Home » Posts tagged 'trade' (Page 16)

Tag Archives: trade

An overt trade war has commenced. President Trump has fired the starting gun, setting in motion an election promise, part of his Make America Great Again undertaking. It is a blow squarely aimed against China, costing China some trade perhaps, but basically a loser’s last roll of the dice.

The back story appears to be far deeper than some relatively minor tariffs on steel and aluminium would suggest. It comes after a prolonged period of shadow-boxing between America in the blue corner and Russia and China in the red. To pursue the boxing analogy, China and Russia have been soaking up America’s punches on the basis America would simply tire herself out. It has been a replay of Muhammed Ali’s dope-on-a-rope strategy in the rumble-in-the-jungle, with America cast as George Foreman.

However, in the last few days, China and Russia seem to have lost patience with America. Instead of patiently letting America gently decline through her own errors, the Asian superpowers are accelerating their own agendas regardless. Russia is ignoring the West’s humanitarian pleas by stepping up her plans to end the Syrian mission. She announced a new hypersonic ballistic missile, a naked threat to further American military interference. And, it appears, she is still bumping off old spies in Britain, not giving a hoot for the diplomatic consequences.

The diplomatic dance round North Korea also seems to be coming to an end. The solution there is becoming obvious: North Korea will give up her aggressive stance against America, after some face-saving negotiations perhaps, in return for China’s protection. It can hardly end any other way.

We do not know the real reason China and Russia appear to have changed their generally patient approach to American aggression. Perhaps it was inevitable that at some stage the internal politics in President Trump’s administration would lead to this conclusion. Perhaps it’s a twist in the financial war, with China’s oil and commodity suppliers pushing for of greater yuan liquidity in financial markets. China has finally agreed to this by setting a date for the new yuan-denominated oil futures contract to start trading. Anyway, the inevitable has happened: President Trump has finally decided to impose trade restrictions on China, and the Asian powers are accelerating their imperial plans.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Trump’s Tariffs Could Start a Real War

March 14, 2018

Trump’s Tariffs Could Start a Real War

Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs may set his epitaph in stone… “Herbert Hoover II.”

History remembers Hoover as one of the worst American presidents.

Like Trump, he was a rich international businessman. He was also a political outsider. Hoover hadn’t held public office before his 1929 inauguration. And, like Trump, Hoover faced intense pressure from struggling American workers.

In 1930, he signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law, raising tariffs on thousands of imported goods to record levels. This kicked off a tariff war, reducing American exports by half. It was a crushing blow to the American economy.

Nearly a century later, Trump seems determined to make the same mistakes…

Trump Started This Trade War Last Summer

Trump placed tariffs on steel and aluminum last week. China, of course, is the world’s largest producer of both.

The mainstream press called the tariffs “unexpected.” But they didn’t come out of nowhere.

Last month, I told readers of my advisory, Crisis Investing, that steel and aluminum tariffs were likely. (Paid-up readers can access the issue here.)

In fact, I’ve been pounding the table about a trade war—specifically a trade war with China—since September.

Frankly, I think Trump fired the first shot in this trade war last summer, when his administration launched an investigation against China using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

This rarely used provision allows Trump to “take all appropriate action… to obtain removal of any [trade] practice that is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.”

Traditionally, World Trade Organization (WTO) members, including China and the US, have settled trade disputes through it. But Trump, using Section 301, has taken a unilateral approach.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

There is No “Free Trade”–There Is Only the Darwinian Game of Trade

March 12, 2018

There is No “Free Trade”–There Is Only the Darwinian Game of Trade

Rising income and wealth inequality is causally linked to globalization and the expansion of Darwinian trade and capital flows.

Stripped of lofty-sounding abstractions such as comparative advantage, trade boils down to four Darwinian goals:

1. Find foreign markets to absorb excess production, i.e. where excess production can be dumped.

2. Extract foreign resources at low prices.

3. Deny geopolitical rivals access to these resources.

4. Open foreign markets to domestic capital and credit so domestic capital can buy up all the productive assets and resources, a dynamic I explained last week in Forget “Free Trade”–It’s All About Capital Flows.

