smarter than their competition really impossible?

Nonsense. Developing economies are pretty beholden to developed nations investment money and technology. Where do you think most of Singapore's success comes from?

Technically. When I mean less to lose, I simply mean more willing to adopt any new technology their investors is willingly to provide.

While I am not an expert in regards to Japan's economic recovery, I thought that most people regards that recovery as a result of Japan being more willing accept new methods of production and etc? Like Robotics for example?

Well as always, I could be wrong.

[ray245]

We had a conflict in Gaza because people have ideals, whatever we might think of them, that's human nature and that's just the reality of life. I have never got my way completely in my work history, or sometimes not at all, but if you have a goal and get fifty percent of it, that's better than nothing. Without an ideal goal we as nations will never achieve anything at all because you have nothing to work towards.
Look at slavery; Wilberforce et al had great ideals for its abolition, yet there is still slavery, should we abandon that ideal and cease work to prevent it just because that scourge has not been eliminated, because we don't always 'get what we want'? Without idealism we can never improve ourselves.

Are we confusing hope/dreams for ideals? What dreaming for an ideal is fine, when it comes to actual application, it's mostly a game of compromise, or a zero-sum game.

Isn't ideals a main motivation to push for a game of compromise in the first place?

[Stuart Mackey]

We had a conflict in Gaza because people have ideals, whatever we might think of them, that's human nature and that's just the reality of life. I have never got my way completely in my work history, or sometimes not at all, but if you have a goal and get fifty percent of it, that's better than nothing. Without an ideal goal we as nations will never achieve anything at all because you have nothing to work towards.
Look at slavery; Wilberforce et al had great ideals for its abolition, yet there is still slavery, should we abandon that ideal and cease work to prevent it just because that scourge has not been eliminated, because we don't always 'get what we want'? Without idealism we can never improve ourselves.

Are we confusing hope/dreams for ideals? What dreaming for an ideal is fine, when it comes to actual application, it's mostly a game of compromise, or a zero-sum game.

And its based on ideals. Obviously, no one ever gets exactly what they want, it would be a nonsense to expect it, but to some how claim that there is no idealism in foreign affairs is also demonstrably a nonsense, you cannot have progress without idealism.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I know it is to protect an industry. I am simply asking is such an act really going to help the economic recovery of the USA?

That is mighty debatable. But regardless, some industries have to be maintained for the sake of national interest.

Isn't there a difference between protecting those industries on a small scale? Say toy manufacturing for example, while protecting those industry on a small scale is certainly possible, trying to maintain that competitiveness against a developing nation is an near impossible action.

1. Write complete sentences.

2. While maintaining competitiveness is impossible, the fact remains is that developing countries compromise a whole lot on worker's privileges to maintain competitiveness often to make up for the lack of manufacturing technology.

At the bare minimum, industries such as steel and a few others have to be kept and maintained.

Look, I am not saying any developed nation should abandon their low tech industry totally.

You did however say the US shouldn't protect it.

I am not expecting everyone to be smart. Is expecting the majority to be smarter than their competition really impossible?

YES. It's for that reason no country in the world has a perfect GINI coefficient, or an extremely fantastic one.

Technically. When I mean less to lose, I simply mean more willing to adopt any new technology their investors is willingly to provide.

While I am not an expert in regards to Japan's economic recovery, I thought that most people regards that recovery as a result of Japan being more willing accept new methods of production and etc? Like Robotics for example?

Adoption of technologies need money, and Japan's post World War II economic recovery is pretty unique to them. However, politically, Japan has not evolved as much as it should have.

[ray245]

That is mighty debatable. But regardless, some industries have to be maintained for the sake of national interest.

1. Write complete sentences.

2. While maintaining competitiveness is impossible, the fact remains is that developing countries compromise a whole lot on worker's privileges to maintain competitiveness often to make up for the lack of manufacturing technology.

At the bare minimum, industries such as steel and a few others have to be kept and maintained.

Sorry about that.

I concur. Steel industries should be maintained. However, one does not have to rely on Steel industries on a huge extend. Some trade protectionism policy aimed at supporting the reliance on their steel industry for a huge extend, that is the kind of policy I would disagree with.

Moreover, the problem with a globalised economy is this. If your nation do not 'outsource' or 'export' some of their low skilled industries, other developed nation will do the same thing.

