[jhpriestley]

Trump's whole schtick is to come in with an incredibly aggressive posture (cancel NAFTA!), extract some concessions, then take a victory lap. When the concessions don't come he gives up quickly (see the government shutdown). He has no real plan or capacity for a protracted and painful trade war. He hasn't made the case to his people or his allies for what the goal even is, and whatever support he has will evaporate when the pain becomes serious, assuming he doesn't just fold first.

[duxup]

He already could have taken a victory lap and done effectively nothing with the first offer from China. He chose to double down.

I'd say there is no plan and it is just the randomness of a capricious old man.

That's a glib take I admit, but I really think that all indications are we're dealing with a very glib president.

[imchillyb]

I don't believe that you are considering that President Trump is a master negotiator. It's what he's known for in the business world.

His hard-nosed deals bring profits for his investors, and massive revenue streams.

Call him whatever you will, and demean him to the world, it still won't change facts; he's an extraordinarily profitable businessman, with extreme revenue returns.

::shrug:: The proof is in the pudding so to speak. Our President's actions will prove themselves, one way or another.

[duxup]

I don't see much to indicate what you're saying is accurate.

His own waffling and capriciousness have sunk even his own initiates in congress with his own party members. Leaks from the white house, members of his own party, even his own people who have publicly stated he is very impulsive (some are less generous of that).

[seren]

> he's an extraordinarily profitable businessman, with extreme revenue returns.

This is a genuine question : how do you know the profitability of Donald Trump's investments or companies ?

From my understanding, he has always worked for his private company/holding/organization, and thus there is no yearly or quarterly public reports. Did I miss something ? Maybe there is some joint venture with transparent reports ?

[inflatableDodo]

There is either no plan, or there is a plan to utterly trash the US and it is working.

[duxup]

I'm not sure it is possible to distinguish one or another considering the way things have played out / information available.

But as for any intent to "trash the US", at least as far as a trade fight goes I'm not convinced that any other trade fight plays out any differently. Personally I would do things differently, but the results may be the same.

[inflatableDodo]

Not having the trade fight plays out differently.

edit - I thought I'd respond to this bit as well -

>I'm not sure it is possible to distinguish one or another

When the President of the US is comparing China with the head of the Federal Reserve, in order to claim that the Federal Reserve is a domestic enemy, while systematically poisoning relations with any country that hosts a US military base, Denmark/Greenland being just the latest example, then I think it is possible to distinguish the two. Someone being random tends not to travel in a specific direction unless it is the path of least resistance.

[WillPostForFood]

First China tariffs were in January 2018, when do you start to consider the trade war protracted? I’d say it is already painful and protracted.

[jhpriestley]

Painful would be the 35 percent GDP contraction that Cuba endured, without regime change, after the USSR fell, under continuing US sanctions. Or the hyperinflation and food rationing that Venezuela has endured, without regime change, under US sanctions. Do you think Trump could lead the USA through that kind of pain?

[simonh]

That’s seems to be happening over NAFTA, you’ll likely just end up with a somewhat update NAFTA 2, which I’m sure will be the best trade deal in the history of trade deals, unlike the largely identical previous NAFTA.

I think the China tariffs are different. Both sides have doubled down, then doubled down again. It’s even possible both Trump and China see this as an opportunity to reduce their dependency on each other.

China also may calculate thus could take some excess heat out of their economy. If there is a down turn, which many observers have been predicting anyway, they can blame Trump and make enduring austerity a patriotic issue.

A similar dynamic is playing out with Brexit. A no deal exit may be hugely damaging to both sides. But they each calculate they can blame it on the other side, and even paint anyone complaining about the effects as unpatriotic. That won’t necessarily persuade the complainers, but as long as it plays well to the politicians own support base that may not matter enough electorally.

[disease]

You are right on everything except his support. His followers will support him unconditionally.