All the blather about “free trade” is window dressing and propaganda. Nobody believes in risking completely free trade; to do so would be to open the doors to foreign domination of key resources, assets and markets.

Trade is all about securing advantages in a Darwinian struggle to achieve or maintain dominance. As I pointed out back in 2005, the savings accrued by consumers due to opening trade with China were estimated at $100 billion over 27 years (1978 to 2005), while corporate profits expanded by trillions of dollars.

In other words, consumers got a nickel of savings while corporations banked a dollar of pure profit as sticker prices barely budged while input costs plummeted. Corporations pocketed the difference, not consumers.

As longtime correspondent Chad D. noted in response to my essay on capital flows, restricting trade may be one of the few ways smaller nations have to avoid their resources and assets being swallowed up by mobile capital flowing out of nations with virtually unlimited credit (the US, the EU, China and Japan).

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

China Accuses US Of Fabricating Trade Data, Warns “Trade War Would Be A Disaster”

March 11, 2018

China Accuses US Of Fabricating Trade Data, Warns “Trade War Would Be A Disaster”

While Canada and Mexico and soon other US “allies” have so far been spared the brunt of the Trump import tariffs on aluminum and steel imports as a result of “indefinite” exemptions for the duration of Nafta negotiations, China – the country that is the target of Peter Navarro’s trade scorn – has not been so lucky, and the result has been an outpouring of increasingly hostile jawboning by Beijing, which while taking the Trump gambit in stride so far, is clearly concerned how far Trump could ratchet up protectionist measures.

As a result, on Sunday China said that it will not initiate a trade war with the United States, but vowed to defend its national interests in the face of growing American protectionism.

“There are no winners in a trade war, and it would bring disaster to our two countries as well as the rest of the world,” China’s Minister of Commerce Zhong Shan said at a briefing on the sidelines of the country’s annual parliamentary session according to AP.

“China does not wish to fight a trade war, nor will China initiate a trade war, but we can handle any challenge and will resolutely defend the interests of our country and our people,” he said.

Shan’s statement was Beijing’s latest official remark on “problems in Sino-U.S. economic trade and cooperation,” alluding to Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

To be sure, Chinese leaders have threatened in the past to retaliate against raised trade barriers, but have yet to take direct action following Trump’s announcement. Earlier in the week, China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, vowed a “justified and necessary response” to Washington’s initiative, but that too has yet to take any concrete shape.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Trump Trade Wars A Perfect Smokescreen For A Market Crash

March 7, 2018

Trump Trade Wars A Perfect Smokescreen For A Market Crash

First, I would like to say that the timing of Donald Trump’s announcement on expansive trade tariffs is unusual if not impeccable. I say this only IF Trump’s plan was to benefit establishment globalists by giving them perfect cover for their continued demolition of the market bubbles that they have engineered since the crash of 2008.

If this was not his plan, then I am a bit bewildered by what he hopes to accomplish. It is certainly not the end of trade deficits and the return of American industry. But let’s explore the situation for a moment…

Trump is in my view a modern day Herbert Hoover. One of Hoover’s first actions as president in response to the crash of 1929 was to support increased tax cuts, primarily for corporations (this was then followed in 1932 by extensive tax increases in the midst of the depression, so let’s see what Trump does in the next couple of years). Then, he instituted tariffs through the Smoot-Hawley Act. His hyperfocus on massive infrastructure spending resulted in U.S. debt expansion and did nothing to dig the U.S. out of its unemployment abyss. In fact, infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, which were launched in 1931, were not paid off for over 50 years. Hoover oversaw the beginning of the Great Depression and ended up as a single-term Republican president who paved the way socially for Franklin D. Roosevelt, an essential communist and perhaps the worst president in American history.

This is not to say Hoover was responsible for the Great Depression. That distinction goes to the Federal Reserve, which had artificially lowered interest rates and then suddenly raised them going into the economic downturn causing an aggressive bubble implosion (just like the central bank is doing right now).