Which means you will lose out to other nations anyway, if other nations can benefit from the cheap labour, while you can't.

You did however say the US shouldn't protect it.

Ah, sorry for not being clear. Protectionism against competition is what I am arguing on. I am fine if a nations decides to have a functional steel industry for example.

On the other hand, protecting the steel industry against competition is a near impossible task.

YES. It's for that reason no country in the world has a perfect GINI coefficient, or an extremely fantastic one.

Smarter than their competition. Come on, is that really impossible?

Adoption of technologies need money, and Japan's post World War II economic recovery is pretty unique to them. However, politically, Japan has not evolved as much as it should have.

Which means it is certainly plausible then?

[The Grim Squeaker]

YES. It's for that reason no country in the world has a perfect GINI coefficient, or an extremely fantastic one.

Smarter than their competition. Come on, is that really impossible?

Not smarter. Better educated. Able to read, write, use computers and have an infrastructure (both physical and social [education system for example]).

[ray245]

YES. It's for that reason no country in the world has a perfect GINI coefficient, or an extremely fantastic one.

Smarter than their competition. Come on, is that really impossible?

Not smarter. Better educated. Able to read, write, use computers and have an infrastructure (both physical and social [education system for example]).

Ah, thanks! I guess I have a poor choice of words.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I concur. Steel industries should be maintained. However, one does not have to rely on Steel industries on a huge extend. Some trade protectionism policy aimed at supporting the reliance on their steel industry for a huge extend, that is the kind of policy I would disagree with.

You know ray, sometimes you have read beyond all the crap you have read so far and think for yourself.

Strategic industries are there for a reason. You don't go gutting them for nothing. And you are again not making any sense again. Of course you have to use trade protectionist policies to protect an industry and thus you have to support a reliance. What the heck are you talking about?

Moreover, the problem with a globalised economy is this. If your nation do not 'outsource' or 'export' some of their low skilled industries, other developed nation will do the same thing.

I'm sorry, but a globalised economy may reap nice efficiencies, but it also reaps problems such as relying on potentially unreliable nations for resources. Moreover, as we have learnt, cheap does not imply quality. Also, it sucks to be a nation who goes to war and finds that it can't rely on its own resources to drive his army won't it?

Which means you will lose out to other nations anyway, if other nations can benefit from the cheap labour, while you can't.

Well, it sucks to be a nation who is at the mercy of some other nation...

Ah, sorry for not being clear. Protectionism against competition is what I am arguing on. I am fine if a nations decides to have a functional steel industry for example.

If you bothered to read a little economics beyond the usual crap that advocates trade at all cost, you will realise that such decisions are that simple when it comes to ensuring a town or city survives, or a nation for that matter.

On the other hand, protecting the steel industry against competition is a near impossible task.

I don't see why not. Every nation has tarrifs against foreign goods, which is why the WTO fails at getting a free trade deal every year. Developing countries protect their own industries, and so do the developed countries. Essentially, who really gives a fuck about it beyond the companies?

Smarter than their competition. Come on, is that really impossible?

Ever heard of diminishing rate of returns? No? Go and read. There is an upper bound for how well a population can be educated in part because, well you know, you can't exactly teach a person with IQ < 90 to do much can you? Most of the developed world is quite on the same level with education. Also, it takes considerable resources to educate a population. Getting to even the maximum possible level of education for a populace will take considerable sums of cash.

Which means it is certainly plausible then?

[/quote][/quote]
Plausible yes, but by no means easily implementable, and the Japanese model has led to a fossilized nation. Is that good? No?

[J]

Other than that, I still fail to understand how can the US possibly hope to benefit from a trade embargo, if they labeled China as a currency manipulator officially.

A trade embargo will be painful for the US as prices for common everyday goods such as clothing, toasters, and so forth suddenly become a lot more expensive. It will be disatrous for China as they're an export based economy, and they've just had almost all of their trade surplus wiped out. There are countless factories in China employing tens of millions of workers making goods for the US market, they are all out of business overnight and the revenue they generate for the government is gone. China's industrialization and transistion towards a modern economy is stopped dead in its tracks and kicked backwards.

In regards to cheap imports, I really have to ask, why do the US wants to protect their cheap products industry? Cheap products meaning things like textiles and etc? I mean in a globalised world, trying to protect industries where all you need is cheap and relatively unskilled labour to produce your goods, you are bound to lose out against developing nations.

