本帖由 9981 于 2018-05-04 发布。版面名称：渥太华华人论坛
冷笑九声早就说过， 留着半死不活比死了更好处理，不过中国人忍受能力之强也可见一斑， 你能想象俄国公司会这么忍着么？
Trump’s $200-billion tariff barrage pushes China trade war to the point of no return
'What's next is not so much a trade war or even a cold war as the dawn of an ice age in relations between China and the United States'
U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing his trade conflict with China toward a point where neither side can back down.
By Aug. 30, as the U.S. nears mid-term elections vital for Trump’s legislative agenda, the White House will be ready to impose 10 per cent tariffs on US$200 billion of Chinese-made products, ranging from clothing to television parts to refrigerators. The levies announced Tuesday — together with some US$50 billion already in the works — stand to raise import prices on almost half of everything the U.S. buys from the Asian nation.
China has seven weeks to make a deal or dig in and try to outlast the U.S. leader. President Xi Jinping, facing his own political pressures to look tough, has vowed to respond blow-for-blow. He’s already imposed retaliatory duties targeting Trump’s base including Iowa soybeans and Kentucky bourbon.
‘China has crashed the price’: Canadian farmers collateral damage in China-U.S. trade war
Chart of the century gives U.S. Federal Reserve gloomy glimpse of trade-war world
Five ways to trade the trade war, from buying the dollar to avoiding small caps
Yet matching the latest U.S. barrage would force China to either levy much higher tariffs or take more disruptive steps like cancelling purchase orders, encouraging consumer boycotts and putting up regulatory hurdles. Not only does that risk provoking Trump to follow through on threats to tax virtually all Chinese products, it could unleash nationalist sentiment on both sides that fuels a deeper struggle for geopolitical dominance.
Trump on Wednesday framed his trade actions as necessary to shield American businesses and farmers from harmful trading practices
“Other countries’ trade barriers and tariffs have been destroying their businesses. I will open things up, better than ever before, but it can’t go too quickly,” Trump said in a Twitter post from Brussels, where he’s attending a NATO summit. “I am fighting for a level playing field for our farmers, and will win!”
“It’s already past the point of no return,” said Pauline Loong, managing director at research firm Asia-Analytica in Hong Kong. “What’s next is not so much a trade war or even a cold war as the dawn of an ice age in relations between China and the United States.”
Stocks fell, the dollar gained and commodities slid with emerging-market assets Wednesday as investors assessed the fallout. Futures on the S&P 500 were down 0.6 per cent as of 7:14 a.m. in New York and the Stoxx Europe 600 Index retreated 1.1 per cent. While earlier tariffs were expected to have only a limited impact, economists warn a full-blown trade war could derail the strongest economic upswing in years.
The Chinese Commerce Ministry said Tuesday that it would be forced to retaliate against what it called “totally unacceptable” U.S. tariffs. There have been no confirmed high-level talks between to two sides since early an early June visit to Beijing by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that achieved no breakthroughs.
Beijing “never yields to threat or blackmail” and will retaliate against the “groundless” tariffs, China’s Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen said in written comments to Bloomberg. “The U.S. side ignored the progress, adopted unilateral and protectionist measures, and started the trade war.”
The Aug. 30 date ensures the trade fight features prominently in November’s U.S. congressional elections, and the announcement exposed fissures between Trump and his Republican Party about the strategy. House Ways and Means Committee chief Kevin Brady, of Texas, warned of “a long, multi-year trade war between the two largest economies in the world that engulfs more and more of the globe.”
“Despite the serious economic consequences of ever-increasing tariffs, today there are no serious trade discussions occurring between the U.S. and China, no plans for trade negotiations anytime soon, and seemingly little action toward a solution,” Brady said. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, of Utah, called the new levies “reckless” and not “targeted.”
The latest move suggests that Trump — who in March declared that “trade wars are good and easy to win” — may be compromising on his pledge to spare consumers from the pain. The tariffs could raise the price of everything from baseball gloves to handbags to digital cameras just voters are heading to the polls. Other high-profile items such as mobile phones have so far been spared.
The U.S. felt it had no choice, but to move forward on the new tariffs after China failed to respond to the administration’s concerns over unfair trade practices and Beijing’s abuse of American intellectual property, according to two senior officials who spoke to reporters. The Trump administration has so far rejected Chinese offers to trim its massive trade surplus by buying more American goods, and is demanding more systemic change.
“For over a year, the Trump administration has patiently urged China to stop its unfair practices, open its market, and engage in true market competition,” Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement. “China has not changed its behaviour — behaviour that puts the future of the U.S. economy at risk.”