[jaimex2]

China is more or less out of options already though. Their economy is trashed to the point they are already devaluing their currency. HK situation certainly isn't helping either.

In the meantime every tariff they add just serves Trump's goal of keeping jobs in America ( or at least that is how he will pitch it). Were already seeing plenty of companies pack up shop in China.

[tonyedgecombe]

In general yes but the consensus seems to be that China has been a problem and although Trump hasn't necessarily gone about it in the right way something needed to be done. My guess is the people around him are quite happy for this to continue.

[rrggrr]

Not a trade war. The Trump administration goal is nothing short of regime change in China; and it's a goal the next President (Trump, Warren, etc.) will likely continue. By 'regime' I mean an end to Chinese 'destiny' based policy, even if it requires a change in CCP leadership. That's not to say the CCP will be displaced, rather the balance of power internally may change.

HN readers are hip to the reasons why this needs to happen. Internally, China is destroying its people's savings, purchasing power, environment and health to achieve China's 'great destiny'. Externally, China has created all manner of artificial economic inefficiencies. This includes debt enslavement of African and central Asian nations, dumping of goods, and theft of IP at a monolithic scale.

It's true that the full case has yet to be made to the American people. It's also true the US cannot do this alone and the EU (China's largest trading partner) may have to join the fight. And, it is the case that a 'trade deal' may be reached between Trump and China that falls short. None of this is going to alter the larger national (global) security objective of 'helping' China compete for resources in a less zero sum manner.

[resters]

If someone had made this comment 10-15 years ago and used it to caution the US about why it was foolish to invest $3.6 Trillion into destroying middle eastern infrastructure, it would have made coherent sense to consider.

But it's simply too late. The policies you describe are benefitting most Chinese people and are broadly supported domestically in China. Your characterization of China's dealings in Africa borders on absurd, and the IP theft claim (even if true) would not justify any of what you suggest is necessary.

> It's true that the full case has yet to be made to the American people.

Nor will it be. There is no definition of US national interest that is utilized in policy discussions. Leaders stick to painting foreign leaders as despots and the American people happily pay for all the warmaking.

What is different about China is that most Americans broadly support what China is doing and respect President Xi's leadership.

The US spent $3.6T on a useless war that had supremely negative ROI and now China is right behind us ready to attain first world status and beat us at 5G, etc. China didn't cheat us, our leaders did by wasting $3.6T in the middle east. The US middle eastern wars are the biggest financial fraud in the history of the world.

By simply doing infrastructure improvement and focusing on domestic issues, China has nearly overtaken the US, and the US response is supremely outdated and fails to recognize that it was US mismanagement that closed the gap, not Chinese cheating.

[theseadroid]

>Internally, China is destroying its people's savings, purchasing power, environment and health to achieve China's 'great destiny'.

More reference is needed. As a Mandarin Chinese my impression so far is otherwise.

[rrggrr]

RMB declining in open market against USD.

China issues much debt in USD and pays interest in USD. What should be 1 unit of debt is 6 or 7 units of debt because of currency differential & risk premium.

China purchases many imports in USD.

To keep RMB well under USD, China must sell USD and buy RMB in open market. This has happened for many years.

In sum, as long as China subsidizes domestic market the effect of all of this is not felt to most Chinese. However, this becomes very, very, very, very costly. Look at food prices in China as one example.

When there is a rebalance / reconciliation the RMB savings will be hurt.

China hopes to prevent this by gold purchase and Belt & Road growth.

Very difficult situation. Bad management of economy.

[theseadroid]

I'm more interested in what average Chinese experiences than the macro currency/debt figures. Yes food price has been going up. But salary has been going up in the past decades or so as well. I feel purchasing power has been flatlining now than before. Environment wise it's getting better actually. I agree with the growth of salary and food price, people's savings are destroyed. But other than that I wont use the word destroyed for other aspects. I personally think if it's not because of the economic achievement of the Chinese government, you wont see as much nationalism from there today.