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Europe Will Retaliate To Trump Trade War With 25% Tariffs Targeting GOP States

March 6, 2018

Europe Will Retaliate To Trump Trade War With 25% Tariffs Targeting GOP States

Following through with threats of retaliation made earlier in the week, the European Union on Tuesday is preparing punitive tariffs on iconic US brands produced in Republican-controlled states as US trade partners try to do anything and everything they can to stymie President Trump push to impose massive tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

In what would be the second shot fired in a global trade war launched by Trump, the EU’s tariffs would target (a relatively modest) €2.8 billion ($3.5 billion) of American goods, with Brussels aiming to apply a 25% tit-for-tat levy on a range of consumer, agricultural and steel products imported from the US. The list of targeted US goods, which includes motorcycles, jeans and bourbon whiskey, is intended to send a political message to Washington about the potential domestic economic costs of making good on the president’s threat.

The EU’s retaliatory list targets imports from the U.S. of shirts, jeans, cosmetics, other consumer goods, motorbikes and pleasure boats worth around 1 billion euros; orange juice, bourbon whiskey, corn and other agricultural products totaling 951 million euros; and steel and other industrial products valued at 854 million euros. The Brussels-based commission, the EU’s executive arm, discussed the retaliatory measures with representatives of the bloc’s governments at a meeting on Monday evening.

Paul Ryan, Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, comes from Wisconsin, the state where motorbike maker Harley-Davidson Inc. is based. Earlier this week, Ryan said he was “extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war” and has urged Trump to drop his tariff proposal.

Ryan wouldn’t be the only US official to feel the pressure. According to Bloomberg’s strategic hot take, Bourbon whiskey is produced in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky, while San Francisco-based jeans maker Levi Strauss is headquartered in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Iran Bans Use Of US Dollars In Trade

March 1, 2018

Iran Bans Use Of US Dollars In Trade

In what may be a preemptive move against further US sanctions, Tehran announced that going forward, merchant purchase orders that are denominated in US Dollars would no longer be allowed to go through import procedures.

According to the state-owned IRNA news agency, the policy is in line with an official request by the Central Bank of Iran and is meant to address fluctuations in market rates of the US dollar. Quoted by IRNA, the central bank director of Foreign Exchange Rules and Policies Affairs, Mehdi Kasraeipour, said the move had “become effective from Wednesday by virtue of a letter sent to the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Trade.”

The central banker further explained that the decision “wouldn’t create major trouble” for traders because the share of the greenback in Iran’s trade activities is already negligible.

“It’s been for a long time that Iran’s banking sector cannot use the dollar as a result of the sanctions,” said Kasraeipour. As part of a trade embargo, US banks are banned from dealing with Iran.

“Considering that the use of the dollar is banned for Iran and traders are literally using alternative currencies in their transactions, there is no longer any reason to proceed with invoices that use the dollar as the base rate,” Kasraeipour added.

As part of the transition, Iranian merchants will need to inform their suppliers to change the base currency from the dollar to other currencies so that the related import documents could be processed at Iran’s entry points. It was unclear if cryptocurrencies are acceptable units, and whether Iran is developing its own version of the Venezuelan Petro.

Merchants will also need to specify whether they would proceed with their payments through banks or currency exchange shops.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Global Trade Wars Begin: Ross Recommends Major Tariffs On Steel, Aluminum Focusing On China, Russia

February 16, 2018

Global Trade Wars Begin: Ross Recommends Major Tariffs On Steel, Aluminum Focusing On China, Russia

Update 3:

As previewed earlier, at noon on Friday the commerce department released reports on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s investigations into the impact on our national security from imports of steel mill products and from imports of wrought and unwrought aluminum. These investigations were carried out under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. All classified and business confidential information in the reports was redacted before the release.

Specifically, the department, found that the quantities and circumstances of steel and aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security,” as defined by Section 232.

