- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
CNBC saying Mnunchin ready to lift tariffs
Posted on 1/17/19 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 1/17/19 at 1:55 pm
They cited an article that I did not get the name of but I will. It is from the WSJ
They said even Lighthizer may be moving that direction.
This comes in front of the planned January visit of the Vice Premier Liu He.
Readers will recall I have been saying the vice premier was onboard with lesser foreign investment requirements and more IP protection for US companies investing in China.
Markets up 200 already on news.
They said even Lighthizer may be moving that direction.
This comes in front of the planned January visit of the Vice Premier Liu He.
Readers will recall I have been saying the vice premier was onboard with lesser foreign investment requirements and more IP protection for US companies investing in China.
Markets up 200 already on news.
This post was edited on 1/17/19 at 1:56 pm
6
Posted on 1/17/19 at 1:57 pm to I B Freeman
Posted on 1/17/19 at 1:59 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Readers will recall I have been saying the vice premier was onboard with lesser foreign investment requirements and more IP protection for US companies investing in China
So trump wins?
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:00 pm to I B Freeman
You sure seem giddy about Xi bending the knee.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:02 pm to Turbeauxdog
Oh he will call whatever he gets a win—also as I have been saying.
It will be a win for the exact things it was in realty about.
Most posters here expect something much more but will never acknowledge it is much less than what they thought. You can see that already.
It will be a win for the exact things it was in realty about.
Most posters here expect something much more but will never acknowledge it is much less than what they thought. You can see that already.
This post was edited on 1/17/19 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:03 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Most posters here expect something much more but will never acknowledge it is much less than what they thought. You can see that already.
I B chinaman doing work.Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:06 pm to I B Freeman
Large multinational US companies and tech companies will be very happy as they will be protected when building plants in China.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:08 pm to I B Freeman
Hopefully the punishment of American consumers and US manufacturing companies with plants here will soon be less or maybe completely over.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:10 pm to I B Freeman
throwing darts and missing the wall
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:38 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
U.S. officials are debating ratcheting back tariffs on Chinese imports as a way to calm markets and give Beijing an incentive to make deeper concessions in a trade battle that has rattled global economies.
The idea of lifting some or all tariffs was proposed by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in a series of strategy meetings, according to people close to internal deliberations. They say the aim is to advance trade talks and win China’s support for longer-term reforms.
But Mr. Mnuchin faces resistance from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who is concerned that any concession could be seen as a sign of weakness, these people said.
The debate is occurring as trade officials try to figure out the best way to pry concessions from China. It hasn’t yet reached President Trump, and the outcome of the discussions aren’t possible to forecast.
In past China discussions, Mr. Trump has sided with Mr. Lighthizer on tariffs, rather than Mr. Mnuchin. But this time, the president has made clear he wants a deal—and is pressing Mr. Lighthizer to deliver one, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The U.S. and China are seeking to resolve their trade dispute ahead of a March 1 deadline. At 12:01 a.m., the following day, tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods are scheduled to jump to 25% from the current 10%. The higher levies could batter U.S. importers and further harm an already weakening Chinese economy.
While Mr. Lighthizer is leading the trade talks, Mr. Mnuchin has been active in formulating the administration’s strategy. In talks with members of the trade team, Mr. Mnuchin raised the possibility of offering to eliminate tariffs during discussions scheduled for Jan. 30 in Washington with top Chinese trade envoy Liu He—a month ahead of the target date to conclude the negotiations.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:38 pm to I B Freeman
No way the 25% tariffs go in and no way the tariffs are expanded much to the chagrin of some on TD who wish to further punish Americans with deeper tariffs.
This post was edited on 1/17/19 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:41 pm to I B Freeman
You have 70% of the posts in your own thread.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 2:57 pm to LNCHBOX
Obviously you cannot contribute if that is your best effort.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 3:14 pm to I B Freeman
So 2 cookies are not better than one??
