FIVE REASONS CHINA ISN’T BACKING DOWN

FIVE REASONS CHINA ISN’T BACKING DOWN

This week, the US-China trade war escalated dramatically. The Trump administration announced 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese exports, which will jump to 25 percent in January unless China offers concessions. China countered with tariffs ranging from 5-10 percent on $60 billion in US products that may likewise rise to 25 percent. President Trump then shot back with a threat of tariffs on yet another $267 billion in Chinese exports.


This increasingly dangerous fight is headed into 2019. Further escalation is very likely, in part because China isn’t ready to quit.

Here are five reasons why:

  1. China’s leaders long suspected that Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” a plan to shift US attention and resources into China’s neighborhood, was intended mainly to contain the expansion of China’s influence. Trump’s trade war, and statements from US officials that China’s economy is hurting as a consequence, confirms this suspicion. If the US means to stunt China’s natural growth, they reason, then the trade war isn’t really about fairness. It’s about undermining China’s ability to develop a competitive, high-tech economy and the extension of its global influence. Given that, it’s imperative, they believe, not to back down.

 

  1. Trump’s actions this week make clear that trade talks are pointless, at least until after US midterm elections on November 6. At that point, it’s unlikely so many complex issues could be resolved in the remaining eight weeks of 2018, even if the US and China wanted to cooperate. So unless they find new reasons to become more conciliatory, both sides’ tariffs will rise from 10 to 25 percent on January 1. That escalation will add accelerant to the fire, and as 2019 opens, there will be no obvious opportunity for China to propose a compromise. Better to wait until tariffs begin to hit the US economy, the Chinese may reason, and Trump is better disposed to cut a deal.

 

  1. Over the past year, Xi Jinping has consolidated more power within China than any leader in decades, in part on promises to deliver on what he calls the “China Dream.” With power comes credit and blame. This battle with Trump is now Xi’s fight. His credibility, with the Chinese leadership and the public, is on the line. Combine this with the reality that Trump launched this war, and Xi can’t afford to back down without concessions from Trump.

 

  1. China’s economy is far from crisis. According to Capital Economics, a research firm, “The damage from the latest escalation of the trade conflict on China’s economy will be small—much less than 0.5 percent of GDP, even if policy is not loosened further.” If Beijing wants to pump money into the economy to boost growth, it can. It can also allow the value of its currency to drift lower to boost exports. Chinese officials say that’s not in their plans, but it’s a tool they can use if they need to. China can also redirect many exports away from the US toward other customers.

 

  1. Chinese officials believe that, even if China has greater long-term economic vulnerability than the US, Trump has greater near-term political vulnerability than Xi. China’s president has no congressional majorities at stake this fall and no re-election campaign to prepare. There’s no Robert Mueller to keep him awake and no powerful business lobby ready to go public with its concerns. Unlike Trump, he pays no direct political cost when farmers and industries must be bailed out. In sum, Xi Jinping has reason to believe that China’s authoritarian political system and state-dominated capitalism are better at absorbing economic shocks than a democracy is.

 

The bottom line: US-China trade conflict can inflict real long-term pain on the Chinese economy—as well as the US and other countries. But because both Trump and Xi believe near-term fallout can be managed, this trade war will probably last longer and inflict more damage that anyone in either government really wants.

Advancing global money movement for everyone, everywhere

https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/trackimp/N6024.4218512GZEROMEDIA/B26379324.311531246;dc_trk_aid=504469522;dc_trk_cid=156468981;ord=[timestamp];dc_lat=;dc_rdid=;tag_for_child_directed_treatment=;tfua=;gdpr=${GDPR};gdpr_consent=${GDPR_CONSENT_755};ltd=?

Even with innovations in fintech and digital payments, roadblocks related to basic infrastructure like electricity and internet connectivity still prevent many migrant workers from being able to transfer money to their families back home with a truly digital end-to-end flow. While more workers can send money digitally today, the majority of people still receive funds in cash. Read more about why public-private partnerships are key to advancing the future of global money movement and why it matters from experts at the Visa Economic Empowerment Institute.

The European Union is, for better or worse, the most ambitious experiment in human history in institutionalized multinational cooperation. Its success depends on the willingness of its members to abide by its rules.

In recent years, the populist-nationalist governments of former Communist bloc members Hungary and Poland have flouted some of those rules in order to boost their own popularity with citizens suspicious of the EU's liberal values on issues like immigration and minority rights. In response, the EU has scolded these "illiberal" governments and threatened forceful action – so far without much effect.