“I am glad that we were able to provide this analysis and these recommendations to the President,” said Secretary Ross. “I look forward to his decision on any potential course of action.”

Others were less sanguine. A former senior government trade official quoted by Axios, said that without major exemptions, these recommendations would represent: “[T]he opening shot in a trade war… a declaration of war against the world on aluminum and steel… These are some of our closest treaty allies… These are some serious numbers.”

And another quote from a trade expert: “This would be beyond a trade war. You’re talking about blowing up the WTO.”

As the Commerce Dept’s press release adds:

the reports are currently under consideration by the President, and no final decisions have been made with regard to their contents. The President may take a range of actions, or no action, based on the analysis and recommendations provided in the reports. Action could include making modifications to the courses of action proposed, such as adjusting percentages.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Industrial Agriculture and the Agrochemical Industry

February 2, 2018

Industrial Agriculture and the Agrochemical Industry

The chemical-intensive industrial model of agriculture has secured the status of ‘thick legitimacy’. This status stems from on an intricate web of processes successfully spun in the scientific, policy and political arenas. It status allows the model to persist and appear normal and necessary. This perceived legitimacy derives from the lobbying, financial clout and political power of agribusiness conglomerates which, throughout the course of the last century (and continued today), set out to capture or shape government departments, public institutions, the agricultural research paradigm, international trade and the cultural narrative concerning food and agriculture.

Critics of this system are immediately attacked for being anti-science, for forwarding unrealistic alternatives, for endangering the lives of billions who would starve to death and for being driven by ideology and emotion. Strategically placed industry mouthpieces like Jon Entine, Owen Paterson and Henry Miller perpetuate such messages in the media and influential industry-backed bodies like the Science Media Centre feed journalists with agribusiness spin.

From Canada to the UK, governments work hand-in-glove with the industry to promote its technology over the heads of the public. A network of scientific bodies and regulatory agencies that supposedly serve the public interest have been subverted by the presence of key figures with industry links, while the powerful industry lobby hold sway over bureaucrats and politicians.

Monsanto played a key part in drafting the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to create seed monopolies and the global food processing industry had a leading role in shaping the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (see this). From Codex, the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture aimed at restructuring Indian agriculture to the proposed US-EU trade deal (TTIP), the powerful agribusiness lobby has secured privileged access to policymakers to ensure its preferred model of agriculture prevails.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Weekly Commentary: America First and the Decapitation of King Dollar

January 27, 2018

Weekly Commentary: America First and the Decapitation of King Dollar

The U.S. ran a $71.6 billion Goods Trade Deficit in December, the largest goods deficit since July 2008’s $76.88 billion. The U.S. likely accumulated a near $550 billion Current Account Deficit in 2017, also near the biggest since before the crisis. Going all the way back to 1982, the U.S. has posted only two quarterly surpluses (Q1, Q2 1991) in the Current Account. Since 1990, the U.S has run cumulative Current Account Deficits of $10.177 TN. From the Fed’s Z.1 report, Rest of World holdings of U.S. financial asset began the nineties at $1.738 TN; closed out 2008 at $13.699 TN; and ended Q3 2017 at $26.347 TN. It’s gone rather parabolic – with a curiously similar trajectory to equities markets.

For better than three decades, the U.S. has been in an enviable position of trading new financial claims for foreign manufactured goods. The U.S. has literally flooded the world with dollar balances. In the process, the U.S. exported Credit Bubble Dynamics (including financial innovation and central bank doctrine) to the world. When the central bank to the world’s reserve currency actively inflates, the entire world is welcome to inflate. The resulting global monetary disorder ensured a world of fundamentally vulnerable currencies.