Posted on 1/17/19 at 3:31 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Large multinational US companies and tech companies will be very happy as they will be protected when building plants in China.
So what this report suggests is that the shifting purpose of the tariffs has settled in on protecting American companies so that they can expand their manufacturing in China. And that the goal is no longer as some here had assumed, to shift manufacturing growth from China to the United States.
If that is the case, in addition to harming American farmers and taking billions from Americans through the tariffs, more jobs will be lost to expanded overseas production with greater intellectual property protection? Did I get that right?
Posted on 1/17/19 at 3:34 pm to TBoy
quote:
So what this report suggests is that the shifting purpose of the tariffs has settled in on protecting American companies so that they can expand their manufacturing in China. And that the goal is no longer as some here had assumed, to shift manufacturing growth from China to the United States.
If that is the case, in addition to harming American farmers and taking billions from Americans through the tariffs, more jobs will be lost to expanded overseas production with greater intellectual property protection? Did I get that right?
The only thing you got wrong is that the purpose was never shifting. It was the purpose from the beginning as outlined in the 301 directive from the Office of Trade Representative put together for Trump to justify the tariffs.
All summer and fall I have been telling folks here to read the 301 directive.
Hopefully these companies getting benefits from this new IP protection (almost all of the significant IP theft occurs in China in plants the Americans are partners in or have some control of. American companies want to own plants in the USA by themselves so the opportunities for this theft are much less. They also want stronger patent law in China. All of these things in the end benefit Chinese companies too) will allow them to grow in China and maybe bring capital home to invest in their US plants and in US jobs.
This post was edited on 1/17/19 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 1/17/19 at 3:39 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
All summer and fall I have been telling folks here to read the 301 directive.
Well, now that you mention it, I will go get it and read it.
That makes me want to take a second look at soybeans, which have been central to China's responsive tariffs. As we should all know, soybeans are the first major commodity to be controlled primarily through intellectual property, not through control of land. I wonder of protection of soybean patents has been an under-reported feature of the dispute.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 3:46 pm to TBoy
There are a lot of patent protection need in China for seed. Most seed companies are very reluctant to market their GMOs there as they should be.
You are wrong concerning non seed soybeans. Users of the beans for oil or meal do not care if they are GMO or not. There are some very good genes that will enhance the quality of soybeans for foodstuffs when enough IP protection arises. We simply cannot have the massive increase in the amount of food we produce we had in the 20th century in the 21st century without GMOs. (One of the greatest rarely mentioned advancements in human standard of living in the 20th century was the hybridization of corn and the massive productivity increases in rice and soybeans.)
You are wrong concerning non seed soybeans. Users of the beans for oil or meal do not care if they are GMO or not. There are some very good genes that will enhance the quality of soybeans for foodstuffs when enough IP protection arises. We simply cannot have the massive increase in the amount of food we produce we had in the 20th century in the 21st century without GMOs. (One of the greatest rarely mentioned advancements in human standard of living in the 20th century was the hybridization of corn and the massive productivity increases in rice and soybeans.)
Posted on 1/17/19 at 4:12 pm to I B Freeman
quote:So to summarize your erudite US-Chinese trade conclusions: (1) China will win, (2) the US will lose, (3) we should have cowed and accepted reality that the US is going to be overtaken by China. Anything else?
Oh he will call whatever he gets a win—also as I have been saying.
Posted on 1/17/19 at 4:23 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
We simply cannot have the massive increase in the amount of food we produce we had in the 20th century in the 21st century without GMOs.
I'm not against GMOs at all. In fact, my father's first job out of college was for Monsanto back in the early 60s, and growing up his family were soybean and wheat farmers in the Midwest. The only question I had is whether there is an unstated connection between an intellectual property protection demand on our end and the retaliatory tariff on soybeans. Monsanto's control of the soybean genome in the United States through patent protection is sometimes a point of contention overseas.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News