to expand our employment base and keep safe IP created domestically. Yes, it's more complicated than that, but that is at the heart of the current situation.
Frankly, I'm comfortable with the scenario. For decades we've outsourced a portion of our GDP to China; I have no issue bringing back to our shores a few basis points of growth if it leads to a broader and more diverse employment base.
(no message)
I do not believe the trade war will necessarily expand our employment base. I don't see how getting IP reform will significantly affect middle America. It will still make sense for American entrepreneurs to use Chinese labor. They'll just make more doing so. I also don't think there is any convincing line of reasoning that this trade war was the only way to achieve IP reforms.
However, I don't see significant harm in trying. Our country does not need additional stock gains at the moment, and inflation has not been a problem. Good for Trump for possibly sacrificing some "headline" numbers for long term economic improvement.
I need to understand your 'no good no harm" position. Please explain more.
Are you saying that leveling the Intellectual Property playing field will double our export to China, or is it something else that Trump is trying to do?
As for your question to me - I guess one reasonably good outcome of this TW would be an improvement of the IP situation with China. That should increase profits in the United States, which is a good thing. I just don't see how protection of IP rights in China leads to more manufacturing jobs in the US. As I understand it, the main loss of IP rights comes because we want to use Chinese manufacturers, and are forced to give them our technology to do so. I don't see how retaining IP rights would encourage someone to manufacture here instead of China. Indeed, it might be the opposite. With good IP protection in China, there is even more reason to manufacture there.
balance of trade, i.e. increasing us export to China will expend our employment, right? As if the IP right protection, I think it's partly used to contain China for strategic reason and partly used for economic reason due to loss of technology. The latter may not be related to Midwest employment, but it is still the loss of U.S. economy. China is the 2nd best copycat in the world, next to Japan. Actually all eastern Asian countries excel at coping and re-using. This is the hardest part in this trade war negotiation. China can make concessions on materials, increasing import from U.S. significantly, but It's hard for them to make concession on this intangible secret weapon.
This blueprint will make China lead/dominate in many technology-based high end products in the world. It doesn't change the current employment. It's about future. It's about future technology jobs.
Another reason is economic reason: money loss, due to technology transfer. This may not be directly linked to job loss. The issue is China doesn't have many laws on this. It depends on individual projects between one china company and one American company. The trick is here. In practices, all China companies use same approach regarding to technology transfer when they deal with American companies. (The individual American companies are short-sighted, they are only responsible for shareholders). At the end, they all individually are defeated in term of tech transfer. So, now Trump admin are asking China to make laws. Every party follow the laws in their individual negotiations.
And by "a lot to unpack", I don't mean that I think your post is bad. I just have a lot of comments and questions about it.
Your first premise is pretty harmless. if we export more to China, we will expand our employment (all else being equal). However, why do we need to expand our employment? Our unemployment is historically low. 3.7% unemployment is great. No need for a trade war to improve that number.
The bigger question I have, though, is connecting the dots between what the administration is trying to get done with IP, and how that would result in exporting more to China.
1. What is the goal of the war in terms of specific results (what IP laws would change? What non-IP oriented changes have been demanded?)
2. How do those changes create jobs. I think you hint at this a bit - Take a Huawei phone. They sell a ton of them. Let's assume that they contain a lot of technology obtained through China's unfair tech transfer laws. I think you are saying that if China stops that kind of technology confiscation, the Huawei phone will be inferior (because it doesn't have our tech), and we'll sell more Apple phones. Is that right? It seems logical to me. The problem is that Apple phones are made in China, for the most part. Indeed, and Ned can correct this, we only have confiscation of our technology because our companies want to build things in China. So, by winning the war, we make more money, but do not necessarily create that many jobs.
The trade war has moved jobs back to the US. It started having that effect the moment it was announced. I've seen it.
Didn't we create new jobs at a relatively high rate since 2010 before the Trade War?
I guess I don't think we "know" that particular causal relationship.
Bush and Obama enabled China’s rise they committed treason against America.
In our worst recession since the Great Depression, what, exactly, was Obama supposed to do?
But, maybe you don't "fight" a "war" until the situation is dire.
Could our new trading pals in the rest of SE Asia have improved our leverage with China? Would US companies have shifted production away from China? I know that they are doing that already to some degree (Vietnam, etc.), but could that have forced China's hand to be more cooperative?
(no message)
It really wasn't the time to start a trade war.
That made me laugh. China can barely feed their population and imports huge amounts of food and grains. If you said TV’s and cheap socks that would make sense. But I’ll give you this. Bush might go down as the worse President in history. Unnecessary wars and a financial meltdown. So I’ll blame Bush more. It was well know that he had an Asian fetish when his Dad was ambassador to China. He was chasing skirts all over Beijing.