HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Saturday, May 26, 2018

 
Trade war clusterfuck

by digby





I guess the lesson here is that you start a trade war with the president you have not the president you wish you had:


By the time American negotiators wrapped up high-level talks with a visiting Chinese delegation last week, President Trump’s ambitions for a multibillion-dollar trade agreement had, for the time being, shriveled into a blandly worded communiqué without any dollar figures. It was not clear that the talks set a path to success.

Ceaseless infighting and jockeying for influence on the White House’s trade team helped deprive Mr. Trump of a quick victory on his most cherished policy agenda, several people involved in the talks said. The deep internal divisions carried over into how officials characterized the agreement and muddied the outlook for the next phase of the negotiations between Washington and Beijing.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sunday that the United States would hold off on imposing tariffs on China, putting the trade war “on hold,” but hours later, the United States trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, warned the Chinese that the Trump administration might yet impose tariffs.

On Friday, Mr. Trump’s chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, told reporters that China had offered to reduce its trade surplus with the United States by $200 billion. Two days later, he said that the number was merely a “rough ballpark estimate,” and that the two countries never expected to reach an agreement and merely planned to issue a statement laying out next steps.

It was a muddled end to a chaotic process — one that revealed an American team riven by conflicts over tactics and policy, working for a president eager for a victory but torn by his desire to have a smooth summit meeting next month with North Korea, over which China wields enormous influence.

Now the future of the negotiations falls to Wilbur Ross, the 80-year-old commerce secretary, who will travel to China in the coming days to try to nail down the commitments that proved so elusive in last week’s negotiations.

Mr. Ross brings uncertain credentials to this task: Last summer, he attempted to strike a deal with China to reduce its steel production capacity. When Mr. Trump heard of the plan, he berated Mr. Ross and demanded that his advisers bring him a package of draconian sanctions.

On Monday, Mr. Trump put the best face on the talks, highlighting a Chinese pledge to buy more American agricultural exports. “Under our potential deal with China,” he said on Twitter, “they will purchase from our Great American Farmers practically as much as our Farmers can produce.”

It was far from the take-no-prisoners tone he struck before the Chinese arrived, when the president talked about a deal that would overhaul almost every element of the commercial relationship between the United States and its greatest economic competitor.

“The U.S. has very little to give,” he tweeted last week, “because it has given so much over the years. China has much to give!”

In fact, the Chinese were well aware of the divisions in the administration’s trade team — and set out to exploit them, according to people briefed on the deliberations. They recognized that Mr. Trump’s advisers were split between implacable critics of China, like Mr. Lighthizer and Peter Navarro, the director of the White House national trade council; and free-traders who were more sympathetic, like Mr. Kudlow, Mr. Ross and Mr. Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive.

The divisions within the American team revolve around whether the United States should try to secure a short-term deal with China that would benefit some industries and avert a potential trade war, a path that Mr. Mnuchin prefers, or whether they should pressure China to make more fundamental changes to its economy, a path that Mr. Navarro and Mr. Lighthizer say is preferable.

Mr. Mnuchin led the Treasury Department in declining to label China a currency manipulator, defying one of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises. He joined Gary D. Cohn, Mr. Trump’s former chief economic adviser, in quietly arguing against trade measures — like withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement — that could provoke retaliation and roil the American economy.

For months, the Chinese cultivated Mr. Mnuchin as part of a concerted effort to establish him as the primary American interlocutor. And to the dismay of some of his colleagues, he embraced that role — most visibly when Mr. Trump sent his own trade delegation to Beijing early this month.

During that trip, Mr. Mnuchin agreed to a private meeting with China’s top economic official, Liu He, without Mr. Navarro or any other members of the American delegation. He and Mr. Navarro stepped outside to engage in a profanity-laced shouting match, an unmistakable demonstration to the Chinese of their deep differences of opinions. Mr. Mnuchin sought to play down tensions between the American officials, saying on CNBC that Mr. Navarro was “an important part of the team.”