Because we can. Because it keeps our workers employed. Because sometimes, we can make a better product than one that's made in a developing country. Take clothing for instance, Chinese made clothes sell at a discount to Canadian made ones but the quality is lacking. There are often bad seams, they're not nearly as durable, and so on.

[ray245]

A trade embargo will be painful for the US as prices for common everyday goods such as clothing, toasters, and so forth suddenly become a lot more expensive. It will be disatrous for China as they're an export based economy, and they've just had almost all of their trade surplus wiped out. There are countless factories in China employing tens of millions of workers making goods for the US market, they are all out of business overnight and the revenue they generate for the government is gone. China's industrialization and transistion towards a modern economy is stopped dead in its tracks and kicked backwards.

So in this case, does the US can gain benefits in the long run? I mean if China middle class continues to grow, doesn't that expand the consumer market for foreign markets as well? Also, a destabilized China can hardly be beneficial to US interest in East Asia as well, right?

Although, any free trade agreement between a developing nation an a developed nation is bound to be imbalanced anyway.

Which reminds me, isn't China trying their best to build up a middle class consumer market in the first place before they can even think of a sustaining a import economy?

From a number of my middle class classmates from China, they said that they would not be able to enjoy many modern day equipments if their nation isn't spending half their time copying all the new technologies illegally. Which makes me wonder, is the Chinese consumer market really capable of buying Western items on such a large scale?

Things like X-Box 360 isn't a consideration for them to own, given the price tag of that product.

Because we can. Because it keeps our workers employed. Because sometimes, we can make a better product than one that's made in a developing country. Take clothing for instance, Chinese made clothes sell at a discount to Canadian made ones but the quality is lacking. There are often bad seams, they're not nearly as durable, and so on.

However, isn't it possible for that kind of industry to be overtaken by foreign competition, sooner or later? Take the automobile industry for example, where Japan managed to compete with the US automobile industry after their post-war recovery.

Short of the IT industry, it seems to me that the US industry has been fairly static. I could be wrong though.

If you bothered to read a little economics beyond the usual crap that advocates trade at all cost, you will realise that such decisions are that simple when it comes to ensuring a town or city survives, or a nation for that matter.

I guess I overlook the difference between US and Singapore.

[Sidewinder]

Which is funny, that given that China is supposed to be a communist state, yet there is less spending on health. I really have to wonder, did those idiots even think twice when they tried to call Obama a communist.

China has been repeatedly described as "Communist in name only." Stas Bush has even described the Chinese government as Fascist, which is especially ironic, considering the historical Fascists were anti-Communist, and Chinese propaganda still describes Fascism as an enemy (at least they did so in 1998, when I briefly resided there).

[ray245]

Which is funny, that given that China is supposed to be a communist state, yet there is less spending on health. I really have to wonder, did those idiots even think twice when they tried to call Obama a communist.

China has been repeatedly described as "Communist in name only." Stas Bush has even described the Chinese government as Fascist, which is especially ironic, considering the historical Fascists were anti-Communist, and Chinese propaganda still describes Fascism as an enemy (at least they did so in 1998, when I briefly resided there).

I know they are CINO, which is why I find it being ironic.

[aerius]

So in this case, does the US can gain benefits in the long run?

If the US is fucked, but they have a choice of ensuring whether their main competitor is fucked or totally fucked, which one do you think benefits the US more?

I mean if China middle class continues to grow, doesn't that expand the consumer market for foreign markets as well?

Not really. China has these things called "protectionist trade policies".

Which reminds me, isn't China trying their best to build up a middle class consumer market in the first place before they can even think of a sustaining a import economy?

Yes, and their middle class consumption will cover only a small fraction of their domestic production. Which ties in to the earlier points, if their US exports are shut off, they are toast as it sets off a big domino effect. No trade surplus, tons of factories shut down, massive unemployment, no money to go around, and then it rips through the economy and takes out everything else around it.

From a number of my middle class classmates from China, they said that they would not be able to enjoy many modern day equipments if their nation isn't spending half their time copying all the new technologies illegally. Which makes me wonder, is the Chinese consumer market really capable of buying Western items on such a large scale?

No.

Because we can. Because it keeps our workers employed. Because sometimes, we can make a better product than one that's made in a developing country. Take clothing for instance, Chinese made clothes sell at a discount to Canadian made ones but the quality is lacking. There are often bad seams, they're not nearly as durable, and so on.

However, isn't it possible for that kind of industry to be overtaken by foreign competition, sooner or later? Take the automobile industry for example, where Japan managed to compete with the US automobile industry after their post-war recovery.

By the time the Japanese were competitive with the US in the automotive industry, they were a highly developed first world nation themselves, not a 2nd or 3rd world country.

Short of the IT industry, it seems to me that the US industry has been fairly static. I could be wrong though.

You would be wrong. If you own a cellphone, iPod, computer, or any other such electronics device, it was probably assembled by machines made by Universal Instruments in the US or Siemens in Germany. The US, Germany, and Japan own & lead the market in electronics assembly machines. Without these machines there wouldn't be a modern electronics industry, and affordable mass production of the electronics we take for granted would not be possible. Panasonic chipshooter in action, because it's so damn cool.

[ray245]

So in this case, does the US can gain benefits in the long run?

If the US is fucked, but they have a choice of ensuring whether their main competitor is fucked or totally fucked, which one do you think benefits the US more?

However, doesn't that hurt the US foreign relations and its reputation once again? After 8 long years under Bush, who has already damaged the US reputation among the global community.

[Shroom Man 777]

The US and China have a love-hate relationship, and really China isn't the most sympathetic of nations. Other nations won't be too sore at the USA for screwing China over.

[ray245]

The US and China have a love-hate relationship, and really China isn't the most sympathetic of nations. Other nations won't be too sore at the USA for screwing China over.

Doesn't screwing China over also meaning screwing them over as well? Nations in East Asia will be severely affected, and the same can be said in regards to EU.

I mean it is true to a certain extend that most nations aren't sympathetic to China, however, when their own national interest is at stake( be it short term or long term) , I doubt they will agree with the US policy.

Didn't the French President back off from his rhetoric after witnessing backlash coming from the Chinese as a whole, with their rhetoric of threatening to boycott French products?

[Ma Deuce]

However, doesn't that hurt the US foreign relations and its reputation once again? After 8 long years under Bush, who has already damaged the US reputation among the global community.

Not even China is going to be able to legitamately fault the US for applying protectionist measures to it's imports provided they do not exceed the level the Chinese slap on their imports: If the US is keen to remind everyone of that fact as they apply their tariffs, the Chinese can only make themselves look like fools for criticising it. Even so, given what's at stake for them you may still see some tantrums from the Chinese plus a few muted yelps from America's other overseas trading partners (who would be affected by some of the tariffs themselves since the WTO doesn't allow trade tariffs to be applied against specific countries except in select circumstances), but little of practical consequence. Meanwhile, stunting China's economic growth through tariffs, while inconvenient for the US in the short term, would serve American long-term interests tremendously, as it would greatly reduce the chances of China ever becoming a true challenger to the US's position as top dog for the forseeable future (though on the other hand it would not serve US interests to fuck over China so completely and absolutetly they have nothing left to lose by dumping their T-bills, so finding the right balance is key).

Welcome to the cold hard game of international politics.

[Gerald Tarrant]

The US and China have a love-hate relationship, and really China isn't the most sympathetic of nations. Other nations won't be too sore at the USA for screwing China over.

Doesn't screwing China over also meaning screwing them over as well? Nations in East Asia will be severely affected, and the same can be said in regards to EU.

No. There may be disruptions as factories switch from one country to another, but the US already has a trade deal with Cambodia (I believe it's a tariff free textile thing, sort of as an economic aid for post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia). Also the US recently normalized the trade relationship with Vietnam, and a quick look at the Vietnam wiki page showed that they sometimes run trade deficits, which means they either haven't embraced export led growth and it's attendant market manipulations, or they're incompetent when it comes to distorting trade. Either one of those is a good asset in a trade partner.

A further point about the China relationship, Link Incomplete data for 2008 had the balance of trade at $246 B Chinese Surplus. That's a lot of potential opportunities for other countries; and a big revenue stream to tap into, any potential upset about mistreating the Chinese over trade issues would almost certainly be salved by that trade going to other countries. Real Politik in surrounding countries that stand to gain from China's loss will almost certainly trump idealism in regards to free-trade.

The catch to all this, is that all this trade rhetoric feels disturbingly like a precursor to Smoot-Hawley redux, which of course no one wants.