Despite unrelenting Current Account Deficits, there have been two distinct “king dollar” episodes. There was the “king dollar” period of the late-nineties, fueled by global financial instability, a U.S. edge in technology and, importantly, the Greenspan Fed’s competitive advantage in sustaining U.S. securities market inflation. More recently, a resurgent “king dollar” was winning by default in 2013-2016, as the ECB, BOJ and others implemented massive “whatever it takes” QE and rate programs. Moreover, the shale revolution and a dramatic reduction in oil imports was to improve the U.S. trade position. Oil imports did shrink dramatically, but this was easily offset by American consumers’ insatiable appetite for imported goods.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

If Currency Wars Have Indeed Started, This Is What Comes Next

January 26, 2018

If Currency Wars Have Indeed Started, This Is What Comes Next

Even as overall volatility remains tame, things are rapidly changing in the world of currency trading where FX vol has spiked to the highest level since early October after this week’s dramatic FX rollercoaster which saw the US Treasury Secretary get this close to launching currency war, and required the verbal intervention of both (a rather angry) Mario Draghi and Donald Trump himself to normalize things, if only for the time being.

While some were quick to point out that what Mnuchin did with his “weak dollar” commentary was a dramatic reversal of decades of US “strong dollar” policy (which is nothing more than lip service as Hank Paulson showed so very well when he launched QE1 in 2008), others such as FX strategist Alan Ruskin saw a more innocuous explanation: as we noted earlier, he suggested that what you have here “is two officials who like a weak(er) USD in the short-term that will help the US trade accounts and support growth, albeit to the point where strong growth will eventually support a strong USD longer-term.”

In Alan’s view this is a way of saying that in the short-term a weak USD is good for US trade, and in the long-term a strong USD is good because it is indicative of strong growth a healthy economy. Still, Ruskin concedes that that this is clearly a very confusing message to convey and it’s unlikely to either be reported or understood correctly, which doesn’t really help the message.

And then there is the less subtle explanation: that trade wars have indeed broken out. That’s the assumption used by DB’s Masao Muraki, who today writes that it his view that the Trump Administration, having completed the tax reforms, will shift focus to trade policy.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Truth About Trade

January 24, 2018

THE TRUTH ABOUT TRADE

The one subject, which became a headline issue last year, and even divides experts is trade. It will become increasingly important in 2018 as the US develops her trade policy, particularly with respect to China, and as the UK negotiates her Brexit terms with the EU.

Ignorance dominates this subject. Surely, people say, industry should be protected from unfair trade practices, such as goods manufactured in foreign sweat-shops, or unfair dumping of commodities, such as steel. If President Trump can protect American business from unfair competition, it would be good for the American economy. Then there’s the business of currency rates. Doesn’t a lower currency help restore the trade balance, by making exports cheap, and imports expensive? And surely, Britain leaving the EU risks trade tariffs being set up against British business. This means sterling must fall against the euro to rebalance trade.

These are all misconceptions, disproved by verifiable history. Why was it that before the euro, German export surpluses persisted, despite a rising mark, and why is it that after joining a weaker euro, her surpluses have not increased significantly further? And why did Japan, like Germany, also have a strong currency from the 1960s onwards and a persistent trade surplus? Why did Britain in the post-war years have a continual trade deficit despite a falling currency? And why was it that American trade protectionism intensified the depression in the 1930s?

The answers to these questions are relevant today to the development of both US trade policy and post-Brexit trade policy. It is no coincidence that trade imbalances have only become a significant feature since fiat currencies replaced the sound money disciplines of gold.

The purpose of this article is to tell the truth about trade, by addressing the relationship between trade imbalances and exchange rates, and to expose the harm caused by the imposition of tariffs.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

China, South Korea Vow Retaliation In Trump Trade War

January 23, 2018

China, South Korea Vow Retaliation In Trump Trade War

When we reported earlier today that President Trump lobbed the first real shot in the global (but mostly Asian) trade war when the White House announced it would slap imported solar cells and washing machines with up to 50% tariffs – Trump’s most significant trade action to date, taking direct aim at China and South Korea (full details here)- we said that “we now await China’s (or South Korea’s) response…”

We didn’t have long to wait.

South Korea stormed out of the gate, with Reuters reporting that it will complain with the WTO against the U.S. for imposing anti-dumping duties on Korean washing machine and solar panel makers, a decision Trade Minister Kim Hyun-chong called “excessive” and “regrettable.” Kim warned that the US safeguard decision is “excessive” and violates WTO provisions.

As a reminder, the United States will impose a 20 percent tariff on the first 1.2 million imported large residential washers in the first year, and a 50% tariff on machines above that number. The tariffs decline to 16% and 40% respectively in the third year.

“The United States has opted for measures that put political considerations ahead of international standards,” Kim said in a meeting with industry officials on Tuesday. “The government will actively respond to the spread of protectionist measures to defend national interests,” he said.

South Korea will also consider discussing steps jointly with other countries subject to the imposition, the trade ministry said, meanwhile the South Korean government said it would help Samsung and LG in finding alternative markets for the sale of washing machines.

Additionally, Bloomberg reports that South Korea will also seek to retaliate in kind by reinstating tariffs on the U.S. in what has been dubbed the “Washing Machine” row. To do that, South Korea asked the World Trade Organization to approve suspension of trade concessions, the trade ministry says in an emailed statement.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Trading away our future?

January 22, 2018

Trading away our future?

Early trade was about ecological adaptation, transporting essential food or other essential goods to a places where they were lacking. Very little in present international trade is based on that. Instead, trade in itself creates shortages. Today, Sweden only produces half the beef it consumes. This is not because there is no land or resources available in Sweden. On the contrary, the country has let a million hectares of meadows revert to forest and a lot of arable land is idle – or grazed by horses that people keep for a hobby. International trade can be a safety valve for food shocks by moving food from one part of the world to the other. Yet it has dramatically reduced each region’s self-sufficiency and made all of us dependent on global supply chains for our daily food. Some of the trade is really difficult to understand or justify. More or less identical products are exported and imported by the same countries. As the ecological economist Herman Daly points out: “Americans import Danish sugar cookies and Danes imports American sugar cookies. Exchanging recipes would surely be more efficient”.[1]

It is a mistake to conclude that there is a linear process driving farmers into increased levels of commercialization. In times of collapsing markets, natural disasters, unrest or war, self-sufficiency and non-market exchange is bound to play a bigger role. The Roman peri-urban sprawl with agricultural estates, villas, engaged in intensive commercial production went the same way as the Empire. At the fall of Rome the area fell into neglect and finally reverted to extensive pastoralism.[2] The pastoral beauty of this Roman Campagna inspired the painters who flocked into Rome in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, when it was the most painted landscape in Europe.[3]

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Will the Dollar Survive the Rise of the Yuan and the End of the Petrodollar?

January 11, 2018

Will the Dollar Survive the Rise of the Yuan and the End of the Petrodollar?

This might seem a frivolous question, while the dollar still retains its might, and is universally accepted in preference to other, less stable fiat currencies. However, it is becoming clear, at least to independent monetary observers, that in 2018 the dollar’s primacy will be challenged by the yuan as the pricing medium for energy and other key industrial commodities. After all, the dollar’s role as the legacy trade medium is no longer appropriate, given that China’s trade is now driving the global economy, not America’s.

At the very least, if the dollar’s future role diminishes, then there will be surplus dollars, which unless they are withdrawn from circulation entirely, will result in a lower dollar on the foreign exchanges. While it is possible for the Fed to contract the quantity of base money (indeed this is the implication of its desire to reduce its balance sheet anyway), it would also have to discourage and even reverse the expansion of bank credit, which would be judged by central bankers to be economic suicide. For that to occur, the US Government itself would also have to move firmly and rapidly towards eliminating its budget deficit. But that is being deliberately increased by the Trump administration instead.

Explaining the consequences of these monetary dynamics was the purpose of an essay written by Ludwig von Mises almost a century ago. At that time, the German hyperinflation was entering its final phase ahead of the mark’s eventual collapse in November 1923. Von Mises had already helped to stabilize the Austrian crown, whose own collapse was stabilized at about the time he wrote his essay, so he wrote with both practical knowledge and authority.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Tag Archives: trade

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

Post navigation

Latest Posts