Last week, the Chinese came to the United States prepared to deal, both by making numerical commitments to buy American goods and by promising structural changes to their economy. Over a period of years, that combination could equal $200 billion in additional trade — a figure echoing Mr. Trump’s target of reducing the trade deficit by $200 billion.

But the Chinese were not willing to make an outright commitment to reduce the trade deficit by a specific dollar figure, believing that trade balances are the result of broader economic factors, such as currency valuations and economic growth, and such a commitment could set off more conflict with the United States down the road.

It is not clear that the Chinese ever saw the $200 billion figure as realistic or even relevant, people briefed on their plans said. But they realized its symbolic importance for Mr. Trump, and they were making an effort to give him some kind of victory.

In return for concessions, the Chinese were expecting the administration to offer relief to the Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE, which had been crippled by national security sanctions that prevented it from buying any American technology.

The Sunday before the Chinese arrived, Mr. Trump said on Twitter that he might rethink the company’s punishment in return for trade concessions — and as a personal favor to Mr. Xi. But by the time Mr. Liu touched down last week in Washington, the president’s statements had provoked a fierce backlash in Congress, and the politics around ZTE had shifted.

The Chinese also found new resistance to their requests to relax the export controls that prevent them from buying militarily sensitive products. Mr. Mnuchin’s openness to this request set off fierce opposition within the administration, especially among Pentagon officials, who feared the sales could compromise American national security.

On Tuesday, Mr. Mnuchin said at a Senate hearing that the United States would reject any trade deals that included weakening export restrictions on sensitive military technology.

“Export control items are absolutely not on the table for discussions, we would in no way look to loosen that,” Mr. Mnuchin said, explaining that Mr. Trump has asked him to aggressively review deals involving such industries. “I can assure you this president is very focused on, as I’ve said, protecting American technology.”

As the talks with China began, Trump officials put out word — first in private, and then publicly — that the Chinese were prepared to meet the $200 billion target. Their motives differed: Some may have blared the figure in an effort to lock the Chinese into their promises. Others may have leaked it as a warning that the administration was focused on reducing the trade deficit at the expense of other priorities, like overhauling the Chinese economy and ending its pattern of forcing American companies that do business in China to hand over intellectual property.

Whatever the motivation, the leaks ignited a backlash from the Chinese. On Thursday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry denied that it had offered to reduce its trade surplus by $200 billion. On Friday, the state-run People’s Daily labeled the reports “a misunderstanding.”

Also on Friday, Mr. Kudlow told reporters that “the number’s a good number.” But on Sunday, he said, “Maybe I got ahead of the curve.”

Mr. Trump, Mr. Kudlow said, liked the number, “but it’s too soon to lock that in.”

After expecting to wrap up talks on Friday, the two sides argued into the night about the wording of their joint statement, and the talks extended into the next day.

The final product was vaguely worded and lacked numerical commitments or any firm details.

In multiple TV appearances after the announcement, Mr. Mnuchin, Mr. Kudlow and Mr. Ross presented the deal positively in an effort, some trade analysts say, to paper over divisions with the Chinese until after the summit meeting next month with the North Koreans.

Not everyone was so pleased. On Sunday, Mr. Lighthizer released a statement on the talks that many in Washington saw as a not-so-veiled critique of Mr. Mnuchin’s choice to prioritize the trade deficit.

“Real work still needs to be done to achieve changes in a Chinese system that facilitates forced technology transfers in order to do business in China and the theft of our companies’ intellectual property and business know how,” it said.

“Getting China to open its market to more U.S. exports is significant,” Mr. Lighthizer continued, “but the far more important issues revolve around forced technology transfers, cybertheft and the protection of our innovation.”

There's more to the story
. Nobody knows what's really happening. But it's clear that there's no real plan, not even a coherent philosophy. The master negotiator is just a playground bully with a glass jaw.