Although the looming elections provide an immediate concern for Trump, a trade war poses a more existential concern for Xi, whose Communist Party has built its legitimacy on economic success. Prominent academics and some government officials have begun to question if China’s slowing, trade-dependent economy can withstand a sustained attack from Trump, which has already weighed heavily on stock prices.
Chinese-made teddy bears carrying American hit movie Avengers characters are displayed inside an arcade game at a shopping mall in Beijing, Wednesday, July 11, 2018. China’s government has criticized the latest U.S. threat of a tariff hike as “totally unacceptable” and vowed to retaliate in their escalating trade war. Andy Wong/AP Photo
Among other things, the U.S. is asking China to roll back its “Made-in-China 2025” program, a signature Xi initiative to dominate several strategic industries, such as semiconductors to aerospace development. Since abolishing presidential term limits, Xi has strengthened his control over the levers of power and money in China and can’t afford to look weak.
“China is showing no signs of backing down and instead looks like it is preparing for a drawn out conflict,” said Scott Kennedy, deputy director of China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “China has a million and one ways to retaliate.”
–With assistance from Jenny Leonard , Andrew Mayeda and Bryce Baschuk.
送交者: 苦难与荣耀[太守★☆] 于 2018-07-10 15:14 已读 252 次
格列卫在中国的价格是全球最高的。在国外的情况，我没有切实的数据，但媒体的报道，格列卫在中国香港的价格为17000，美国为13600，澳大利亚为10000左右，在日本16000，韩国约为3000元（另说9700元），以上都是人民币(6.6130, -0.0265, -0.40%)为单位。但是考虑到各国的医保政策，实际上患者的负担非常小，比如澳大利亚医保居民的价格每盒只有不到200元人民币。
-摘自 救命药中国卖2万印度卖200元 患者称想病去印度_格列卫_医保_印度_新浪财经_新浪网
摘自《我不是药神》中2万2的神药格列卫，澳洲人只要花192人民币！ _ 今日悉尼
Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro: 'Zero-sum game' between China and the rest of the world
Peter Navarro, one of President Donald Trump's top trade advisors, said China is in a "zero-sum game" with the rest of the world when it comes to trade.
"We have to defend ourselves," Navarro told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Thursday.
Mike Calia | @Michael_Calia
Published 9 Hours Ago Updated 7 Hours AgoCNBC.com
Peter Navarro: President Trump has always had a clear strategy 7 Hours Ago | 08:27
Peter Navarro, one of President Donald Trump's top trade advisors, said Thursday that China is in a "zero-sum game" with the rest of the world when it comes to trade.
Talking to CNBC's Joe Kernen on "Squawk Box, he argued that the U.S. needs to protect its interests in rapidly developing technologies.
"This is our future," Navarro said, citing artificial intelligence, robotics and high-tech industries – all of which are Chinese priorities for the next decade, as well.
"Unfortunately, it's a zero-sum game now between China and the rest of the world, and what we need to do as a country is to work with the rest of the world" to ensure prosperity and high stock markets, he said.
Navarro is known for his hawkish economic stances on China. Under Trump, the U.S. has engaged in an escalating trade war with China, as both nations have imposed and threatened billions of dollars of tariffs on each other's products.
"We have to defend ourselves," Navarro said, citing alleged Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property on technology. "They're attacking our crown jewels. They make no bones about it."
Recently, Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on $200 billion of products from China as the U.S. pushes the Asian country to take a harder line on protecting intellectual property, particularly for technology.
Larry Kudlow, Trump's top economic advisor, said Wednesday that Chinese President Xi Jinping was holding up progress and refusing to budge over his country's trade policies. In turn, China's Foreign Ministry denounced Kudlow's remarks as "bogus" and "beyond imagination."
Trump Is Ready To Go All In On Trade War With China
President Trump threatened to impose tariffs on every product imported from China, dialing up the pressure in the growing trade dispute between the world's two economic superpowers.
In an interview with CNBC broadcast this morning, Trump said "we're down a tremendous amount," referring to the trade imbalance between the US and China. "I'm ready to go to 500."
The U.S. imported $505 billion worth of goods from China in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The U.S. exported $130 billion worth of goods to China.
In the interview, which was recorded Thursday, Trump also indicated his willingness to endure stock market volatility as he pursues an aggressive trade agenda with China. Asked about the potential of a market downturn over his trade policies, he said: "If it does, it does. Look, I'm not doing this for politics."
He said the United States is "being taken advantage of, and I don't like it." Trump's views on issues such as guns and abortion have shifted throughout his public life, but on trade he has been a consistent protectionist, dating back to the 1980s.