The fight between EU institutions and Poland and Hungary has escalated.

More Show less

Ian Bremmer is joined on GZERO World by artificial intelligence scientists Kai-fu Lee, who recently wrote about how AI will change the world over the next two decades, precisely to talk about AI's future. After this week's Facebook debacle, how can we align interest to regulate AI-driven algorithms? Will AI steal all our jobs? And what should we do to learn from AI to improve our lives before it gets smarter than us?

Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Is a robot coming for your job? Kai-fu Lee explains AI

US elections officials have always persuaded losing candidates that they've, ahem, lost. Now it's worse because there's a new paradigm, according to former DHS and Election Assistance Commission official Matt Masterson, policy fellow with the Stanford Internet Observatory. Candidates that won't accept defeat regardless of the margin or evidence of fraud, he says, are undermining trust in the system — and election officials are ill-equipped to deal with this problem.

Matt Masterson made these remarks during a live Global Stage event, Infodemic: defending democracy from disinformation. Watch the full event here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage/virtual-events/disinformation-is-a-big-problem-what-can-we-do-about-it

Who's most responsible for spreading misinformation online? For Ginny Badanes, senior director for Democracy Forward at Microsoft, the problem starts with those who create it, yet ultimately governments, companies and individuals all share the burden. And she's more interested in what we can do to respond.

Ginny Badanes spoke at a live Global Stage event, Infodemic: defending democracy from disinformation. Watch the full event here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage/virtual-events/disinformation-is-a-big-problem-what-can-we-do-about-it

Some of the worst sectarian clashes since Lebanon's 15-year civil war (1975-1990) broke out in Beirut this week between supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, both Shiite political parties, and Christian, far-right Lebanese Forces. Shiite protesters were rallying against the state probe into the Beirut port blast, which occurred last year. They say authorities were singling out Shiite politicians for questioning and blame. In this video, watch Ian Bremmer's conversation with Lebanese journalist and author Kim Ghattas on GZW talking about the future of Lebanese politics and sectarianism in the county after the after the blast. It was originally published on August 19, 2020.

In Lebanon, "a majority (are) united in wanting a different future, a future that is non-sectarian, that is non-corrupt, that provides prosperity, justice, dignity for people," journalist Kim Ghattas told Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.

In this interview, Ghattas discusses the opportunity that could arise from the tragedy of the Beirut explosion which killed 200 and injured thousands more. The Lebanese are "fed up" with the militant group Hezbollah, she tells Bremmer, and want to strive for a government that better resembles the diversity and cosmopolitan nature of its citizens.

Watch the GZERO World episode: Lebanon Post-Blast: Rage in the Streets of Beirut.

Some of the worst sectarian clashes since Lebanon's 15-year civil war (1975-1990) broke out in Beirut this week between supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, both Shiite political parties, and Christian, far-right Lebanese Forces. Shiite protesters were rallying against the state probe into the Beirut port blast, which occurred last year. They say authorities were singling out Shiite politicians for questioning and blame. Below is our original piece on the Beirut port explosions published on August 5, 2020.


The twin explosions at Beirut's port on Tuesday were so powerful that the aftershocks reverberated as far as the Eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus, 150 miles away. The specter of fire and smoke was such that many suggested on social media that Beirut had experienced a nuclear blast.

In the days ahead, more details will come to light about why a deadly cache of materials was haphazardly stashed at a port warehouse, and why Lebanon's government failed to secure the site. So, what comes next for crisis-ridden Lebanon?

More Show less

Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares insights on US politics:

What does it actually mean to cut $1 trillion from the Democrats' $3.5 trillion social spending bill?

President Biden has proposed one of the most ambitious expansions of federal spending in recent memory. If he gets everything he wants, it would probably be the largest expansion of government since the Great Society, but he's not going to get everything he wants. Democrats have basically said they cannot do all $3.5 trillion in spending. They're probably going to end up around $2 trillion. So what gets cut? Well, we don't know yet. There's kind of two ways to go about this. They could either cut the number of programs that have been proposed, doing fewer things with more money on a permanent basis, or they could try to do more things, each program getting less money and potentially doing them on a temporary basis. So, a future Congress would have to extend it. What does this mean for you? Well, a lot of the money in here is designed to go directly to families, either in the form of cash payments, through the tax code, the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, or subsidies for things like child care, early childhood education, and community college. And if you cut these things back, it means less money is going to go out the door to the American people. It also means less tax increases to finance it. So the implications of what's being proposed could actually end up being a big deal for a lot of Americans who would qualify for benefits under these new programs.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal