[Recurecur]

> There might be truth to this article but its bias and demeaning tone are off-putting. It makes it hard to take the author seriously.

What exactly about this article was "demeaning"?

The author does seem to feel that Trump is handling China well, which I'm sure brings cognitive dissonance to some...

[pasabagi]

I don't really understand how Trump could be viewed to be handling China well. One of China's big selling points as a negotiating partner is they're consistent. The US has traditionally also had this virtue. Trump isn't even consistent with his own state department. Why on earth would you rest anything on a country that might elect somebody like that? If you were Qatar, why would you agree to another US military base, knowing that the next president might say you're harbouring Al-Qaeda, because some Saudi royals told him so? If you were the Phillipines, why would you feel confident in US support?

I know some people like big tough guys in politics, and to some of those people, Trump appears big and tough. But I think even if you have this persuasion, Trump's no Kissinger, no Tito, not even a Putin.

[MR4D]

The Chinese came back to the negotiating table (after walking out in June) [0]. Anytime the other guys walks out and then comes back, you have the upper hand.

[0] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/kudlow-confirms-trade-talks-...

For the record, negotiations look messy while they're ongoing. I think you'll find that the negotiations end up much better than most people think.

One of the key attributes of a good negotiator is to have a BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). Without one, you're going to fail. The last few administrations have not had that when negotiating with China, and they failed (heck, they didn't really get started before they backed off).

Trump's style is certainly unorthodox, but he has several folks who actually know how to negotiate (Robert Lighthizer & Wilbur Ross among others). I wouldn't count them out just yet.

[pasabagi]

I think the US has the upper hand to a ridiculous degree with any other negotiating partner. It simply has a lot more chips than anybody else.

I don't really buy the idea that the US was getting 'bad deals', as Trump puts it. To be honest, I think the only way the US could get bad deals is if it undercuts its own state department, and does everything it can to project an image of instability, insanity, and dementia.

The thing is, in the normal run of things, there are no incentives for anybody who isn't totally desperate to try and screw the US over. Unless the state department is utterly braindead, they just have way more resources to screw you back. Except, in the situation where you think that jeopardizing relations with the US is acceptable, because it's a fading power, or because it forgets its friends and enemies with the election cycle. Which are all things Trump is really good at convincing people of.

[mark212]

As this article emphasizes, China steals an enormous amount of intellectual property from other countries, the vast majority of which is created and owned by US companies. That’s a “bad deal” by any measure.

I agree that the US has ample resources to “screw you back” but as with many things, it isn’t a question of capability it’s a question of political will. And without a doubt Trump has the will to flex on China, consequences be damned (or so it seems).