Trump Slams Interest Rate Hikes, Ignoring Hands-Off Tradition Toward Fed
That kind of direct criticism breaks with a longstanding tradition that presidents refrain from even commenting on Fed policy While it is part of the U.S. government, the Fed is considered to be independent, keeping it free from political pressure.
Donald J. Trump
....The United States should not be penalized because we are doing so well. Tightening now hurts all that we have done. The U.S. should be allowed to recapture what was lost due to illegal currency manipulation and BAD Trade Deals. Debt coming due & we are raising rates - Really?
8:51 AM - Jul 20, 2018
20.7K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Later in the day a White House spokeswoman said the president "respects the independence of the Fed."
But Trump was back at it this morning in a tweet that again slammed the Fed's monetary policy: " ... Tightening now hurts all that we have done. The U.S. should be allowed to recapture what was lost due to illegal currency manipulation and BAD Trade Deals."
为什么不是３０％， ３５％， 这数字本来就是算出来可以有替代产品的， 大老
What China Needs to Understand About Trump
He’s only voicing a widely shared resentment about Chinese double-dealing in economic policy.
Read more opinionFollow @PennyPritzker on Twitter
It was late November 2016, and my Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier Wang Yang, was visiting Washington, D.C. Over the course of my tenure as U.S. Secretary of Commerce, the vice premier and I had developed a warm and candid relationship. Since this was to be our last official meeting, I decided to do something a bit different: take him to rural Virginia for a traditional Thanksgiving meal.
While we were surrounded by our usual phalanx of security, we effectively sat alone, with the exception of our two closest aides. Shortly after we were seated, the vice premier leaned in close and almost whispered to me, “Can you explain what just happened in your presidential election?” Clearly, the Chinese were just as surprised by the results as we were.
I told the vice premier that we were still trying to understand the outcome ourselves, but that it was important for him to appreciate that China had played a significant role in the election. As the translator spoke into his ear, he shot me a somewhat surprised look. I explained that then-candidate Donald Trump’s “tough on China” rhetoric had tapped into an underlying strain of thought in the U.S. that Wang and other Chinese leaders needed to understand.
For years, Americans were told that China was a developing country and shouldn’t necessarily be held to the same standard as developed nations such as the U.S. But China’s success had severely undercut that line of reasoning. The Chinese economy was growing at 6 percent or more annually. Chinese cities, roads, ports and bridges were rising seemingly overnight. The world’s low-cost manufacturer was rapidly becoming a global technology hub. And the Chinese government was investing billions of renminbi in support of its “Made in China 2025” industrial plan. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality was profound and growing by the day.
At the same time, Americans felt that at least some of China’s success had come at their expense. They were seeing their middle-class jobs and once-prosperous lifestyles disappearing. China wasn’t playing fairly; it was consistently violating its international commitments and tilting the playing field to advantage Chinese firms. Economic complexities aside, the fact that Americans were, in part, paying the bill for such behavior had begun to sink in with millions of my fellow citizens.
Candidate Trump, of course, didn’t create these imbalances; he was simply very effective at tapping into this growing resentment. With or without Trump, the U.S.-China relationship was moving quickly toward a crossroads.
The point I was making to the vice premier is that, as China has risen to become a global power, the dynamic between the two countries has unquestionably changed. Meanwhile, too many Chinese actions and policies have not.
In fact, Chinese officials still frequently rely on the outdated rhetoric that China is merely a developing country. The developing nation narrative is clearly at odds with the observable reality of modern China, and it logically runs counter to China’s lofty goal of establishing a “new model of great power relations” between the U.S. and China — a dynamic focused on fostering cooperation and competition but avoiding confrontation, which, historically, has been the defining feature of relations between existing and rising powers.
It is hard to be both a poor, developing nation and the other party to a “new model of great power relations.” The formulation assumes the existence of two great powers. In the modern world, though, being a great power requires leadership. It requires being a good steward of the global economy, not just benefiting from it. It requires playing by the same rules and competing fairly, not relying on state resources to support domestic industries and innovation. If China wants to be the world’s other great power, it is manifestly in its interest to start acting like one.
To be fair, we have seen China emerge as a global leader on certain issues — such as climate — and, in recent months, President Xi Jinping has spoken consistently about China assuming a larger role in world affairs. In other areas, however, particularly those tied to economic and trade policy, the rhetoric continues to surpass the policies.
In part, it was this disconnect between words and reality that gave Trump his political resonance in the U.S. China is a great power. China has risen and, in so doing, has lifted 800 million people out of poverty. But, if China doesn’t change its approach to economic competition, I fear that today’s trade war will be nothing compared to the heightened tensions to come. Frankly, our domestic political system will demand action and President Trump will look like the mild first incarnation of a trend rather than an outlier.
The irony, of course, is that in so many important respects the economic and personal ties between the U.S. and China are deeper than ever:
The U.S. hosted roughly 130,000 Chinese graduate students during the 2016-2017 academic year. On average, each of those Chinese students spends more than $26,000 per year in the U.S.
Chinese direct investment in the U.S. expanded dramatically to $46 billion in 2016, before a steep decline in 2017. That investment has hyper-charged a range of sectors in all corners of our country.
In less than 10 years, spending from Chinese tourists in the U.S. has more than quadrupled to over $20 billion annually. Xi and then-President Barack Obama agreed to offer new 10-year tourist visas to citizens of both countries, so we can expect that number to grow.
In large part, China’s progress wouldn’t have been possible without the stable global economic order that the U.S. has underwritten and secured for the last 70 years. In that time, this system has limited conflict and led to the greatest increase in prosperity the world has ever seen. Without question, particularly over the last two decades, China has reaped the benefits of this rules-based order not just by competing aggressively but, it must be said, at times exploiting the existing system. That must change.
If it doesn’t, I fear that the stated goal of this “new model of great power relations” — competitive cooperation — will fall victim to China’s inability to change course. Then the politically plausible options for navigating China’s rise over the decades to come will be narrowed down to one: confrontation
文章来源: 中央社 于 2018-08-14 08:17:12 - 新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
打印本新闻(被阅读 20146 次)
美国商务前部长普里茨克（Penny Pritzker）。 欧新社
Preliminary U.S.-Mexico trade deal leaves trail of questions unanswered for Canada
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Freeland heads to Washington today in effort to restart negotiations
The Associated Press · Posted: Aug 28, 2018 8:43 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House on Monday. Trump was quick to proclaim an apparent breakthrough in trade talks with Mexico as a triumph, but many questions remain over the future of NAFTA. (Leah Millis/Reuters)
U.S. President Donald Trump's declaration of victory Monday in reaching a preliminary deal with Mexico to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement raised at least as many questions as it answered.
Can Canada, the third member country in NAFTA and America's No. 2 trading partner, be coaxed or coerced into a new pact?
If not, is it even legal — or politically feasible — for Trump to reach a replacement trade deal with Mexico alone?
U.S.-Mexico trade deal welcomed - but industry players want details
Freeland 'very encouraged' by reports of NAFTA progress
And will the changes being negotiated to the 24-year-old NAFTA threaten the operations of companies that have built sophisticated supply chains that span the three countries?
"There are still a lot of questions left to be answered," said Peter MacKay, former minister of justice, defence and foreign affairs, who is now a partner at the law firm Baker McKenzie. "There is still a great deal of uncertainty — trepidation, nervousness, a feeling that we are on the outside looking in."
Trump was quick to proclaim the agreement a triumph, pointing to Monday's surge in the stock market, which was fuelled in part by the apparent breakthrough with Mexico.
"We just signed a trade agreement with Mexico, and it's a terrific agreement for everybody," the president declared. "It's an agreement that a lot of people said couldn't be done."
Freeland bound for Washington
Trump suggested that he might leave Canada out of a new agreement. He said he wanted to call the revamped trade pact "the United States-Mexico Trade Agreement" because, in his view, NAFTA has earned a reputation for being harmful to American workers.
But first, he said, he would give Canada a chance to get back in — "if they'd like to negotiate fairly." To intensify the pressure on Ottawa to agree to his terms, the president threatened to impose new taxes on Canadian auto imports.
The clip we tried to show you isn't available.
Error 1With outgoing Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto on speakerphone, U.S. President Donald Trump announces U.S.-Mexico deal and says he'll invite Canada to negotiate 'fairly' to join it. 1:17
Canada's NAFTA negotiator, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, is cutting short a trip to Europe to fly to Washington on Tuesday to try to restart talks.
"We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class," said Adam Austen, a spokesperson for Freeland, saying "Canada's signature is required."
Talking to reporters, the top White House economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, urged Canada to "come to the table."
"Let's make a great deal like we just made with Mexico," Kudlow said. "If not, the U.S.A. may have to take action."
Trilateral agreement 'imperative'
Critics denounced the prospect of cutting Canada out a North American trade pact, in part because of the risks it could pose for companies involved in international trade. Many manufacturers have built vital supply systems that depend on freely crossing all NAFTA borders.
Noting the "massive amount of movement of goods between the three countries and the integration of operations," Jay Timmons, president of that U.S. National Association of Manufacturers, said "it is imperative that a trilateral agreement be inked."
Trump has frequently condemned the 24-year-old NAFTA trade pact as a job-killing "disaster" for American workers. NAFTA reduced most trade barriers between the three countries. The president and other critics say the pact encouraged U.S. manufacturers to move south of the border to exploit low-wage Mexican labour.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, front left, and Mexican Secretary of Economy Idelfonso Guajardo, front right, walk to the White House on Monday ahead of Trump's announcement. (Luis Alonso Lugo/Associated Press)
The preliminary deal with Mexico might bring more manufacturing to the United States. Yet it is far from final. Even after being formally signed, it would have be ratified by lawmakers in each country.
The U.S. Congress wouldn't vote on it until next year — after November midterm elections that could end Republican control of the House of Representatives. But initially, it looks like at least a tentative public relations victory for Trump, the week after his former campaign manager was convicted on financial crimes and his former personal attorney implicated him in hush money payments to two women who allege they had affairs with Trump.
Before the administration began negotiating a new NAFTA a year ago, it had notified Congress that it was beginning talks with Canada and Mexico. So Monday's announcement raises the question: Is the administration authorized to reach a deal with only one of those countries?
A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said yes: The administration can tell Congress it had reached a deal with Mexico — and that Canada is welcome to join.
But other analysts said the answer wasn't clear: "It's a question that has never been tested," said Lori Wallach, director of the left-leaning Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.
Mexico will have a difficult time selling 'Trump's deal' back home if Canada does not think it is a good deal.- Daniel Ujczo , trade lawyer
Even a key Trump ally, Rep. Kevin Brady, the Texas Republican who chairs the House ways and means committee, expressed caution about Monday's apparent breakthrough. Brady said he looked forward "to carefully analyzing the details and consulting in the weeks ahead to determine whether the new proposal meets the trade priorities set out by Congress."
And the No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, while hailing Monday's news as a "positive step," said Canada needs to be party to a final deal.
"A trilateral agreement is the best path forward," Cornyn said, adding that millions of jobs were at stake.
There are political reasons to keep Canada inside the regional bloc.
"Mexico will have a difficult time selling 'Trump's deal' back home if Canada does not think it is a good deal," said Daniel Ujczo, a trade lawyer with Dickinson Wright PLLC. "It will appear that Mexico caved."
Delay over 'sunset clause'
Indeed, Mexico has said it wants Canada included in any new deal to replace NAFTA.
"We are very interested in this being an agreement of three countries," said president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. At the same time, Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray told reporters that "Mexico will have a free trade agreement regardless of the outcome" of U.S.-Canada negotiations.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said Mexico had agreed to ensure that 75 per cent of automotive content be produced within the trade bloc (up from a current 62.5 per cent) to receive duty-free benefits, and that 40 per cent to 45 per cent be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour. Those changes are meant to encourage more auto production in the United States.
Trump announces U.S.-Mexico trade deal to replace NAFTA, and says 'we will see' if Canada can join
Bank of Canada governor has eye on NAFTA talks as he weighs when to raise rates
For months, the talks were held up by the Trump administration's insistence on a "sunset clause": A renegotiated NAFTA would end after five years unless all three countries agreed to continue it. Mexico and Canada considered that proposal a deal killer.
On Monday, the Trump administration and Mexico announced a compromise on that divisive issue: An overhauled NAFTA would remain in force for 16 years and would be reviewed every six years.
Trade deal to restore US, North America as a manufacturing powerhouse: Navarro
Detroit should be happy about US-Mexico trade deal: Peter Navarro
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on the trade deal reached between the U.S. and Mexico.
President Trump announced a tentative trade deal with Mexico on Monday.
“We’re going to restore this country and North America as a manufacturing powerhouse,” White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs. “There are a lot of bells and whistles in this agreement, but what drives the engine here is the rules of origin and really tough labor provisions.”
Navarro believes the deal will bring back auto parts and the auto industry from the rest of the world, which he says has been stealing it from both Mexico and the United States.
“This is a rebalance that works for both countries that is the beauty of this deal and Detroit should be very happy tonight along with the rest of the country,” he added.
Navarro says a key part is protecting intellectual property.
“The agricultural provision means were are going to export more agricultural products,” said Navarro. “We are going to have more protection. It has the best intellectual property protection we have seen in a free trade agreement and when people steal our stuff, that helps drive the deficit as well.”
Navarro says at the root of the agreement is solidifying the manufacturing base and supply chain.
He believes the deal will appeal to congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.